TyroCity: Political Theory and Thoughts Notes

Formation of Political party

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

Following are the conditions to form the political party:

There must be certain measures of agreement on fundamental principles-cooperation, devotion, surrender of self-interest, etc.
Organization should be permanently cohesive and well-knit body that enables the members to acquire strength so as to act in a concert.
Parties should be organized with a clear and specific programs and policies before the electorate to win their support. Any deviation could destroy party’s stand and entity as well as confidence of the people towards it.
That a party should seek to carry out its policy by constitutional means.
All political parties must endeavor to promote national interest being unbiased from sectarian, communal interest and other any interest.

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.

Elements of the State and the Role of the King

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

Arthasastra conceptualizes the state to have seven elements (saptanga)

Swami (Monarch)
Amatya (Officials)
Janapada (Population and Territory)
Durga (Fort)
Kosa (Treasury)
Bala (Military)26
Surhit (Ally)

King derived his power from three sources – Prabhushakti (the power of the army and the treasury), Mantashakti (advice of wise men, specifically the Council of Ministers) and Utsahshakti (charisma). Mantashakti was rated as the most potent source followed by the prabhushakti and utsahshakti. Clearly Kautilya believed in the importance of institutions (Council of Ministers) and not of an individual (King) in influencing the destiny of the state. 27 Next to the King came the Mantri Parishad (Council of Minister). King was enjoined to discuss each and every matter with the Parishad as it represented the distilled wisdom of the society. Parishad had two levels – the Inner cabinet and the Outer cabinet. The Inner cabinet had four members – The Chief Minister, The Chief Priest, the Military Commander and the Crown Prince. The Crown Prince was included to ensure smooth succession and to maintain continuity in case of emergencies. The membership of the Outer cabinet was not fixed in number. Invariably the heads of the prominent guilds were co-opted in this body. This gave a representative character of the Parishad. Kautilya glorified the State and viewed the office Kingship to be the embodiment of all legal and moral authority associated with the institution of the state . The King was an intrinsic part of the social order and by the nature of his office, a defender of that order. However King was to regard himself as an agent of the people and had to abide by his dharma as laid out in the Sastras. The institution of the Kingship was sacred but not the person who happens to hold it .

Duties of the Kings

Kautilya did not subscribe to the theory of ‘Divine Origin of the Monarch’. King was not the vicar of the god.2 9 Monarchy, in his view, was a human institution and therefore manned by a human being. However the king was expected to be more than a mere human being since he was the protector of the dharma of the whole society. He had to observe an exemplary conduct himself. He had no private life and all his actions were subject to public scrutiny. The King had to follow a his rayja dharma. This included a thorough knowledge of the four branches of knowledge . The King was expected to display Atma vrata (self-control) and for this he had to abandon the ‘six enemies – kama (lust), krodha (anger), lobha (greed), mana. (vanity), mada (haughtiness), and harsha (overjoy) . Clearly Kautilya expected very high standards from the rulers. This is in contrast to the realistic model of the citizen on which he based so many of his laws. The King had a fairly regimented daily routine. His day and night was divided into eight nalikas (one and half hours) each. The King was assigned specific tasks for the specific nalika.

Aristotle General Background

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

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) was born at Stagira, a Greek city state in 384 B.C. in a family of Royal Physician.
He was a man of comfortable means and believed in the necessity of private property and family.
Aristotle entered Plato’s Academia at the age of 17 and studied for 20 years. His philosophy was shaped during that 20 years time.
Aristotle established a school named Lyceum in 335 B.C. It became the intellectual center of Hellas, the Greek people.
He wrote a book named ‘The Politics’.
He is bridge between orient and occident.
He explored 150 countries and studied the Constitution of 150 countries.
He was realist in thought and action in contrast to his teacher Plato who was idealist in thought and action.
His method of study was inductive method. As per the inductive method, specific observation leads to general conclusion.

State and Statecraft in Kautilya’s Arthasastra

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

Republican form of governments were well established in ancient India. At the time of the invasion of Alexander of Macedonia (4th century B.C.), there existed a large number of independent Ganas (republics) like Agrasrenies in the Indus valley, Kamboj in the west, Panchals in the north etc . Kautilya, the author of Arthasastra, was a product of this era. He played the main role in defeating the forces of Alexander. Kautilya believed that the Alexander’s successful conquest of (a part of) India was due to the absence of a strong centralized Indian empire. He was determined not to let history repeat itself. Hence the Mauryan empire, which he was instrumental in founding, was (relatively) centralized and very different from the then prevailing republican systems. His treatise – Arthasastra, therefore, deals only with the governance in a monarchical state.

Many Occidental scholars have argued that the Hindu philosophy is anti-thetical to the concept of a state. Max Muller has observed that ” the Hindus were a nation of philosophers. Their struggles were the struggles of thought, their past, the problem of creation, their future, the problem of existence It might therefore be justly said that India has no place in the political history of the world “. Prof. Bloomfield has also argued in the same vein : ” from the beginning of India’s history, religious institutions controlled the character and development of its people to an extent unknown elsewhere … there is no provision in such a scheme for the interests of the state and the development of the race “.

Max Weber saw an absence of ‘rational practical ethic’ in Hinduism. He believed that the rational natural science could not develop in India since the Hindu civilization devalued the empirical world. Vedic philosophy gives emphasis to both the material and the spiritual aspects of the human being. The path of pravriti (enjoyment) and that of nivriti (renunciation) are seen to complement each other (Ghoshal, 1923:7). ‘Rational sciences’ such as Mathematics were well developed in ancient India – the concept of ‘shunya’ (zero) and the decimal system were invented by the ‘buddhijivi (those who make a living from the use of brain power – intellectuals) of the Vedic civilization.

The rationality ethic is the basis of many ancient dharmic texts. Treatise like the Arthasastra advocate the application of reason to statecraft to such an extent that many Occidental scholars have called Kautilya as the “Machiavelli of India”.

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.

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.

Comments on Marx

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

Sorel, Sidney and Macaver were the commentators on Marx.
Economy is not only the main cause of class struggle, there are other sources of conflicts in society besides economic problems.
Marx’s conception is the ‘over-concentration’ upon economic conflict. Economic mode of production is the ultimate cause of class struggle is difficult to accept.
Human history is not only the history of class struggle, it is difficult to determine the stages of history which corresponds to thesis, antithesis and synthesis. There are other wars in history, such as wars between nations or intra-nations for powers for ethnicity, territory for religions like crusades, etc.
The doctrine of class struggle leads to survival of only one class, i.e., proletariat class in this approach, there is no compromise in tone and democratic version.
Marxian concept of classes is static and rigid.
Dialecticism is the process of development in society, according to Karl Marx, but it would be stopped after the creation of classless and stateless society in his version, which seems most unsuitable for the process of development.
It is dictatorship of revolutionary people not of the whole people, his approach of equality never belongs.
Marx’s prophet of creation of classless and stateless society seems utopia.
Marx theory to some extent is scientific but he has been distorted and twisted time to time.
In his late age, Marx said that ‘I know the only thing that at least I am not Marxist’.

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.

Conclusion

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

Arthasastra is a very comprehensive treatise on the governance in a monarchical Vedic state. Kautilya had a rational approach to governance and statecraft. He conceptualized the state and the office of the kingship to be human artifacts. Also his model of the human being was very realistic. However he expected super human qualities from a ‘human’ King. Chandragupta, Bindusar and Ashoka matched this ideal but their successors could not. Clearly the system of checks and balances amongst the king, the associations and the citizens worked well as long as the King wanted it to work. The ideal society of the Arthasastra did last for a couple of centuries. However the successful Muslims invasion in the 8th century indicated a serious (military) deficiency in the ‘Hindu’ society. The vision of Kautilya was a creation of a strong and prosperous Vedic order so the foreigner invasions (like that of Alexander) could be repulsed. The success of the Muslim invasion suggested that either the governance by the ‘Hindu’ Kings was not according to the tenets of the Arthasastra or the Arthasastra philosophy itself had become antiquated. Probably both were true. Kings had certainly deviated from the Vedic ideal of a ‘dharmic king’ – the ‘servant’ of the people and the protector of the dharmic order. Varna system had degenerated into a caste system. The rational and dharmic order of the Arthasastra had been reduced to only a shadow of its past glory. Muslim invasion probably found an easy target in a moribund order.

Criticism of Machiavelli

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

Might makes right, necessity knows no law, the end justifies the means is not always successful and true principle.
Men are not always ad and born bad.
If man is not wholly good, he is not wholly bad either.
The prince cannot be hypocrite at the long time. Once it could be disclosed and revolution could easily be invited.
Machiavelli himself was a power-monger and he made his prince the same which could spoil the state, people and all.
Only force is not the weapon to rule the people so his idea was psychologically weak.
There should be to some extent the moral values in politics. They cannot be separated totally.
His claim of his method based on history and reason does not seem as used by him. It seems controversial.
He is the forerunner of the theory of nation state.
Plato: Emphasis on City State
Cicero: Emphasis on Universal State
Machiavelli: Emphasis on Nation State

Introduction to Jean Jacques Rousseau

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

Jean Jacques Rousseau

Born at Geneva and died in France, boyhood as vagabond, motherless, and neglected child cared by Uncle.
Spent large part of life in France.
His main writings are ‘Social Contract’ and ‘Discourses’ which influenced French Revolution(1789).
He mentioned popular sovereignty lying on ‘General will’ which came into existence through social contract. He gave his version of the state of nature as causes to the origin of the state where government of general will with popular sovereignty was accepted through social contract.