TyroCity: Political Theory and Thoughts Notes

Other Methods of Elections

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

There are other methods of election which provide opportunity for minority representation. Such as Proportional Representation.

Proportional Representation

In a really equal democracy, says J.S. Mill, “Every and any section would be represented not disproportionately but proportionately.”

There are two varieties of proportional representations. They are:

The Hare Scheme of Single Transferable Vote
The List System

The Hare Scheme of Single Transferable Vote

This system is associated with the name of Thomas Hare who formulated the system in 1857 and then elaborated it in his book named The Machinery of Representation.
In the Hare’s system, the surplus of votes of the candidates who are declared elected transferred to other candidates whom it can help.
It is called preferential system also because of the preferences which a voter is required to give to different candidates on the list of the ballot papers on the preference—first, second, third, … , etc. The voter can vote for as many candidates by denoting his preference as there are seats to be filled from particular constituency or other institutions, etc. the candidate in order to be elected requires a certain quota of voters.
Different methods are followed to determine the quota but the simplest is to divide the number of votes cast by the number of seats to be filled from the constituency or institutions and the quotient is taken as the quota or the number of votes necessary to elect a candidate.
The first preferences or choices are counted first and a candidate securing the required quota is declared elected.
His/her surplus votes, if any are passed on to candidates not yet elected, in the order expressed in the preferences. The process of transferring surplus votes from both sides (votes of already elected candidates and candidates securing very few votes) to the next preferences continues down the least until the necessary number of representatives have been elected. The idea denotes that no vote is to be lost. (weight of votes).
Though it helps for minority representation, it is complex scheme and is unintelligible to the ordinary voters as well as the probability of mistakes to occur in counting and recounting the votes but are in vogue in the small constituency of the modern period.

List System

According to this system, each of the parties and groups present a list of candidates or only a list up to the number of seats to be filled for each constituency or institution. The voter then casts his vote for those lists on the basis of preference. It means voters vote for the list not for the candidates.

Then the seats are divided among the parties in proportion to the number of votes each list has secured. It is simple, the electorate has noting to determine and decide. The list system is employed in voting for the Indian Chamber of Deputies, The Knesset (Parliament) of Israel, the Swiss National and the Legislature in Finland, etc.

In some systems, the voter can alter the content, the order or both of the list. So it is known as the ‘free list’.

The other is the bound list which cannot be changed by the voters.

Proportional representation encourages the growth of numerous small parties and their aspirations. It has been condemned by Prof. Esmine that it is to render cabinet unstable, destroy their homogeneity and make parliamentary government impossible but the system has now been incorporated in some of the modern Constitutions.

It has become a convincing proof that proportional representation does attempt to remedy some of the evils of election process from which the body politic (state) suffers.

Marx’s View on State

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

The state is not a ‘natural’ but man-made institution. It is an expression of human alienation, an instrument of a particular class, it exists for the benefit of only a section of the society, i.e., haves class.
State is the product and development of class polarization and instrument of class rule.
The basis of the state is force. Marx said that ‘the state is a parasite feeding upon, and clogging free movement of society.
The state forms a part of the superstructure that rises upon the productive forces. The form of government undergoes a change whenever these is change in the mode of production. The specific economic form ‘determines’ the relations of rulers and ruled. Legal relations also had their roots in the material conditions of life.
The law of the state, i.e., the bourgeois state is ‘subtle and poisoned instrument’ which defends the interests of the exploiters.
The laws had to formulated by class enemies in the interest of the wealthy and haves class. Labor classes who possess nothing can only be bound by the law as long as they are too weak to change them. State is a machine to crush and repress the labors class.
Thus the purpose of the state, according to Karl Marx, is the protection of private property and its function is the oppression of the non-possessing by possessed class.
Whatever may be the form of the state whether democratic, republic or monarchy, political power is merely the organized power of one class oppressing another.
State serves the interest of the haves and dominant class, and it is the executive committee of bourgeois.
State ownership lies on bourgeois so state itself is bourgeois’ state, a deception, it facilitates the exploitation of proletariat class by the bourgeois.
State’s function is thus repressive.
State is responsible to wide the gap between two classes, so it shows the need of class struggle which could ultimately bring the stage of the abolition of the state in the following way:(a)The overthrow of the bourgeois’s state by revolution(b)The establishment of the dictatorship of proletariat class.
(c)Ultimately there would be withering away of the state as a result of class struggle.
No need of state according to Karl Marx, Bukharian supports this and said that “State is a league of robbers and a union of master class.”
Classless and stateless society comes into being which is created by the production forces.

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

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.

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.

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.”

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’.

Saptanga Theory

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

There is not any fixed date found when Kautilya was there on the earth, but a Brahmin named Chanakya, who destroyed Nanda Vansha (dynasty) in the history of India is known as Kautilya.

The main treatise of Kautilya is Arthasastra where he depicts about the state, its nature and a theory of ‘Saptanga’ for the establishment of the strong state. The state is a natural and inevitable institution according to him.
The state is a whole consisting of the following seven interdependent pasts as called ‘Saptanga’ theory.

1. The swami or sovereign: The king as a head of the state is a swami or sovereign.

A good ruler should be equipped with various qualities through meditation, sound education, political training, etc.
A good ruler should always care people and the state.

2. Amatya: Amatya means composition of council of ministers and bureaucracy.

The king should take advice from all ministers, should consult in all matters but the king could take own decision, this is an Machiavelli approach.

3. Janapada: The people and territory, should be suitable and balanced between jana and pada.

4.Forts: Construction of various kinds of forts for the protection of state and king as well.

Especially, the capital should be well fortified and easily defendable against external and internal attacks.
Fort should be self sufficient enough in periods of crisis both internal and external crises.

5. Establishment of strong treasury: Discretion of king in expenditure.

6. Strong army for the state’s defense: Arrangement of punishment through army as well as other forces should exist in the state.

Fear of punishment should be comprehensive to save the state’s sovereignty externally and internally.

7. The ally: Friendship with many countries as far as possible.

Kautilya is sometimes criticized as Eastern Machiavelli who was too power monger.

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.

Decentralisation

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

“Decentralisation is usually referred tas the transfer of powers from central government tlower levels in a political-administrative and territorial hierarchy . This official power transfer can take twmain forms. Administrative decentralisation, alsknown as deconcentration, refers ta transfer tlower-level central government authorities, or tother local authorities whare upwardly accountable tthe central government (Ribot 2002). In contrast, political, or democratic, decentralisation refers tthe transfer of authority trepresentative and downwardly accountable actors, such as elected local governments” (Larson).

“The term decentralisation is used tcover a broad range of transfers of the “locus of decision making” from central governments tregional, municipal or local governments” (Sayer et al.).
Decentralization reform refers t“transforming the local institutional infrastructure for natural resource management on which local forest management is based” (Ribot).
“Decentralization is “the means tallow for the participation of people and local governments” (Morell).
Decentralization is transferring the power from the federal tregional level or delivering management functions tother authorities. Decentralization in decision making including in forest management: user-defined functions being transferred tothe private sector, and arrangements for the Forest Fund are transferred tthe regions/administrative units of the Federation, which are badly prepared timplement these rights (Malysheva).
“Definitions of the different types of decentralization vary and the same terms are sometimes used in inconsistent ways in the literature on the subject”.

The paper by Gregersen, Contreras-Hermosilla, White and Phillips adopts the following definitions:

“Political decentralization: Groups at different levels of government–central, mesand local–are empowered tmake decisions related twhat affects them.
Administrative decentralization: Different levels of government administer resources and matters that have been delegated tthem, generally through a constitution. In terms of decentralization as a process of change, and according tthe level of transfer of responsibilities, it is useful tdistinguish between deconcentration, delegation and devolution.
Fiscal decentralization. In this case, previously concentrated powers ttax and generate revenues are dispersed tother levels of government, e.g., local governments are given the power traise and retain financial resources tfulfill their responsibilities.
Market decentralization: Government privatizes or deregulates private functions, such as occurred in the case of New Zealand forest sector”. (World Bank 2000 in Gregersen et al.) http://www.worldbank.org/publicsector/decentralization/admindecen.htm
“In Bolivia, decentralization of forest management was strongly linked ttwongoing processes initiated in the mid-1990s. The first sought tinstitutionalize social participation as part of a broader process of institutional reform of municipalities, and the second was aimed at reforming the forest regulations dating from the mid-1970s. Both have been interlinked through promoting a larger involvement of municipal governments in a wide range of forestry-related issues since the second half of the 1990s” (Pacheco).
“Decentralization of forest management in Guatemala has taken the form of “municipalization”, or deconcentration, as a highly centralized forest regulatory system has been delegated tmunicipalities” (Elias and Wittman).
Decentralization is transforming the local institutional infrastructure on which local forest management is based. Three basic elements of decentralization are accountability, discretionary power, and security (Ribot).
“Decentralization in Zimbabwe’s forest sector has been varied depending on the tenurial status of the land on which the woodlands are found. In protected forest zones, collaborative resource management regimes have only recently been introduced. Collaborative resource management is a variant of decentralization in which communities residing at the margin of state forests can access a limited set of products from the forests” (Hlambela and Kozanayi).
“Decentralization means thand over political, financial and administrative authority from central local (district/city) governments, that the government can facilitate and guarantee better public services for the people. Decentralization of the forestry sector should, however, be viewed as a positive development bring public services closer the people through managing forest resources in a sustainable manner for the community’s welfare” (Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia). As mentioned above, there are various types of decentralization such as deconcentrating, devolution and delegation.

Introduction to Karl Marx

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

Karl Marx was born in Germany, exiled to Paris, met there Engels (a life long friend), both again left Paris and went to Belgium and at last they reached to England and lived there life-long where real democracy was prevailed. They began to live, think, analyze, express their ideas freely and frankly staying in the Museum of London. Marx wrote many treatise (articles), essays and writings, the main are the Communist Manifesto (1848) and Das Capital (1867).

Marx was both social scientist and political philosopher. For Marx, matter is the basis of all things, matter is the ultimate truth which brings ideas and changes everywhere. It is the matter or mode of production which created classes. Man is the root cause of all evolution and devolution so state is not natural but artificial association which was created by the creation of classes.

Statehood and Elements of State

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

Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States 1933 has identified following qualifications of statehood:

a permanent population
a definite territory
a government, and
a capacity to enter into relations with other states.

Elements of State

A state has space or territory that has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are OK).
A state has people who live there on an ongoing basis.
A state has economic activity and an organized economy.
A state regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money.
A state has the power of social engineering, such as education.
A state has a transportation system for moving goods and people.
A state has a government that provides public services and police power.
A state has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the country’s territory.
A state has external recognition. It has been “voted into the club” by other countries.