TyroCity: Political Theory and Thoughts Notes

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”.

Deconcentration

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

Deconcentration, is the term referring to:

“The process by which the agents of central government control are relocated and geographically dispersed” (Sayer et al.).
“Administrative decentralization, i.e. a transfer to lower-level central government authorities, or to other local authorities who are upwardly accountable to the central government” (Ribot 2002 in Larson).
“The transfer of administrative responsibility for specified functions to lower levels within the central government bureaucracy, generally on some spatial basis” (Ferguson and Chandrasekharan).
“One of administrative decentralization which redistributes decision-making authority and financial and management responsibility among levels of the central government; there is no real transfer of authority between levels of government. It may involve only a shift of responsibilities from federal forest service officials of the capital city to those stationed in provinces, districts, etc”.

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’.

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

The law of Negation of Negation

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

Thesis – Antithesis – Synthesis
Direct beginning of class struggle (Nothing would be lost except the chain of your hand).
Victory of proletariat class.
Dictatorship of proletariat class.

The Law of transformation of quantity into quality

Establishment of communism
Creation of classless and stateless society, then no need of state and law, there will be equal law for all without discrimination between classes. So class struggle is a necessity and main route for achieving communism.

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.

Sovereignty in the view of John Austin

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

John Austin is the most well known name connected with the theory of sovereignty. His concept of sovereignty is very classic one though it is clear.

He defines sovereignty as, “if a determinate human superior, not in a habit of obedience to a like superior, receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society, that determinate superior is sovereign in that society, and the society (including the superior) is a society political and independent.

The above definition implies that in every society, there is a determinate human superior, i.e., who can be identified as a person who enjoys supreme authority in the state.

Secondly, whatever the supreme authority commands is a law.
Thirdly, this conception of sovereignty makes it indivisible.
Fourthly, this supreme sovereign power is absolute and incapable of limitation.

Austin's Theory of Sovereignty (Monistic View):

In the 19th century Austin, an English Jurist, perfected the theory of sovereignty as a legal concept. He is regarded as a greatest exponent of Monistic Theory.

In his book ‘Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832) Austin observed’ “if a determinate human superior, not in the habit of obedience to a like superior, receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society, that determinate superior is sovereign in that society and that society (including superior) is a society political and independent.”

To Austin in every state there exists an Theory of Sovereignty, authority to whom a large mass of citizen show compliance. This authority is absolute, unlimited and indivisible. Austin’s theory of sovereignty depends mainly upon his view on nature of law.

According to Austin “Law is a command given by a superior to inferior” the main tenets of Austin’s theory of sovereignty are as follows:

Sovereign power is essential in every political society.
Sovereignty is a person or body of persons. It is not necessary that sovereign should be a single person. Sovereignty may reside in many persons also. Austin explains that a “Sovereign is not necessarily a single person, in the modern western world he is rarely so; but he must have so much of the attributes of a single person as to be a determinate.”
To Austin state is a legal order, in which there is a supreme authority, which is source of all powers. Sovereignty is concerned with man, and every state must have human superior who can issue commands and create laws. Human laws are the proper subjects of state activity.
Sovereign power is indivisible. Division of sovereignty leads to its destruction. It cannot be divided.
The command of sovereignty is superior to over all individuals and associations. Sovereign is not bound to obey anyone’s order. His will is supreme. There is no question of right or wrong, just or unjust, all his commands are to be obeyed.
Austin’s theory says that the obedience to sovereign must be habitual. It means that obedience should be continuous. He also includes that is not necessary that obedience should come from the whole society. It is sufficient, if it comes from the lay majority of people. Obedience should come from bulk of the society otherwise there is no sovereign. In brief we can say that sovereignty according to Austin is supreme, indivisible and unquestionable. Like all other theories of sovereignty Austin’s theory is also not free from criticism. The first criticism is regarding sovereignty residing in a determinate superior. Even sovereign’s acts are shaped by so many other influences, such as morals, values and customs of the society.

Sir Henry Maine gives the example of Maharajas/Monarchs. He pointed out that the Maharaja “could have commanded anything. The smallest disobedience to his command would have been followed by death or mutilation.” In spite of this, the Maharaja never “once in all his life issued a command which Austin could call a law. The rules which regulated the life of his subjects were derived from their immemorial usage.”

Secondly Austin says that the sovereign is possessed of unlimited powers, which is again not acceptable. It is possible only in theory not in practice. Laski points out that “no sovereign has anywhere possessed unlimited power and attempt to exert it has always resulted in the establishment of safeguards.”

Thirdly Austin says that sovereign is indivisible. All powers Must be centered in the hands of one person or a body of persons called sovereign. But this has been also disproved by Federal system of governments. It is characteristic of federal state that power must be divided between the federal government and its units. Austin’s theory is criticized further on the grounds of his definition of law.

Austin defines law as “command given by a superior to inferior”. This is also not true. No sovereign can ignore the existence of customary law, which has grown through usage in every country. It seems to be that Austin’s theory may not be accepted as valid for political philosophy. His legal theory of sovereign narrows down “the meaning of vital terms.” It should, however be admitted that as an analysis of strictly legal nature of sovereignty. Austin’s theory is clear and logical.

Introduction to Concept of Good Governance in Modern Regime

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

The concept of good governance is modern device for better functioning of democracy. Democracy cannot function properly in absence of good governance. Democracy without good governance is like democracy of Plato who defines democracy as “rule of crowd.” The scheme of good governance helps to make democratic government stable, consolidated and positive.

According to Michel Camdessus (Former Managing Director of IMF), good governance is confined to “surveillance over macro-economic policies, transparency of government accounts, effectiveness of public resource management and the stability and transparency of economic and regulatory environment for private sector activity.”

Generally accepted criteria for good governance

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

Government abide by rule of law and observation of the rule of law
- No one is above the law.
- All are equal before the eyes of law.
- No innocent could be punished.
- Provision of natural justice and dispensation justice.
- Independent judiciary.
- Free, fair and logical decision of the court.
- Right of appeal and review.
- Effective execution of decision.
- Effective action towards abuse of authority.
- Prompt and inexpensive judicial administration.
- Protection of civil rights, etc.
Effective checks and balances to prevent abuse of authority—fair and free function of three organs of government.
Free and fair press.
Right to information.
Fiscal discipline.
- Eradication of corruption, exploitation and discrimination on any based.
- It believes on the principle that “rule is better solution than gun.”
Improving public sector accountability
- There should be constraints on government’s discretionary power.
- Accountability, in a fair and equitable manner, should focus in all political parties equally.
- Public awareness and community initiatives should be encouraged to look into corruption and abuse of authority.
- A stronger tie should be developed between civil society and the government.
- The accountability process should be independent of the government.
- So accountability has been defined as “the obligations of persons or entities including public enterprises and corporations, entrusted with public resources to be answerable for the fiscal, managerial and program responsibilities that have been conferred on them and to those that have conferred these responsibilities on them.
Transparency
- Declaration of wealth should be required for all those in government.
- Media should be independent and trained to look into government dealings.
- Access to information in government should be increased.
- Ordinary citizen should have access to information so they could be vigilant.
- Transparent budget from bottom to the top.
Comprehensive participation from local to center
- Awareness to local unit, its active participations.
- To confer some legal rights to local units and more administrative and political rights.
- Not decentralization (power conferred by discretion) but devolution of powers (power conferred in accordance to policy and by formulation of law.
Free and Fair election
- Assertive and independent election commission.
- Election law should limit campaign spending.
- Electoral process and practices, public voices and participations should be wide under legitimate political order.
- Participation of civil society to educate voters for free and fair election.
Equal opportunity based on merit and free competition.
Development of fair and democratic culture.
Strong civil society
- To point out and shoot the problems.
- To prepare active and sound public opinion
- To create institutional commitment, to pressure, monitor and to feedback government programs, policies and activities.
- Civil society as ‘public watch dog’ plays an important role in the body politic in the modern context.
Active and sound bureaucracy
Moral and charismatic leadership
Maintenance of integrity in all sectors from public to private and Government Organizations to NGOs and INGOs.

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

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.

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.