TyroCity: Political Theory Notes

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.

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 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.

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’.

Relation between Political science and Economics

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

They are Closely related. All economic activities are carried on within the state and all political activities are related to state and government.

Political movements can be influenced by economic causes and economic upheavals can be prevailed by political instability.

As main subject, political science is the state, concerning subject of economics are tariff laws, labor legislation, national planning and government ownership, etc., which are under the state laws.

Economic achievement can be possible by good administration and political performance in a political system.

The burning question of present day politics is government control of industries, the relations of the state to industries, its attitude towards labor and capital and etc.

All economic questions are intertwined in the political issue.

Difference between political science and economics

Economics is concerned with things while political science concerns with people, one deals with prices and other with values and virtues.
Political science is normative science while economics is descriptive science.

Relationship of political science with history

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

Intimately connected: without political events, history is only a literature and without history, political science is only a theory. History is past politics and politics is present history.

According to Seeley, “history without political science has no fruits, political science without history has no root.

History provides raw materials to political science Study of political science is possible in the foundation of history.

History is the laboratory of political science. They are interlinked, they are interdependent and interrelated.

Difference between history and political science

In their method of treatment, history is narrative with chronological orders, but political science particularize the political events, depicts (describes) and analyze.
In scope, history is comprehensive dealing economy, religions, military, social and all aspects but political science deals with state, government authority and political relations.
History deals with concrete fact whereas political science deals with ideal and abstract fact.

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.

Classification of Government by Aristotle

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

Government By Birth: One Man Rule, Monarch, Tyranny

Government By Wealth: Rule of Few, Aristocracy, Oligarchy,

Government By Number: Rule of Many, Democracy, Mobocracy

Government in the state could be constituted on the basis of birth, wealth and number.
The true spirit of the government is to promote not its own interest but those of the community of the state.
He classifies the government in three types:
Monarchy, Oligarchy (Rule of Few) and Polity (Rule of Middle Class)
In every government, there is a revolution goes on cycle of rotation.
No government is self sufficing. One man rule, unlimited monarch is against the principle of human equality.
Aristocracy is the rule of the few for the common good but it degenerates into oligarchy.
Polity is the rule of many middle class for the good of all but gets perverted into democracy and mobocracy which represents rule in favor of the many poor.
So Aristotle believes in the mixture of the democracy and oligarchy to create polity, a middle way between them where he finds the cure of the evils of various government.
That is the best government where population is controllable, constitution is sovereign and territory is free from external supremacy.
The three main functions of the government (deliberative, executive and judicial) should be performed in accordance with the rule of law, i.e., rule of reason.
Thus Aristotle emphasizes on Constitutionalism, value of public opinion, people’s final judgment on official actions, etc.
Aristotle locates the supreme power of states in people.
About law in the state, Aristotle believed in its necessity and sovereignty.
His pure states were the law governed states in which the rulers were essentially administrators and guardians of law.
Law was dispassionate reason and represented social experience and wisdom and social conscience.
Aristotle’s law includes custom also.

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.

Perquisites of Democracy

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

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

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.

Contemporary Theories of the State

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

Marxism
For Marxist theorists, the role of modern states is determined or related to their position in capitalist societies. Many contemporary Marxists offer a liberal interpretation of Marx’s comment in The Communist Manifesto that the state is but the executive committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

Ralph Miliband argued that the ruling class uses the state as its instrument to dominate society by virtue of the interpersonal ties between state officials and economic elites. For Miliband, the state is dominated by an elite that comes from the same background as the capitalist class.

State officials therefore share the same interests as owners of capital and are linked to them through a wide array of interpersonal and political ties.

By contrast, other Marxist theorists argue that the question of who controls the state is irrelevant. Heavily influenced by Gramsci, Nicos Poulantzas, a Greek neo-Marxist theorist argued that capitalist states do not always act on behalf of the ruling class, and when they do, it is not necessarily the case because state officials consciously strive to do so, but because the ‘structural’ position of the state is configured in such a way to ensure that the long-term interests of capital are always dominant.

Poulantzas’ main contribution to the Marxist literature on the state was the concept of ‘relative autonomy’ of the state. While Poulantzas’ work on ‘state autonomy’ has served to sharpen and specify a great deal of Marxist literature on the state, his own framework came under criticism for its ’structural functionalism.’

Pluralism

While neo-Marxist theories of the state were relatively influential in continental Europe in the 1960s and 1970s, pluralism, a contending approach, gained greater adherence in the United States. Within the pluralist tradition, Robert Dahl sees the state as either a neutral arena for contending interests or its agencies as simply another set of interest groups.

With power competitively arranged in society, state policy is a product of recurrent bargaining. Although pluralism recognizes the existence of inequality, it asserts that all groups have an opportunity to pressure the state. The pluralist approach suggests that the state’s actions are the result of pressures applied for both polyarchy and organized interests.

Institutionalism

Both the Marxist and pluralist approaches view the state as reacting to the activities of groups within society, such as classes or interest groups. In this sense, they have both come under criticism for their ‘society-centered’ understanding of the state by scholars who emphasize the autonomy of the state with respect to social forces.

In particular, the “new institutionalism,” an approach to politics that holds that behavior is fundamentally molded by the institutions in which it is embedded, asserts that the state is not an ‘instrument’ or an ‘arena’ and does not ‘function’ in the interests of a single class. Scholars working within this approach stress the importance of interposing civil society between the economy and the state to explain variation in state forms.

“New institutionalist” writings on the state, such as the works of Theda Skocpol, suggest that state actors are to an important degree autonomous. In other words, state personnel have interests of their own, which they can and do pursue independently (at times in conflict with) actors in society. Since the state controls the means of coercion, and given the dependence of many groups in civil society on the state for achieving any goals they may espouse, state personnel can to some extent impose their own preferences on civil society.

‘New institutionalist’ writers, claiming allegiance to Weber, often utilize the distinction between ‘strong states’ and ‘weak states,’ claiming that the degree of ‘relative autonomy’ of the state from pressures in society determines the power of the state—a position that has found favor in the field of international political economy.