TyroCity: Political Theory 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.

Pluralist Theory of Sovereignty

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

The pluralist theory of sovereignty was a reaction to monistic or legal theory of sovereignty. To monistic theory state is supreme association and all other associations are he creation of state and their existence depends on the will of the sovereign power. The pluralist theory rejects this and tries to establish that there is no single source of authority that is all competent and comprehensive. Laski says that sovereignty is neither absolute nor a unity. It is pluralist, constitutional and responsible. State has no superior claim to an individual’s allegiance. It can justify itself as a public service corporation. State exists to coordinate functions of human association in the best interest. Theory of Sovereignty,

Another exponent of pluralist theory Robert M.Maclver propounds that state is one of the several human associations, although it exercises unique functions. Important feature of the state is supremacy of law. Pluralists believe that state enjoys a privileged position because of its wider jurisdiction, which covers all the individuals and associations within its boundary. This does not mean that it is superior to other associations. It is also true that state has power to punish those who defy its command but that does not mean that it is absolute.

The state must justify the exercise of its special powers. Pluralist is divided and limited. The pluralist demand that the same must justify its claim to allegiance on moral grounds. Actually to them the management and control of society must be shared by various associations in proportion to their contribution to the common goods.

This theory stands for the decentralization of authority. The pluralist also rejects the distinction between state and government. They insist on a realistic political science and consider the distinction between two as artificial. The pluralists are not against the state but would discard sovereign state with its absolute and indivisible power.

The chief tenets of pluralist theory of sovereignty are as follows:

Pluralist sovereignty deals with political aspects of sovereignty

State is one of the several human associations catering to various interests of the individuals.
State is arbiter over conflicting interests of different associations.
State should compete with other human associations to claim superior authority.
State was not absolute or supreme legally.
State is not the only source of legislation or law.
Law is very antithesis of command.
The state is both the child and parent of law.
The root of obedience of law isn’t coercion but the will to obey.
State and government are not different.

The pluralist theory of sovereignty is also not free from criticism. Critics maintain that without establishment of a classless society, sovereignty can neither be divided nor be limited. In order to limit the sovereignty of the state there must be a classless society. The demands for freedom from different associations also are criticized. Division of sovereignty among different associations is not only impossible but also improper. The pluralist view will lead to political anarchy and social instability. The pluralist limits the sovereignty in order to maintain independence of individuals and other associations, however in order to maintain the rights of the individuals and associations, the state must have sovereign power. The interest of individuals and associations, will conflict and the state will be helpless if it does not posses sovereign power. In spite of all these criticism it cannot be denied that the pluralist theory of sovereignty protested the rigid and dogmatic legalism of the Austin’s theory of sovereignty. It supports humanist and democratic ideas. It challenged the concept of unlimited sovereignty. This theory also pointed out the importance of other associations. Only state is not important but in a society there are also many other associations, which play important role in its development. At last we can say that the greatest contribution of this theory is that it gave state a human face, and checked it from being a threat to the liberty.

Methods of Elections

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

There are two methods of electing representatives. They are:

Direct Methods of Election
Indirect Methods of Election

Direct Methods of Election

It is very simple process. Voters directly participate in election and elect their representatives of legislature, especially of the people’s chamber (House of Commons in UK and Parliament in India, House of Representatives in USA and Nepal).

Direct election makes people conscious of their rights and duties.

A direct contact between the electors and their representatives stimulates interest in public affairs, develop the sense of public spirit and sharpens the political intelligence and political vigilance of the people, though this method sometimes has been opposed by some political thinkers mentioning that all voters are not the best judges, inactive and uneducated voters could be used through political propaganda and cheap election campaign process, etc.

Indirect Methods of Election

When voters do not directly participate in the election of their representatives, only an intermediary body which alone will make the final choice, he method of election is called indirect. This intermediary body of electors is usually known as an electoral college. This method involves double elections.

General mass of voters first elect a small group of electors and then these electors elect the final representatives. This system limits the power of the general voters, but the selected electors’ superior intelligence and political knowledge could choose best one without any party propaganda.

But the indirect method of election in the modern period has neither gained much favor nor has educative value rather is undemocratic and politically inexpedient.

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.”

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

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.

Origin and Framework of Arthasastra

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

Origin of Arthasastra

Kautilya was from ‘kutil gotra’9, hence the name Kautilya. Since he was born at Chanaka and his father’s name was also Chanaka, he came to be known as Chanakya (Rao, 1958:3).10 Kautilya’s Arthasastra is a compendium of and commentary on the then existing texts on polity and statecraft.11 Kautilya presented them in a coherent and systematic manner and refined them on the basis of his enormous experience as the Chief Minister in the court of Chandragupta Maurya.

There is a controversy regarding the authorship of Arthasastra. Many Occidental scholars have argued that Kautilya could not have authored it as many of the concepts in the treatise were practiced only in the later epochs. It has been suggested that Kautilya is merely a pseudo name for a later author(s) who belonged to the school of thought associated with Kautilya.13 These contentions are disputed by Indian scholars who point out that many of the concepts used by Kautilya are in fact associated with only the fourth century B.C.

Framework of Arthasastra

Arthasastra means the science (sastra) of wealth/earth/polity (artha). This treatise is divided into sixteen books dealing with virtually every topic concerned with the running of a state – taxation, law, diplomacy, military strategy, economics, bureaucracy etc. Arthasastra advocates rational ethic to the conduct of the affairs of the state. The emphasis is on codification of law and uniformity of law throughout the empire.

The basis of good governance is knowledge and Arthasastra classifies knowledge into four categories

Anvikasi (philosophy). This is considered to be the “lamp of all sciences”.
Trayi (the three Vedas – Sama, Rig and Yajur). These texts establish the four classes (varnas) 15 and the four orders (ashrams).
Varta (economics, specifically agriculture, cattle breeding, and trade).
Dandaniti (science of government and politics).

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”.

Types of Democracy

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

Direct Democracy- all citizens, without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions.
Indirect Democracy – DelegaLve/Representative
Lite Democracy – Illusive Democracy
Constitutional Democracy

Concept of the State

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

The institution of state is created to enable the individual to practise his/her dharma and thus move towards the emancipation from the cycle of death-rebirth. The condition of arajat (lawlessness) was viewed with distaste as it militated against the practicing of dharma. There is reference in many ancient Vedic texts to Matsya-Nyaya (Law of the Fish) which prevails in the state of nature.18 Such a state is characterized by the absence of dharma and mamatava (private property rights)

State, which wields the instruments of coercion (danda), is constituted to get the society out of this quagmire 20 Thus the state enables two things – the practice of dharma and the bhog (enjoyment) of private property rights.21 The Vedic state can be viewed as “qualified monism” in which the autonomy and the diversity of the various social groups residing within the boundaries of the state was recognized Citizens had multiple loyalties – to the state as well as to the guild/association These associations were knit together on the basis of two principles – military imperative (strength in unity) and the principle of dharma . These bodies had well specified rules of governance and a code of conduct. They zealously guarded their autonomy and the King could not trample on their customs and traditions. To ensure that the King and the associations do not overstep their respective limits, the Superintendent of Accounts had to codify the history, the customs, and the traditions of every association. However, the relationship between the individual body and the state was not of competition or of turf protection. Both the bodies had a role to play in enabling the citizen to follow his dharma. Interestingly, there was a Department of Commissioners (Pradeshtarah) to protect the interest of the individual in the association . Thus there was a mechanism to protect the individual from the larger association (tyranny of the majority) and the association from the State (tyranny of the Leviathan). The King was looked upon an embodiment of virtue, a protector of dharma. He too was governed by his dharma as any other citizen was. Thus if any actions of the King went against the prevailing notion of dharma, associations and/or the individual citizens were free to question him. King was not the sole interpreter of dharma. In fact there was no specific institution (like the ecclesiastical courts) vested with the authority of interpreting dharma. Every individual was deemed competent to interpret it. This was an important factor in ensuring the non-religious character of the Vedic state.

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.