TyroCity: Political Theory Notes

Rajdharma

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

Manu has mentioned physical, spiritual and political basis of the state.

The political basis of the state comprises the executive, legislative and judicial organs. Executive consists of the King or swami or Raja, his council of ministers and his permanent civil services. The king is the head of the state. He should be endowed with various qualities, duties and dharma which he called in Rajdharma as follows:

The Lord created the King for the protection of all, taking eternal particles of Indra (King of deities), of Wind (Vayu), of Yama, of Sun, of Fire (Agni) of Water (Varun), of the Moon and of the Lord of wealth Kuber, thus Manu accepts the divine origin of Kingship. The king is a great deity in human form.
The King is subject to Dharma and should form ideal council of Ministers for consultations in all matters. The king should select his advisors, ministers, legislators and administrators from amongst the Vanaprastha.
The King should worship daily the aged Brahmin who knows the Vedas and pure. The king should have both qualities from Kshyatria and Brahmin, former is man of action having energetic temperament and later is preacher of Vedas having qualities of meditation, wisdom, self-discipline, purity, control of senses, service of fellowman and always modest.
King constantly should learn modesty from Brahmin for a king who is modest never perishes.
The King should shun various vices springing from love of pleasure and proceeding from wrath which all end in misery such as hunting, gambling, sleeping by day, excess with women, drunkenness, violence, treachery, envy and greedy, etc.
To preserve law and order in his kingdom and to punish offenders and to promote public welfare, the king should always be careful. Manu writes, “punishment alone governs all created beings, it alone protects them, watches over them while they sleep, so punishment is as to be identical with law.
Manu lays down a daily routine of the King. They are: Meditation, worship (of Brahmin and God), listening public complains, consultation with ambassadors, spies, army chief, inspection in all fields and administrative works and rest with a music.
Manu has regarded Dharma as rule of law which no earthly Monarch can ignore. The Monarch is responsible to the people, monarch derives its authority from the people. People owe loyalty to the ruler only when the latter discharges its duty of protecting them properly.
The capital should be well fortified by the construction of strong forts of different kinds.
Taxes should be collected from rich people only.
Well prepared for war at any time in case of external attack, no dependence upon others in war.
Establishment of diplomatic relationship with other nations properly.

Thus the king holds his high office so that he may protect the people, help everyone in his own self knowledge and in the discharge of his own Rajdharma and duties.

Evolution of Political Science

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

The History of Political Science

A curve of scientific progress in the study of politics begin in Greek political science, make modest gains in the Roman centuries, not much progress in the Middle Ages, rise a bit in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, some substantial gains in the 19th century and solid growth in the 20th century acquiring professional characteristics.

It properly begins with Plato (428-348 B.C.E.) {The Republic, The Statesman and The Laws} and refined by his disciple Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) {Politics}

Historical Development of Political Science

A dynamic science concerned with human beings as political animal and power-centered state.

Aristotle termed it ‘Master Science’ and held a philosophical and pragmatic view. ‘Good’ politics

Derived from combination of three Greek words – polis (city-state), polity (government or state or political org.) and politia (constitution).

For Gettel – ‘science of state’; for Seeley – ‘science of government’; Lindsay Rogers – ‘science of the art of government’; Paul Genet- ‘science of state and government’; Willoughby – ‘science of state, government and law’; Frederick Pollock – ‘science of politics’

Since 1948 UNESCO has designated the science as PS but after WWII in G. Britain preferred to call Politics.

The discipline came into separate existence from mid 20th century can be divided into two.

One following traditional norms and values identified with Classical Political Science and the other applying novel perspectives is Modern or New Political Science.

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.

Definition of Soverignty

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

Sovereignty’ belonged to the philosophical and political terminology long before Austin. It had, however, been recently transformed by Bentham: ‘When a number of person’, he wrote, ‘(whom we may style subjects)’ are supposed to be in the habit of paying obedience to a person or an assemblage of persons, of a known and certain description (whom we may call governor and governors) are said to be in a state of political society.

Whereas Austin says that “if a determinate human superior, not in a habit of obedience to a like superior, receive 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.’

These points from the basis of Austin’s theory of sovereignty, and the basis was provided by Bentham. There are, however, two difference between the passages from Bentham and Austin which should not be overlooked.

Bentham defined ‘being in a state of political society’; Austin ‘an independent political society’.

That explains why Austin’s definition consists of two conditions,

One positive (the bulk of the population habitually obeys the sovereign) and
The other negative (the sovereign is not in the habit of obeying anyone).

Whereas Bentham’s definition mentions only the positive condition.

The negative condition is relevant only to the independence of a political society with which Bentham was not in this passage concerned.

Austin comments on this omission and says that ‘Mr. Bentham has forgotten to notice’ the necessity of a negative conditions.

The second difference between Austin’s and Bentham’s concept of sovereignty, though it was never noticed by Austin himself, is of much greater importance. Austin’s sovereign has four attributes, all of them of vital importance to his theory of legal system. His sovereignty is:

1. Not subordinate, that is (a) sovereign legislative power cannot be conferred by a law; and (b) this legislative power cannot be revoked by law;

2. Illimitable, that is (a) the sovereign legislative power is legally illimitable, it is the power to legislate any law whatsoever; and (b) the sovereign cannot be made subject to legal duties in the exercise of its legislative power;

3. unique; for every legal system there is (a) one and (b) only one non-subordinate and illimitable legislative power;

4. united: this legislative power in the hands of one person or one body of persons.

Historical Definitions of the word ‘Sovereignty’

The word Sovereignty has been derived from the Latin word ‘Superanus’ meaning supreme.
According to Bernard Crick, “Sovereignty as an absolute power is final decision exercised by some persons or body of persons, recognized both as competent to decide and as able to enforce the decision.”
It means that in every independent state there is an ultimate authority as supreme both in internal and external matters.

Bodin defines the sovereignty as “the supreme power of citizens and subjects unrestrained by law.”

According Duguit, “Sovereignty as generally understood is the commanding power of the state; it is the will of the nation organized in the state; it is the right to give unconditional orders to all individuals in the territory of the state.” (an autocratic definition to some extent)
Burgess describes it as, “original, absolute and unlimited power over the individual subjects and overall association of subjects.” (more autocratic)
Johannes Althusius, a German Jurist, presents a clear and precise conception of sovereignty and ascribed this authority exclusively and immovably to the people.
Johannes Althusius vested the power in the totality of the members of the state.
Grotius, Locke and Rousseau have the same idea that sovereignty is power vested in people.
Roucek, Husjar and others say that “theories of sovereignty are reflections of the social facts, political institutions and cultural backgrounds which are intended to be explained and justified.

Characteristic features or attributes of sovereignty

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

1. Absoluteness: It means self-sufficient, independent, supreme, all-in-all. Sovereignty is absolute both internally and externally. Once the sovereign is thus established, there is no justification for any disobedience on the part of persons being ruled. It has absolute powers over all individuals and groups of individuals within the state. As such externally also, it is supreme and absolutely independent of any compulsion or interference on the part of any compulsion or interference on the part of other state. But treaties, international understandings and various conventions, etc., do not destroy sovereignty as well as there is no compelling power behind them.

2. Universality and all comprehensiveness: The sovereign power is supreme over all persons, associations, government and non-governmental organizations and other fields concerning particular states management, etc. Then sovereign state is supreme with rights of its jurisdiction and no person or body of person can claim exemption as a matter of right. No any big or well known organization also could be superior to any state sovereign. It is subject to the laws of individual state.

3. Inalienability: Sovereignty being supreme and absolute is inalienable and unrestrained by law. Law, being the command of a sovereign, is supreme to custom. The state has no forms; the forms of the government vary only with the location of the sovereign powers. As sovereignty is unlimited, it can not be alienated.* Lieber writes, “Sovereignty can no more be alienated than a tree can alienate its right to sprout or a man can transfer his life and personality without self destruction.” A state may cede part of its territory to another state on the basis of sovereign right keeping on its own part without destroying its sovereignty. Rights can be transferred but not actual sovereignty.

4. Permanence of perpetuity: Sovereignty is as permanent as a state itself. The two are inseparable and both are perpetual means remains without any limitations of time. It cannot be subjected to any limit or conditions. The death of king or any other body could be destroyed but the sovereignty shifts immediately to the next bearer. It is continues forever and ever. Change of persons in the government does not mean the cessation of sovereignty; it is determinate, definite, precise and recognized by law. It alone declares the will of the state, so is absolute, consistent and supreme.

5. Indivisibility: Gettle remarks that “if sovereignty is not absolute, no state exists; if sovereignty is divided, more than one state exist.”

So sovereignty is indivisible; cannot be divided.
Austin, Hobbes and many other were of the same opinion.
It is the ‘determinate person’ referred to Austin’ definition of sovereignty, disobedience to its imperatives means violation of law and hence punishment.
It is the single source of rights, laws and justice. It is the fact that any portion of sovereignty can be delegated to one set of agents or another portion to other for sometime to resolve some issue, but it is impossible to conceive that sovereignty vested legally in one man, in a few or in many can be divided.
Sovereignty as supreme cannot be divided. It is a unity and incapable of division. Division of sovereignty means destruction of sovereignty.
Jellinek has remarked that “the notion of a divided, fragmented, diminished, limited and relative sovereignty is the negation of sovereignty.”
The doctrine, the state is absolutely supreme, is fallacious and even dangerous.
So sovereign power is exercised and expressed by man cannot be absolute.
Sovereign power is also limited by what Gilchrist calls ‘human endurance’.
So sovereign power is supreme, yet bound by pledges (promises); it is complete, yet terminable at a fix time, it inheres (continues) equally in protector and protected; it is unity yet divisible in the context of modern states’ political, legal and popular sovereignty concept.

Criticism of Machiavelli

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

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

Nature of the welfare state

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

Welfare is not a charity but its right. The citizen of the state should accept it as the right and he/she has to ask for it. Welfare shouldn’t be accepted as facilities obtained by the hope from the state.
It should maintain the welfare environment. Until and unless people can’t accept the concept of welfare state, it should be performing various welfare activities.
It should eradicate the pauper mentality of the people. It should encourage the characteristic of self help and self motive among the people every time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Devolution

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

Devolution, refers to:

“The transfer of ‘natural resource management to local individuals and institutions located within and outside of government’ though some people use ‘devolution’ only in reference to direct community transfers” (Larson)
“The transfer of rights and assets from the centre to local governments or communities. All of these processes occur within the context of national laws that set the limits within which any decentralised or devolved forest management occurs”.
“The transfer of governance responsibility for specified functions to sub-national levels, either publicly or privately owned, that are largely outside the direct control of the central government” (Ferguson and Chandrasekharan).
“One form of administrative decentralization which transfers specific decision making powers from one level of government to another (which could be from lower level to higher level of government, in the case of federations, or government transfers decision-making powers to entities of the civil society. Regional or provincial governments, for example, become semi autonomous and administer forest resources according to their own priorities and within clear geographical boundaries under their control. Most political decentralization is associated with devolution”.