TyroCity: Political Theory Notes

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.

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.

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.

Merits of Democracy

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

The participation of the individual members in the government facilitates to enlist their sympathy and co – operation to the success of the government.
It is an effective form to educate the public about political, economic and social affairs.
it is helpful to promote patriotism among the people and prevents occurrence of violent revolutions.
It helps to make progress and development and enables changes to take place in a peaceful manner.
It ensures to the people freedom of speech, conscience, assembly and action.
It guarantees liberty and equality, which are necessary for human development.

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.

Origin of State

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

Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.

Some people think that the qualifications of a statesman, king, householder, and master are the same, and that they differ, not in kind, but only in the number of their subjects. For example, the ruler over a few is called a master; over more, the manager of a household; over a still larger number, a statesman or king, as if there were no difference between a great household and a small state. The distinction which is made between the king and the statesman is as follows: When the government is personal, the ruler is a king; when, according to the rules of the political science, the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, then he is called a statesman.

But all this is a mistake; for governments differ in kind, – As in other departments of science, so in politics, the compound should always be resolved into the simple elements or least parts of the whole. We must therefore look at the elements of which the state is composed, in order that we may see in what the different kinds of rule differ from one another, and whether any scientific result can be attained about each one of them.

In the first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist without each other; namely, of male and female, that the race may continue (and this is a union which is formed, not of deliberate purpose, but because, in common with other animals and with plants, mankind have a natural desire to leave behind them an image of themselves), and of natural ruler and subject, that both may be preserved. For that which can foresee by the exercise of mind is by nature intended to be lord and master, and that which can with its body give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by nature a slave; hence master and slave have the same interest.

Out of these two relationships between man and woman, master and slave, the first thing to arise is the family, and Hesiod is right when he says, First house and wife and an ox for the plough, for the ox is the poor man’s slave. The family is the association established by nature for the supply of men’s everyday wants, and the members of it are called by Charondas companions of the cupboard, and by Epimenides the Cretan, companions of the manger.

But when several families are united, and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily needs, the first society to be formed is the village. And the most natural form of the village appears to be that of a colony from the family, composed of the children and grandchildren, who are said to be suckled with the same milk. And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by kings; because the Hellenes were under royal rule before they came together, as the barbarians still are. Every family is ruled by the eldest, and therefore in the colonies of the family the kingly form of government prevailed because they were of the same blood.

As Homer says:
“Each one gives law to his children and to his wives.” For they lived dispersedly, as was the manner in ancient times. Wherefore men say that the Gods have a king, because they themselves either are or were in ancient times under the rule of a king. For they imagine, not only the forms of the Gods, but their ways of life to be like their own.

When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. For what each thing is when fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of a man, a horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end and the best.

Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity; he is like the Tribe less, lawless, heartless one, whom Homer denounces – the natural outcast is forthwith a lover of war; he may be compared to an isolated piece at draughts.

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.

What is welfare state?

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

Welfare state is also known as positive state or social service state. It rejects the concepts of individual where the business of the state is to protect but not to promote. So, it discards the policy of a totalitarian state. The welfare of the people, being the major aim of the state, can be accomplished only when the fundamental liberties of the people are provided by the state.

But some refuse the necessities and utility of the welfare state and consider the concept as the instruments of exploitation and oppression. Whereas some consider it as the noblest expression of human purpose and an essential institution by which all type of progress can be achieved. It guarantees the essential liberties to the people and respects them with sincere intent.

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.

Concept of Popular Sovereignty

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

State of nature was pre-political, solitary, savage, living the happy and carefree life of the brute without a permanent place of living.
Men were independent, contended, self-sufficient and equal.
Advent of agriculture, economic progress which brought the concept of ‘Mine and Thine’, created gap between rich and poor and insecurity and fear.’
They came into social contract to establish civil society through government of general will based on the popular sovereignty. It means where the sovereign power ultimately belongs to the people and is exercised by them or on their behalf.
- There is a great mass of the people from whom legal sovereign draws his authority and is thus duty bound to take note of the wishes and aspiration of the people.
- The legal sovereign cannot exercise his authority in vacuum.
- Sovereignty conceived in these terms is a power which is exercised keeping in view general interest of the community rather than only a group of persons or the ruling elite.
- Popular sovereignty is the essence of democracy.
Rousseau clearly stated that the body politics (state) that is created through social contract is itself the only possessor of supreme power. Sovereignty belongs to the body politics as a whole and finds expression in general will.
- Although the concept of popular sovereignty generally implies that it is indeterminate and divisible but Rousseau is certain that it is determinate and indivisible.
- The general will is sovereign will and this will either is or not general, is that of the whole people or that part of the people.
In the first case, the expression of will is a sovereign act and makes law , in the second case, it merely a particular will or the act of the magistrate at most or decree.
General will emerges in an assembly of equals through free discussions and debate. It is infallible, inalienable and always right tends to the public advantages.
As general will is based on popular sovereignty, it is the government which exists for the good of the people as a whole and big violation of people’s wishes.
It is a legal way of expressing public opinion through frequent elections, active local self government, referendum and recall etc.

It is the absolute submission of the individual to the state, private interest to the public interest.

Comments:

This concept of general will with popular sovereignty may be an abstract, utopia and vague. But this conception as the people are the ultimate source of all political authority and the government is merely an agent of the sovereign people and will, not force is the basis of the state are his contributions in politics.

Different Stages of Human Civilization

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

Primitive Communism: Harmony at nature, no tendency of gathering of resources
Feudalism: Transformation of society to agriculture society, emergence of upper class and middle class
Capitalism: Emergence of gap between bourgeois and proletariat
Socialism: Emergence of classless society
Communism: Withering away of state

Class Struggle

Feeling of need of remaining in one place, people entered into agriculture.
Due to the existence of feudal land holders, gap between people became wide.
Means of production became the main element to create classes.
Marx says that human history is full of class struggle and production is the main factor to create classes.
Period of alienation begins because of powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, isolation, self estrangement and process of economic exploitation.
The concept involves a view of human relationship, not based on principle of equality but of one man being superior than another, of one man being a master and another being a slave and one man being an exploiter and another being exploited.

History of Democracy in Nepal

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

1768 – Nepal is unified by Prithivi Narayan Shah.
1846 – Jung Bahadur Rana, started the Rana regime overshadows the Shah dynasty for 104 years
1946- Nepali Congress Founded
1948- The country’s first constitution, the Government of Nepal Act, is promulgated; Prime Minister Padma Shamsher Rana resigns in the wake of opposition to the new constitution from conservative Ranas; Mohan Shamsher becomes prime minister; constitution is suspended.
1949- Communist Party of Nepal Founded
1951 – February 1951 sees the advent of democracy in Nepal; the Interim Government Act of 1951 is promulgated; a promise is made that an election of the Constituent Assembly will be held, but the election never happens.
1959 – The Nepali Congress wins the general elections and forms the government with a two thirds majority. But the government lasts for only one and a half years, as it is dismissed by the king.
1960 – King Mahendra arrests representatives of the elected government.
1962-The king introduces a new Constitution and the Panchayat system in 1962,
1979-80- the public unrest of, led mainly by students, forces the king to announce a referendum. the Panchayat system got 55 per cent of votes, against the 45 per cent for a multiparty system.
1990 – A mass movement, called jointly by the NC and the ULF, forces the king to lift the ban on political parties Nepal History of Democracy
1991- The general election brings the NC to power, with a majority of seats in the parliament. However, the government calls mid-term polls due to divisions within the ruling party.
1994 – The mid-term polls produce a hung parliament. The UML, as the largest party in the parliament, forms a minority government, but the government cannot be sustained for long.
1996 – The CPN-Maoist launches the People’s War.
There were two unsuccessful negotiations between the government and the CPN-Maoist in 2001 and 2003.
The country is kept under a state of emergency.
1999 – The NC comes back to power with a majority government after the third parliamentary elections.
2002 – King Gyanendra—who ascended the throne after the royal massacre of June 2001—dismisses the Deuba government in October 2002 and nominates all successive governments.
2005- Through a proclamation in February 2005, King Gyanendra usurps absolute power and takes up the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers.
2006 April – An alliance of the SPA and the CPN-Maoist initiates a mass movement, Jana Andolan II, against the king’s rule, on the basis of a 12-point understanding reached in November 2005.
2006 May- The reinstated parliament issues a political declaration
2006 November – The signing of the CPA between the government and the CPN-Maoist.
2007 January- An interim Parliament, which includes the representatives of the CPN Maoist, is formed, and the Interim Constitution is promulgated.
Protesting against the Interim Constitution, the Madheshi movement flares up. 27 Maoists are killed in Gaur by MJF supporters.
2007 March- The interim legislature amends the Interim Constitution;
2007 April The CPN-Maoist joins the interim government.
2007 June The interim legislature amends the Interim Constitution again; the amendments empower the parliament to abolish the monarchy and to remove the prime minister on the strength of two-thirds of the votes in the House.
2007 October- Parliament passes resolutions for the declaration of Nepal as a republic and for the adoption of an all-out PR system for the CA election
2007 December- Amends the Interim Constitution, and Nepal is declared as a republic state, but subject to the ratification by the first meeting of the CA.
10 April 2008 – First CA election; UCPN (M)-220, NC-110, UML-103
27 May 2012- CA Dissolute and 22 November CA election date
19 Feb. 2013- Khila Raj Regmi lead election cabinet.
19 Nov.2013- Second CA Election, Nepali Congress (196), UML- 175 , UCPN (M)- 80.