TyroCity: Political Theory Notes

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.

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.

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.

Decentralisation

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

“Decentralisation is usually referred tas the transfer of powers from central government tlower levels in a political-administrative and territorial hierarchy . This official power transfer can take twmain forms. Administrative decentralisation, alsknown as deconcentration, refers ta transfer tlower-level central government authorities, or tother local authorities whare upwardly accountable tthe central government (Ribot 2002). In contrast, political, or democratic, decentralisation refers tthe transfer of authority trepresentative and downwardly accountable actors, such as elected local governments” (Larson).

“The term decentralisation is used tcover a broad range of transfers of the “locus of decision making” from central governments tregional, municipal or local governments” (Sayer et al.).
Decentralization reform refers t“transforming the local institutional infrastructure for natural resource management on which local forest management is based” (Ribot).
“Decentralization is “the means tallow for the participation of people and local governments” (Morell).
Decentralization is transferring the power from the federal tregional level or delivering management functions tother authorities. Decentralization in decision making including in forest management: user-defined functions being transferred tothe private sector, and arrangements for the Forest Fund are transferred tthe regions/administrative units of the Federation, which are badly prepared timplement these rights (Malysheva).
“Definitions of the different types of decentralization vary and the same terms are sometimes used in inconsistent ways in the literature on the subject”.

The paper by Gregersen, Contreras-Hermosilla, White and Phillips adopts the following definitions:

“Political decentralization: Groups at different levels of government–central, mesand local–are empowered tmake decisions related twhat affects them.
Administrative decentralization: Different levels of government administer resources and matters that have been delegated tthem, generally through a constitution. In terms of decentralization as a process of change, and according tthe level of transfer of responsibilities, it is useful tdistinguish between deconcentration, delegation and devolution.
Fiscal decentralization. In this case, previously concentrated powers ttax and generate revenues are dispersed tother levels of government, e.g., local governments are given the power traise and retain financial resources tfulfill their responsibilities.
Market decentralization: Government privatizes or deregulates private functions, such as occurred in the case of New Zealand forest sector”. (World Bank 2000 in Gregersen et al.) http://www.worldbank.org/publicsector/decentralization/admindecen.htm
“In Bolivia, decentralization of forest management was strongly linked ttwongoing processes initiated in the mid-1990s. The first sought tinstitutionalize social participation as part of a broader process of institutional reform of municipalities, and the second was aimed at reforming the forest regulations dating from the mid-1970s. Both have been interlinked through promoting a larger involvement of municipal governments in a wide range of forestry-related issues since the second half of the 1990s” (Pacheco).
“Decentralization of forest management in Guatemala has taken the form of “municipalization”, or deconcentration, as a highly centralized forest regulatory system has been delegated tmunicipalities” (Elias and Wittman).
Decentralization is transforming the local institutional infrastructure on which local forest management is based. Three basic elements of decentralization are accountability, discretionary power, and security (Ribot).
“Decentralization in Zimbabwe’s forest sector has been varied depending on the tenurial status of the land on which the woodlands are found. In protected forest zones, collaborative resource management regimes have only recently been introduced. Collaborative resource management is a variant of decentralization in which communities residing at the margin of state forests can access a limited set of products from the forests” (Hlambela and Kozanayi).
“Decentralization means thand over political, financial and administrative authority from central local (district/city) governments, that the government can facilitate and guarantee better public services for the people. Decentralization of the forestry sector should, however, be viewed as a positive development bring public services closer the people through managing forest resources in a sustainable manner for the community’s welfare” (Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia). As mentioned above, there are various types of decentralization such as deconcentrating, devolution and delegation.

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.

Bureaucracy

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

Kautilya had organized a huge and intricate network of bureaucracy to manage the Mauryan empire. This also reflected the centralized character of the state. Bureaucracy had thirty divisions each headed by Adhyakshas (Chiefs). Reporting relationships were clearly specified. Kautilya had visualized the necessity of state provision of public goods which strengthened trade and commerce. The bureaucracy was involved in the provision of three of such goods – the ‘quality control machinery’, the system of currency, and the system of ‘weights and measures’. Quality control was a revolutionary concept for that era. This suggests that Mauryan empire had an active trading sector and the buyers (domestic and exports) were discerning. As a mark of quality, merchandise had to be marked with the Abhigyan Mudra (state stamp) in sindura (vermillion). Counterfeiting was strictly punished . Bureaucrats received a fixed pay and were also eligible for state subsidized housing. This is an example of Kautilya’s deep understanding of statecraft as even in later centuries (in other empires), officials were expected to compensate themselves by retaining a part of revenue extracted from the people (a kind of ad-valorem compensation). The ad-valorem arrangement provided an incentive for the official to squeeze the tax payer as much as possible (a short term on the part of the bureaucrat) as the bureaucratic tenure was not hereditary. Kautilya, given his experience as a Chief Minister, probably realized the peril of such an (ad valorem) arrangement and created a fixed pay compensation structure for the bureaucracy.36 Huge bureaucracy invariably result in a principal-agent problem. Kautilya sought to tackle this issue through three means – elaborately monitored standard operating procedures (SOPs), spies/intelligence organization, and decentralization of authority. SOPs minimized the room for subjective interpretation of the rules by the bureaucrats. The superiors carefully monitored the performance of the officials under their control.37 However this system of close monitoring must have resulted in enormous transaction costs. It was therefore supplemented by the intelligence organization which kept a watch on the corrupt practices of the officials. The exploits of the spies in catching corrupt officials were given wide publicity and this made the officials careful in their dealings with the citizens. Another measure to keep a check on the bureaucracy was decentralized-polycentric political arrangements which resulted in empowering of the local guilds. Thus the bureaucrats had to reckon with an effective local power center who were aware of the royal edicts and prevented the bureaucrat from substituting his/her objective function for the royal edict. It is interesting that Kautilya did not take recourse to ideology to discipline the bureaucracy. Probably he realized that if a bureaucrat is violating the SOPs he/she is already going against his dharma.

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.

Plato’s Concept of Justice

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

The Greek word for justice is ‘Diakusune’ which has a wider implication than the English word justice and comes very near to the English word morality.
It represents to do the right thing.
Amateurish meddlesomeness (indicating sophists), factious (unnatural or artificial) spirit and political selfishness which characterized the contemporary Athens.
This led Plato to formulate the concept of justice based on self-less devotion to the State on the lines of functional specialization.
The division of society into three classes and the confinement of each class to its own specialized function was calculated as Plato to remove the causes of political struggle and to lead to real unity and harmony in the state.
Plato reviews a number of traditional and other theories of justice representing successive stages in the growth of nations about morality and justice.

1. Conventional Idea or Traditional Theory of Justice

For old Cephalus, justice and morality meant being true in word and deed, paying ones debts in time and to be honest towards God.
His Son Polemarchus slightly modified this definition by saying that justice consists in giving each person his due (needs) and what is proper to him.
According to Polemarchus, Justice is doing goods to friends and evil to enemies.
For old Cephalus, justice and morality meant being true in word and deed, paying ones debts in time and to be honest towards God.
His Son Polemarchus slightly modified this definition by saying that justice consists in giving each person his due (needs) and what is proper to him.
According to Polemarchus, Justice is doing goods to friends and evil to enemies.
Virtue makes a man good. Plato analyzed virtue in the constituent elements of wisdom, courage and common desires.
Justice is ‘architectonic in relation to other’s excellence and is necessary for their perfection.
Justice is thus not purely a personal virtue but has a social side too.
It is a bond of societies and states, holding men together in healthy social relationships by making them good and perfect for social order.

2. Radical Theory of Justice

Thrasymachus, a sophist, gave the radical theory of justice.
He represented the new and critical views about the nature of justice and morality.
He did not believe in traditional view of justice.
According to him, “In all states, there is same principle of justice which is the interest f the government.
The government must be supposed to have power.
The only reasonable conclusion is that everywhere there is one principle of justice, which is the interest of the stronger’.
From Tharsymachus’ points of view, it can be concluded that:
- Justice means just for one man i.e. the ruler must be just for all;
- Justice is the decision of the stronger;
- Those who breaks laws should be severely punished.
Thus justice is obeying powerful authority according to Thrasymachus.
To this view of Thrasymacus, Plato replies that justice is always better than injustice and a decision of powerful ruler cannot be categorized as justice.
So justice is not the interest of the stronger.
The governors are just the shepherds to protect their sheep and exist for the good of the governed.
Justice produces social harmony by developing socially expedient behavior.
Stronger one could be dictator without reason, i.e., injustice.

3. Pragmatist Theory of Justice (Executive Theory/Pragmatic Theory)

Glaucon and Adiemantus, as pragmatist say that
- The state is born of a compact based on mutual fear and not on universal moral principles.
- The state is a conventional and not natural organization so morality is only a second best thing.
- Justice should be created for man’s comforts, a product of convention and custom.
- Justice is an artificial thing, it is external and is executed.
- So justice is a necessity of weaker not the interest of the stronger as radicals say.
But Plato here also denies that justice is conventional and therefore something external.
According to him, justice depends upon neither conventional nor external force, it is the right condition of human soul and is something internal, depending on human virtue.
It exists both in the state-hence his portrayal of the ideal state and in the individual too.
Having reviewed and dismissed other theories of justice, Plato sets himself through person of Socrates, the task of discovering in his famous book ‘The Republic’.
Justice is the harmonious balancing and operation of life among the three classes in the state.
Plato’s justice means “the will to concentrate on ones own sphere of duty and not to interfere sphere of others.
To Plato, justice is an indispensable quality of moral life in the community.
Plato’s polity is a moral organism and his theory of justice is a theory of ethical code.
Man should get offices according to their ability and to their devotion to their duties to the state.
Ability included moral and intellectual thrust.

The whole conception of justice of Plato is based on the following elements:

Recognition of 3 elements in an individual and the division of society into three classes.
Those three classes representing three elements of reason, spirit and appetite. These three elements are guide to action and bond of union in the state.
Well-regulated scheme of education and training to individuals for their true vocation in life.
Organization of the state on the basis of functional specialization. One man one work creates concentration which strengthens individual efficiency and enriches the life of community.
Freedom of philosopher rulers from labor and private worries and entanglements by as system of communism of property and wives.
The rule of unselfish intellect, it banishes ignorance from politics and leads to political unselfishness.
Emancipation of women enabling them to take their proper place in public life due to the communism of wives.
Plato’s justice is a conception of service and devotion to the state of the individual and not his rights and powers.
An individual exists for and in the sate and has not meaning apart from the state. ‘Man versus the state is incompatible with Plato’s concept of justice.
Plato’s concept of justice conceives of universal and not particular or legalistic justice. It rises above the ‘keen narrow, little and particular legal mind’ which limits the moral life of man to mere conformity to the law of the state.
It refers to the whole duty of ma not merely his legal duties.
Plato’s justice lies in the sphere of morality rather than of law. His concept of justice was of Greek (Metaphysical) rather than Roman (Legal).
To Plato, the essence of social ethics and of justice lies in the concept of “my stations and my duties.”

Comments

In the modern context, Plato’s concept of justice sounds very novel for what it omits and what it includes. It is, in no sense, a juristic or legal definition of justice. Self-control and devotion in the interest of the state is the base of Plato’s justice which lacks the individuals’ rights and the maintenance of these rights through law courts. Justice for him is a social virtue, theory of manners, goodness and moral principles having no sanctions behind them. So it envisages a dull uniformity and harmony in social life.

Professor Popper, Prof. Joad and Crossman comment his concept of justice

Plato’s version of ‘one man, one work’ militates against the full development of human personality and deprives the community of a full and rich variety of life.
Plato’s justice is static and passive.
It is too subjective and does not issue in an objective law for the guidance of people.
Plato’s theory is totalitarian, it leads to the complete subordination of individual to the state.
No equal treatment of the citizens before the law.
No mention about impartiality of the courts of justice, etc.
Plato’s emphasis on justice in all his books is itself a contribution.
Plato too realized his excessive idealism later on and in “The Politicus” and “The Laws,” he gave all citizens a share in political powers in the name of justice.
It is true that Plato’s concept of justice postulates an individual who does not stand isolated but is an active and integral part of a social order.

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).

Taxation

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

Kautilya visualized a ‘dharmic social contract’ between the King and the citizens. Taxes were levied for maintenance of the social order and for the state run welfare apparatus. In case of aggression by an outside agency, the janapads (districts) could ask for tax remission as the King had failed in his duty to protect the citizens . Kautilya realized the critical role of the tax system for ensuring the economic wellbeing of the society. The hallmark of his tax system was ‘certainty’ – of time, of rate and of the mode of payment . Stability in the tax regime was an important factor in ensuring active trade and commerce in the Mauryan empire. This in turn strengthened the revenue base of the state and enabled it to maintain a huge standing army and the welfare apparatus.

State was overzealous in collection of taxes and tapped virtually every source. Citizens paid a toll-tax. Farmers (household as the unit of assessment) had to pay one sixth of the produce as the land tax. There was a land census at periodic intervals and land records were scrupulously maintained. This data base enabled the assessment of the taxable capacity of the household. Traders had to pay one tenth the value of the merchandize as tax. There was an entry tax to enter the fort, tax on use of roads and waterways, and for getting a passport. Even the hermits living in the forest had to part with one sixth of the grain gleaned by them as they too needed the protection of the King. Service industry was also taxed – actors, dancers, soothsayers, prostitutes, and auctioneers were subjected to taxation. Pilgrims had to pay a Yatra Vetna (pilgrimage tax). Citizens had to pay a tax (Pranaya Kriya) for the acts of benevolence.

Marx’s View on State

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

The state is not a ‘natural’ but man-made institution. It is an expression of human alienation, an instrument of a particular class, it exists for the benefit of only a section of the society, i.e., haves class.
State is the product and development of class polarization and instrument of class rule.
The basis of the state is force. Marx said that ‘the state is a parasite feeding upon, and clogging free movement of society.
The state forms a part of the superstructure that rises upon the productive forces. The form of government undergoes a change whenever these is change in the mode of production. The specific economic form ‘determines’ the relations of rulers and ruled. Legal relations also had their roots in the material conditions of life.
The law of the state, i.e., the bourgeois state is ‘subtle and poisoned instrument’ which defends the interests of the exploiters.
The laws had to formulated by class enemies in the interest of the wealthy and haves class. Labor classes who possess nothing can only be bound by the law as long as they are too weak to change them. State is a machine to crush and repress the labors class.
Thus the purpose of the state, according to Karl Marx, is the protection of private property and its function is the oppression of the non-possessing by possessed class.
Whatever may be the form of the state whether democratic, republic or monarchy, political power is merely the organized power of one class oppressing another.
State serves the interest of the haves and dominant class, and it is the executive committee of bourgeois.
State ownership lies on bourgeois so state itself is bourgeois’ state, a deception, it facilitates the exploitation of proletariat class by the bourgeois.
State’s function is thus repressive.
State is responsible to wide the gap between two classes, so it shows the need of class struggle which could ultimately bring the stage of the abolition of the state in the following way:(a)The overthrow of the bourgeois’s state by revolution(b)The establishment of the dictatorship of proletariat class.
(c)Ultimately there would be withering away of the state as a result of class struggle.
No need of state according to Karl Marx, Bukharian supports this and said that “State is a league of robbers and a union of master class.”
Classless and stateless society comes into being which is created by the production forces.

Political Theory and Thoughts

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

Concept of Welfare State

Theory of Sovereignty

Political Party

State

Election/franchise/suffrage

Concept of Good Governance in Modern Regime

Relations of political science with other social sciences

Introduction to Political Science

Plato

Plato’s Concept of Justice

Aristotle

Cicero

Machiavelli

John Locke

John Locke

John Stuart Mill

Jean Jacques Rousseau

Manu

Rajdharma

Kautilya

Karl Marx

Decentralization, deconcentration and devolution

Democracy