TyroCity: Political Theory Notes

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.

Relation between Political science and Sociology

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

Sociology is parent science of all social sciences so sociology is the fundamental social science. Political science is subdivision of sociology—former originated after the origin of organized society and sociology originated even in the era of unorganized society—even in pre-social life.

Political science has widened its scope to a good understanding of both the nature of society and the behavior of the individual which is merely a subject of sociology.

According to Prof. Giddings, “to teach the theory of the state to men who had not learned the first principles of sociology is like teaching astronomy or thermodynamics to men who have not learnt the Newtonian laws of motion.”

Revolution and social upheavals occur in society which affect political system, but to solve such social problems, government actions are to be regulated.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Characteristics of Sovereignty

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

Sovereignty has the following characteristics:

1. Permanence: Governments may come and go, but the state remains for ever. As the state is permanent, so is its sovereignty. So long as the State lasts, sovereignty also lasts. The State and sovereignty cannot be separated from each other. Sovereignty continues or remains uninterrupted by changes in government in a State. When there is change of government or ruler, sovereignty shifts to the new government or ruler. But sovereignty as an attribute of the State continues. It is in this sense that sovereignty is claimed to be permanent.

2. Exclusiveness: Another characteristic of sovereignty is exclusiveness. It means that the State alone possesses supreme power and is legally competent to compel the obedience of its citizens. In other words, there cannot be more than one sovereign in a state claiming the legal obedience of the people. Acceptance of more than one supreme and ultimate power would affect the essential unity of the State.

3. All-Comprehensivenes: The all-comprehensive and universal character of sovereignty denotes that within a State, the authority of the sovereign must extend to all persons, associations and groups existing within the territory of the State. Hence, the commands of the sovereign are binding on all persons and groups. No one can be exempted or free from the all-embracing authority of the State. However, foreign diplomats and ambassadors enjoy immunity from the control of the State in which they reside. They are subject to the laws of their own states. But these extra-territorial privileges enjoyed by the diplomatic community under the provisions of international law is not a real limitation on the State’s sovereign power; for it is, after all, a matter of international courtesy and the sovereign may at any time withdraw the privileges granted to those who enjoy them.

4. Inalienability: Sovereignty is also inalienable. It cannot be transferred or parted with, without destroying sovereignty itself. In other words, no sovereign can claim to be sovereign after transferring its supreme powers to another person. However, the abdication of a monarch or sovereign or a change of government does not mean the alienation of sovereignty – in this case, sovereignty only shifts to a new bearer. When a state cedes a portion of its territory, it loses its sovereignty over the area ceded. For example, when the United States and its allies occupied Iraq , sovereignty shifted to them, but later sovereignty was transferred to the Iraqis soon after the elections.

5. Indivisibility: Sovereignty cannot be divided. The reason is that if sovereignty is divided, more than one state would exist. Sovereignty is an entire thing- to divide it is to destroy it. It is the supreme power in a state and we cannot think of two or more states sharing sovereignty. In a Federal state, there is no division of sovereignty as sovereignty rests with the Federal government. The division, distribution, delegation or sharing of powers between the Central government and the state governments do not affect the idea of undivided sovereignty. However, this characteristic has its own limitations. There are federations where sovereignty gets divided between the centre and the states. Different parties might be ruling at the same time in the states and the centre with different and some times opposite wills. As Lowell observes, “There can exist within the same territory two sovereigns issuing commands to same subjects touching different matters”. According to pluralists, sovereignty is divided between the state and other associations. According to them the state is not at all absolute and cannot represent the will of the community in all aspects of life.

6. Absoluteness: Sovereignty is absolute and unlimited. This means that neither within the state nor outside it is there any power which is superior to the sovereign. Within the state, the sovereign can make any law it pleases. It can even change the constitution itself. No other authority within the state has this power. Externally, the state is not subject to the control or domination of another state. In other words, there is no authority outside the state to which a sovereign is obedient or dependent. The state can enter into any treaty or have relations with any other state it wishes.

However this characteristic of sovereignty has been criticized from various view-points.

Customs, religion and principles of morality are a limitation upon state. No sovereign dare challenge these. Neither he can create nor destroy them.
In modern states, constitutions are written. They determine the powers and duties of state. Citizens are given fundamental rights, which become a limitation on the state and its sovereignty.
No state or sovereign possess powers without duties. This theory speaks of powers of the sovereign but not of his duties. State has a purpose, whatever it be and to the extent of that purpose, the state and its sovereignty is limited.
Externally, a state is equal to other states. This equality of states is a limitation on one another. International law imposes duties on states which they must perform. If they violate it, they are guilty of its breach.
Even the physical capacity of a state is its limitation. It is pointed out that legally too sovereignty is not absolute. State cannot make a law irrespective of its content and acceptability of it by the people. Laws are made not because the sovereign has power

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.

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.

Aristotle’s Conception about State

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

Origin of State

Aristotle believes that man is, by nature, a political animal. So state is also a natural product based on evolutionary theory and developed form of natural associations like households and villages.
He traces the origin of state to the innate desire of an individual to satisfy his/her economic needs and racial instincts.
The state is a culmination of widening circles of human associations based on human wants. It is not merely an economic association but also a moral community.
It renders possible good life.

Nature of the State

To Aristotle, “the state is a ‘political koimonia’ means association, fellowship, partnership or community and the state is the highest association and association of associations.
Koimonia implied not mere being together but living together for something higher than mere existence.
The state is not a Koimonia for war or trade. It is not a mere insurance against insecurity of life but it is a community of good life and prosperity.
Men live a social and political life not choice but because of their inherent natures. Their needs and desires and weaknesses and strengths make them do so.
The state is natural not only because it evolves from other associations but because in it alone can these associations and even individual find true complete development and perfection.
The state is natural because it is his destiny and his destination.
It enlarges the self sufficiency of the individual so is indispensable to him and therefore natural and inevitable to him.
It is like a nest that fosters not like a cage that cramps and thwarts.
The naturalness of the state is evident from the fact that ‘he who exists outside the state, by nature, is either a beast or God’.
In Aristotle’s word, “Man is a political animal destined by nature for state life, i.e., political life.

Purpose or end and functions of the state

Aristotle believed that man was essentially good and the functions of the state were to develop his good faculty into a habit of good action.
The function and the end of the state is positive and not negative as a punishing agency only.
The state is to ensure a perfect and self sufficing life, so its end is good life.
The state must provide opportunity to the individual for the attainment of intellectual, moral and physical excellence.
It is not only for the prevention of mutual crimes and insecurity but for the sake of a good, noble and perfect life.
Its aim is to provide the citizens ‘life of leisure’ and arrangement of education.
So state came into being for the sake of life and continues for the sake of good life, according to Aristotle.

Organic nature of state

Aristotle draws a pretty close analogy between human organism and the state.
As human organism has its integral parts like hands and feet, etc., and contributory parts like blood and bones, etc., in the state too, there are integral organs like military, judicial and deliberative classes representing the body of citizens and contributory organs like cultivators, artisans, labors and traders were non-citizens.
All organs both in individual and in the state should be sound and active.

Cicero’s Concept of Law of Nature

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

To Cicero, there are two kinds of laws in the state. They are:

Law of nature
The legal enactments of law of the state

Attributes of Law of Nature

Natural law is a single law governing the whole universe.
It is indivisible and ancient.
It is right reason, eternal, immutable (no changeable) and it is the source of state itself.
It is self-imposed and spread among all itself.
Natural law is the law of moral as well as the law of God.
Natural law is not changeable.
There is consistency in natural law, no gap, no deadlock remains forever.
Equal treatment before the eyes of God and common justice, i.e., natural law.
His concept of law of nature is based on the doctrine of the natural equality of man.
Men are not equal in learning, wealth and physical vigor but equal in the possession of reason in their nature as human beings.
Inequality is man mad and not natural.

Three ideas stand out in the political theory of Cicero

1.The authority of the state proceeds from the people.
2.It should be exercised in accordance with law.
3.The exercise of the state authority is justified only on moral grounds.

Cicero gives emphasis on world unity, universal law, moral law and law of God which remained as a dominant factor over the whole medieval period.

Political science and ethics (based on conduct and morality)

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

Political science is the science of political order and ethics is the science of moral order—one is incomplete without other. Plato considers politics as subdivision of ethics, the state to him should train men in a life of virtue.

According to Aristotle, political questions should be solved by man’s highest moral judgment based on ethics.

Politics divorced from ethics rests on a foundation of shifting sand, it leads to commercialization and vulgarization of values and virtues.

According to Ivor Brown, “ethical theory is incomplete without political theory because man is an associated creature and cannot live in isolation.

Political theory is idle without ethical theory because its study and result depends fundamentally on the scheme of moral values, our conception of right and wrong.

Mahatma Gandhi’s version of spiritualization of politics, his application of moral principles are truth, love and non-violence and achievement of God.