TyroCity: Political Theory Notes

Civil Society in Democracy

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

The ideal type of a society characterized by a set of sociopolitical institutions such as the rule of law, limited and accountable public authority, economic markets, social pluralism and a public sphere
Set of diverse non-governmental institutions, which is strong enough to counterbalance the state, and, whilst not preventing the state from fulfilling its role of keeper of the peace and arbitrator between major interests, can nevertheless prevent the state from dominating and atomizing the rest of society
A cluster of institutions and associations strong enough to prevent tyranny, but which are, nevertheless, entered freely rather than imposed either by birth or by awesome ritual.
Expressing both individualism and collectivism
Private and Public spheres
Market Economy and Governance
Promote collective identities, and promote greater harmony in society
Expressing both individualism and collectivism
Private and Public spheres
Market Economy and Governance
Promote collective identities, and promote greater harmony in society
A crucial vehicle for democratic practices
The bourgeois public sphere – Over-romantic, failing to recognize the gendered nature of the bourgeois public sphere, for ignoring non bourgeois forms of the public sphere and for underestimating the continuation of the public sphere, in various forms.
Critical- Complimentary- Seeking Public Accountability- Watch Dog- Not planned or in government
Vehicle for informed participation of people
Criticism- Anarchist, Separatist, Anti-nationals, Anti-Government, Western Agent, Prevent Transformation-Revolution.

The Nature of State

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

Definition of State

The fundamental law of the land governs the STATE with the people abiding by the political power and authority of the elected public officials to represent the government with control of a definite portion of territory with a sovereign right to represent the international community.

The political existence of the state is usually defined on its concepts of integrity and independence, conservation and prosperity, legislation and judiciary, the right to organize and to provide general services according to the standards of international law.

Primarily, the state has political independence to work on the internal and external diplomacy with the international community. It must always have independence from the administration on the governmental affairs of the state. These are the following considerations as to the operation of governmental independence :

1.The bilateral and multi- lateral agreement on political, economic and social development with the international community;

The implementation of economic packages in the exploitation of natural resources including the responsive investment program based on the state initiative on the political and economic system.
The organization of political parties based on the development advocacy on certain political ideology that is fitted to the dominant party;
The governmental administration in the implementation of the development thrust for poverty alleviation, job generation, social and economic and equity mechanisms.
The justice administration of the state including the formulation of the legislative system. These are the Rights and Duties of the State in Consideration with International law:

These are the rights and duties of the state that must be considered in the international law.

The existence of the state has the same rights with the other state in the international community. It does not look into the economic and military perspectives whether the state has international power to have more sovereign rights with other state. In the international law, all states have equal international sovereign rights.
The existence of state has all the rights and privileges conferred by the United Nations and in the International community. Once the state exists the juridical capacity of equal rights and privileges is already within the sovereign structure of the international community..
The State has its political recognition and fundamental sovereign rights that is unconditional and irrevocable. The State has the sovereign independence and political ideologies that may be in conflict with the powerful states. The international action to revoke with specific conditions to operate against the political independence is a clear violation as to it s existence as a state. It is in this reason the international diplomacy works on this unconditional and irrevocable sovereign rights.
The existence of the state has the sovereign right to manage the internal and external affairs. The state through its government may imposed any kind of political and economic ideologies that collectively believe to work for the common welfare in the society. In the international law, this has been the state issues being raised as to the implementation of political and economic programs that jeopardized the human rights and privileges of the subject. It is always use this argument to depend its sovereign rights to control the internal and external affairs even in the midst of political revolution of country.
The state applies the same protection of law to all nationals and foreigners. The State has its political jurisdiction of the national territory. The political power of the state to execute, enact and interpret the laws of the land has the same application to the nationals and foreigners.
The state has its right to protect the territory and conserve the diplomatic initiative to work on amity and comity. The state existence in the international community provides the diplomatic support for amity and comity. The existence of state embassy provides the sovereign support on the different national interest such as economic trade, socio-cultural exchange programs, political support of ideologies and the general friendly relations with the other state.

The definition of the state provides all these sovereign mechanisms to politically exist with the different states in compliance with the international law. It has been important to understand the extensive definition of the state on areas about independence and diplomacy to work well in the international community.

Origin of State
These are the theories on the origin of state as have been formed and developed as a result of the political thought and philosophy in the ancient time until the enlightenment period in Europe.

1. Natural Theory. The social urge of the human being to be within a group of people in the community as in sociology describes “man is a social being.” The social group provides the political development to stay and work together with common standard law in the community later on transform as a state.
2. Patriarchal Theory. The origin of the state evolves from the enlargement of family under the authority of the parents or the elders. Later on, it will develop into a tribe, kingdom then state.
3. Force Theory. The creation of the state through the constant war and invasion of the great warriors in the ancient time dominated the weak that later on formed a state.
4. Divine Right Theory. The rulers of the past advocated the political dominance of authority and power through their own ordained mandate that they represented the state as on the basis of the divine right ( as God created the state). It was in this nature that the divine rights of kings has the absolute power and influence over the subjects.
5. Social Contract Theory. This is the right of the people to have the deliberate and voluntary contract on the right to overthrow the kings and rulers against corrupt governance to organize a new government with common interest for all the people.

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.

Rajdharma

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Modern or New Political Science

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

Development after WWI and esp. in 1920s and 1930s. New explanation and perspectives.

Active after est. APSA and American Political Scientists at Chicago, Michigan, Princeton, Yale, etc. Then Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie Foundations etc

Departure from traditional PS, change in definition, scientific and pragmatic approach, fact laden, research oriented, logical, predictable.

Study of power not only state and government.

Laswell – Renaissance or recovery of Classical PS

Empirical approach adopted as used in Aristotle era.

State of power, its origin, development, activities, effect and interactions – Laswell, Kaplan etc

Refined, autonomous and neutral from political subject matter. Value-neutral. Study of process between the state and society – Powell, Bentley etc

1950-60 behaviouralism applied – Charles Merriam, David Easton, Powell, Almond, Laswell, Dahl, etc

8 principles of intellectual movement

intellectual uniformity,
verification of facts,
scientific method,
quantification,
value-free perspectives,
chronological development of knowledge,
use of natural sciences and interdisciplinary

Three aspects:

Political Activity – study, appraisal and explanation of actions, interactions and reactions of political activities, political sociology – state-society relations
Political Process – political analysis of state-society actors, Easton’s political method, system analysis and structural functionalism
Political Power – emphasis on power – 3 dimensions – political, economic & ideological – attributes of national power

Since 1960s another revolution in PS – post-behaviouralism.

APSA President David Easton declared new development in PS in 1969.

Forgo novice behaviouralism and added new relevancy to meet the contemporary situation e.g. human ideals, coordination of result and quality, respect to traditional norms and values, third world realities, peace, feminism, etc

New PS emphasized on scientism and factography and sidelined eternal norms and values; no recognition to law and ethics; critics declared it as unpolitical and untheoretical. Renaissance of traditional political ideals and values.

Law of unity of opposites

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

Both (exploiter and exploited) were in same purpose, that is production and uniting factor was work but they are totally opposite and alienate. It was not the result of man’s failure to realize himself or the outcome of religious superstitions but it has to do with man’s work and need for livelihood which brought further polarization and ultimately total division of labor.
As a result of division, man has on the one hand lost control of process of work and on the other lost control over product of his labor. This has led to dehumanization and depersonalization.
Man thus became ‘means’ for other ‘ends’.
The product dominates over the producer and machine over the machine maker.
A worker cannot buy what he produces and those who can afford possession of products do not work, they are idlers. It creates further struggle and gap.
Economic inequality due to the monopoly of surplus value.
Widening gap between two classes, haves and haves-not created.
Unlimited exploitation-no change in ones exploitation to others.
Maximum and compulsory toleration for existence (by labors).
Beginning of labor socialization, mobilization and organization due to the huge quantity of labor.

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.

Characteristics of Sovereignty

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

Sovereignty has the following characteristics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction to Concept of Good Governance in Modern Regime

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

The concept of good governance is modern device for better functioning of democracy. Democracy cannot function properly in absence of good governance. Democracy without good governance is like democracy of Plato who defines democracy as “rule of crowd.” The scheme of good governance helps to make democratic government stable, consolidated and positive.

According to Michel Camdessus (Former Managing Director of IMF), good governance is confined to “surveillance over macro-economic policies, transparency of government accounts, effectiveness of public resource management and the stability and transparency of economic and regulatory environment for private sector activity.”

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.