Director : Professor Harsh Gandhar

Department Co-ordinator : Dr. Kamla

Course Leader : Dr. Kamla

Class : B.A. Sem.- I,

SUBJECT: POLITICAL SCIENCE
(i) Introductory Letter
(ii) Syllabus

CONTENTS

L.No. Title Author Page

UNIT -I
1 Political Science: Meaning, Definition Kanwar Deep Singh 1
and Scope
2 Relationship of Political Science with History Kanwar Deep Singh 19
and Economics

3 Relationship of Political Science with Sociology Dr.Emanual Nahar 29

UNIT -II
4 The State Shayama 34

5 Theories of the Origin of the State: Dr.Nirmal Singh 47

Social Contract Theory
6 Theories of the Origin of the State: Historical/ Dr.Kamla 65
Evolutionary Theory of the Origin of the State
UNIT- III
7 State: Liberal View Dr.Nirmal Singh 71

8 State: Marxian View Dr.Nirmal Singh 82

9 State: Gandhian View Dr.Kamla 94

10 Welfare State: A Neo-Liberal Perspective Navneet Kaur 106

L.No. Title Author Page

UNIT- IV
11 Welfare State: A Socialist Perspective Navneet Kaur 118
12 Sovereignty: Definition, Attributes and Types Prof. Surinder K. Shukla/ 127
Dr.Emanual Nahar
13 Sovereignty: Monoistic and Pluralist Prof. Surinder K. Shukla/ 138
Dr.Emanual Nahar
14 Political System: Meaning and Characteristics Suman Gupta 144
15 Political System: Almond and Powell’s Suman Gupta 156
Structural Functional Analysis

Vetter :Dr. Kamla

E-Mail of Department - [email protected]

Contact No. Of Department - 0172-2534332
 (i)

INTRODUCTORY LETTER

Dear Learner,
We welcome you on joining the Ist Semester of B.A. in CDOE. We
congratulate you on opting political science as an elective paper.This paper will
open new avenues for Employment. This will help you in clearing competitive
Exams like UPSC and will also provide you a solid base if you choose Journalism
and other profession like this.
In B.A. Ist, through this paper you will be able to understand the basic
concepts and theories of state like Gandhism, Liberalism and Marxism. Apart
from studying writer material, CDOE also organises Person Contact Programme
with the ‘objective’ of Personal Interaction of the students with the teachers to
solve these problems.
With Best Wishes

Dr.Kamla
Dptt. Of Political Science
CDOE
 (ii)

POLITICAL SCIENCE
B.A. (GENERAL) FIRST YEAR (SEMESTER SYSTEM) SYLLABUS
SEMESTER - I POLITICAL THEORY-I
Max. Marks: 100
Theory: 90 marks
Internal Assessment: 10 marks
Time: 3 hours
Objectives: The objective of this paper is to introduce first year undergraduate
students to some of the basic aspects, concepts and themes in the
discipline of PoliticalScience.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PAPER-SETTER AND THE CANDIDATES:
(a) There shall be 9 questions in all.
(b) In Question No. One, 15 short answer type questions be asked spreading
over whole syllabus to be answered in 10-20 words each. The students
shall have to attempt 9 short answer type questions i.e. 2 marks of each.
It shall carry 18 marks and shall be a compulsory question.
(c) Rest of the paper shall contain 4 Units. Each Unit shall have two
questions and the candidates shall be given internal choice. The
candidates shall attempt one question from each Unit i.e. 4 in all of 18
marks each.
(d) For private and reappear candidates, who have not been assessed earlier
for internal assessment, the marks secured by them in theory paper will
proportionately be increased to maximum marks of the paper in lieu of
internal assessment.
The paper-setter must put note (d) in the question paper.
Unit-I
1. Political Sciene: Meaning, Definition and Scope.
2. Relationship of Political Science with Economics, History and Sociology.
Unit-Il
1. The State: Definition, Elements and its Distinction from Government and Society.
2. (iii)Contract, Historical/Evolutionary.
Theories of the Origin of State: Social
Unit-III
1. State:Liberal, Marxian and Gandhian View.
2. Welfare State: Liberal and Socialist Prespective
 Unit-IV
1. Sovereignty: Definition, Attributes/Characteristics and Types.
2. Theories of Sovereignty: Monistic and Pluralistic.
3. Political System : a) Meaning, Characteristics.
Political System : b) Functions according to David Easton Almond & Powell.
Books Recommended :
1. J.C. Johri : Principles of Modern Political
Science,Sterling Publishers, New Delhi,
2009.
2. A.C. Kapoor : Principles of Political Science, S. Chand &
Company, New Delhi, 2009.
3. O.P. Gauba : An Introduction to Political
Theory,MacmillanIndiaLtd., New
Delhi,2009.
4. Andrew Heywood : Political Ideologies : An lntroduction,Third
Edition, Palgrave MacMillan, 2004.
5. RobertA. Dahl& Bruce S. : Modern Political Analysis,Sixth Edition,
FinebricKner Pearson Education, 2003.
6. Frank Bealey, Richard Chapman : Elements in Political
and Michael Sheehan Science,EdinburghUniversity Press,
Edinburgh, 1999.
7. Andrew Heywood : Political Theory:Anlntroduction,Macmillan
Press, London, 1999.
8. Aron I. Skoble&Fiber R. Maclian : Political Philosophy
(eds.) :EssentialSelections,Pearson Education,
1999.
9. Andrew Heywood : Politics, Macmillan, London, 1997.
10. M.P. Jain : Political Theory, Authors Guild Publication,
Delhi (Punjabi & Hindi) 1990.
11. S.P. Verma : Political Theory,Geetanjali Publishing
House, New Delhi, 1983.
 Lesson-1

POLITICAL SCIENCE: MEANING, DEFINITION AND

SCOPE

Structure:
1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Origin and Evolution of Political Science as an Independent Discipline
1.3 Important Definitions of Political Science
1.4 Meaning of Political Science: Traditional View
1.5 Meaning of Political Science: Modern View
1.6 Nature of Political Science
1.7 Scope of Political Science
1.8 Summary
1.9 Glossary
1.10 Further Readings
1.11 Model Questions
1.0 OBJECTIVES:
After reading this lesson, you will be able to :
 trace the origin and evolution of Political Science as an Independent
Subject
 understandthe meaning of Political Science according to Traditional and
Modern Views.
 explain the Nature of Political Science
 discuss the Scope of Political Science
1.1 INTRODUCTION
We all are acquainted with the term ‘Political Science’. Ever since man started
living an organized social life, Politics has come to play a very important role. As we all
know, Political Science is concerned with different political activities of human beings.
However, at different stages of history Political Science has connoted different meanings
and its scope is continuously widening. Though Political Science has been discussed by
different political thinkers since ancient time, the history of Political Science as an
academic discipline is not very old. Besides, Political Science is also linked with different
other disciplines.
 Political Science found its first systematic exposition in the writings of Greek
Philosophers. Plato (427-347 B.C.) and Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) were the two early
Greek Political philosophers who made far reaching and lasting contributions in the field
of Political Science. In his famous book the Republic, Plato justified moral significance of
the state, its organic unity, its educational functions and above all its supremacy over the
individuals. Aristotle is said to be the intellectual child of Plato and in his famous book
the Politics, he first developed a systematic study of Political Science as an independent
academic discipline.
The Greeks were the first people who developed Political Science in the pure
and systematic form. Sub-sequently, it spread over all other countries and its study has
assumed great importance in modern times. The term Politics was first used by Aristotle
and he called it “the master science”. The word Politics is derived from the Greek word
polis meaning a city. To the Greeks the city was the state and the subject that dealt with
the City-State and its problems was designated as politics.
1.2 ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AS AN
INDEPENDENT DISCIPLINE
The primary development of political science originated from the time of Plato.
Greek Philosopher who systematically analyzed the political system of the ancient state
of Greece. Plato and Aristotle were two political scientists in the ancient Greece who
continuously quest for the systematic analysis on the political system of the city-state.
Although, Aristotle was the Father of Political Science, the work of Plato on “The
Republic” gave him the recognition as the parent of political philosophy. The “Republic”
was the first systematic study of the political process that generated the ideal of elite
politicians who used more on rationality to govern the state.
On the other hand, Aristotle was the first political scientist who excelled in the
field of science, logic and politics. He was Greek philosopher who was also a student of
Plato and known to be the tutor of Alexander the Great. Aristotle made generalization
about the political consequences of the various constitutional processes. Aristotle is
regarded as the Father of Political Science, because of his far reaching and permanent
contributions in the field of political Science.His political advocacy was the establishment
of written rules of governance and made comprehensive analysis of the political culture
of the community. As result of the evolving principles and concepts of political science,
the original ideas of Plato and Aristotle on government and state had fully realized in the
systematic study of political organizations and institution in the contemporary time. The
political manifestation of the idea of Aristotle generated the fundamental study on the law
of the land through the formulation, enactment and application of constitution. As a
written law of the state, it provides information of the basic political structure, processes
and systems of governance.
Later, Christian religious thinkers like St. Augustine and St.Thomas Aquinas, also
dwelt upon the idea of an ideal state and sought to derive moral and ethical principles
regarding the same. Accordingly, in the classical (Greek) and Christian formulations,
Political Science was more in the realm of political philosophy focusing on the study of
state.
In the fifteenth century, Niccolo Machiavelli, the Italian political thinker, started
the tradition of studying existing and historical political institutions. It marked a departure
from the classical and Christian traditions of political philosophy. Efforts were made to
identify institutional arrangements that would maintain social order and political stability.
Accordingly, political thinkers subsequently tried to deal with the historical origins of
different political institutions and their structural frameworks.
In 15th century, Jean Bodin (1530-1596) finally coined the term “Political
Science” based on the organization of institution related to law. It must be noted that the
contemporary definition of political science entails in the application of law in the different
branches of government. However, a more complete definition of political science when
Montesquieu (1689-1755) describe it as the distribution of the different function among
separate organizations along legislation, execution and adjudication of law.
However, it must be mentioned here that the origin of Political Science as an
academic discipline is not very old. Many thinkers have contributed towards the growth
of Political Science as a discipline. In this context, the name of Francis Lieber, who was
a professor of History and Political Science at Columbia University, needs special
mention. His work ‘Civil Liberty and Self Government’ has made significant contribution
towards the growth of Political Science as an academic discipline. Another landmark in
the growth of Political Science was the establishment of a School of Political Science at
Columbia University at the initiative of John. W. Burgess in 1880. It was called the
Faculty of Political Science. In 1886 this school inaugurated the Political Science
Quarterly which was the first scholarly journal of Political Science as a discipline. It
heralded a new era in the growth of the discipline as it gave scholars a new platform to
express their views in writing.
The establishment of Johns Hopkins University in 1876 was another milestone in
the growth of Political Science. In this context, the establishment of Johns Hopkins
Historical and Political Science Association in 1877 and The Johns Hopkins Studies in
Historical and Political Science are worth mentioning. Accordingly, the above two
universities- Columbia and Johns Hopkins, contributed significantly towards the growth
of Political Science as an academic discipline. The studies and research carried out in
these universities also widened the scope of Political Science which was earlier confined
to the study of political institutions and historical origin. The subject subsequently began
to embrace various concepts like rights, justice, law, sovereignty while analyzing the
functioning of governments. The political thinkers also started discussing the merits and
demerits of various forms of governments, political institutions etc.
The establishment of the American Political Science Association in 1903
provided a boost towards the strengthening of Political Science as a discipline. It soon
became a leading organization for the study of political science and provided a platform
for different scholars, departments and institutions from the discipline of Political
Science. It also widened the scope of Political Science beyond the study of political
philosophy and institutions.
During the 1920s, Political Science made a paradigm shift in the form of the
positivist movement. It sought to make the study of Political Science scientific by
applying empirical and statistical methods. The Social Science Research Council was
chartered in 1923 to encourage scientific research in Economics, Sociology and Political
Science. The positivist movement culminated in the behavioural revolution of the 1950s.
The growth of behaviouralism can be regarded as the major landmark in the growth of
Political Science as a discipline. The behaviouralists put emphasis on making the study
of Political Science scientific. They were influenced by the developments and research in
different disciplines and they tried to make the study of Political Science inter-
disciplinary. In order to draw scientific conclusions the behaviouralism advocated the use
of statistical methods and tools in the study of Political Science. Thus, with the
emergence of behaviouralism the character of Political Science had changed to a large
extent. Behaviouralism shifted the focus of Political Science from the study of political
institutions to the study of day –to day behaviour of the individuals in a political society.
Political thinkers like David Easton, Charles E. Merriam, Arthur Bentley contributed
significantly through their writings and research towards the growth of behavioural
revolution in Political Science.
After the Second World War and in the early fifties of the twentieth century,
Political Science was highly influenced by sociologists like Tocqueville, G. Mosca, Max
Weber, Talcott Parsons etc. Such an interaction between political scientists and
sociologists helped to bring the study of Political Science closer to society. For instance,
the concept of the state, which had been central to Political Science, gave way to the
new concept of the “political system,” developed by David Easton. The new concept
highlighted the interaction between the society and the political process. During this
period the behavioural revolution in Political Science became popular and various
methods of research and techniques of data collection were identified by the political
thinkers. The Social Science Research Council of United States set up in the early
twenties of twentieth century continued to play an important role in popularizing
behavioural ideas in the post Second World War era.
Political Science entered a new phase towards the late 1960s in the form of the
Post-behavioural revolution. The rise of behaviouralism clearly introduced a scientific
vigour in the study of political phenomena. However, it soon came to be realized that too
much emphasis was being laid on adoption of scientific techniques in the field of Political
Science. In the process, Political Science was losing touch with the real social and
political issues. Therefore, post-behaviouralists made an effort to make Political Science
relevant to the society. However, it must be remembered that post-behaviouralism
cannot be separated from behviouralism as it has emerged out of behaviouralism.
Through using different techniques and methods, the post-behaviouralists have tried to
overcome the drawbacks of behaviouralism and make the study of Political Science
more relevant to the society. Thus, we can see that the Political Science which emerged
as a study of the state and government has undergone tremendous changes in the later
period. Because of the contribution of different scholars its scope is widening and its
nature is changing. In the present time, the focus of Political Science shifts from the
study of the state and government to the political system as a whole.
Many books have been written on Political Science by the eminent writers and
different definitions have been given.Asper usual of these definitions shows that the
authors themselves do not have very clear-cut views and they find it difficult to give
precise definitions. Evidently, describing the contents of a subject is easier than giving a
precise definition. Many political ideas have been developed and accumulated in course
of time. It is difficult to put different ideas within a limited scope of single definition.When
one examines an array of standard definitions, one is bound to be staggered at the
nature of their diversity. This diversity in defining Political Science is due to the varying
scope of Political Science in different times. Since its emergence as a scientific study,
Political Science has been growing in its scope. Hence the old definitions of Political
Science cannot suit the twenty-first century version of Political Science. One may further
examine some standard definitions of Political Science, given by eminent political
scientists.
1.3 Important Definitions of Political Science
  Gettell- Political Science deals with the associations of human beings
that form Political units with the organization of their governments and
with the activities of thesegovernment in making and administering law in
carrying on inter-state relations.
 Bluntschli- Political Science is the science which is concerned with the
State, which endeavours to understand and comprehend the state in its
fundamental conditions, in its essential nature, its various forms of
manifestations and development.
 Caitlin- For the text books, politics means either the activities of political
life or the study of these activities. And these activities are generally
treated as activities of the various organs of government.
 Seeley- Political Science investigates the phenomena of Government in
the same manner as Political Economy deals with wealth, biology with
life, Algebra with numbers and Geometry with space and magnitude.
 Laski-The study of Politics concerns itself with the life of man in relation
to organized states.
 David Easton-Political Science is concerned with the authoritative
allocation of values in a society.
 Harold Lasswell- Politics is the science of who gets what, when any why.
 Lasswell and Kaplan- “Political Science is the study of shaping and
sharing of power”.Lasswell regards political science as “policy
science’.He gives a positivist and non-normative meaning to the definition
of politics. He also writes, “The study of politics is the study of influence
and the influential. The science of politics states conditions; the
philosophy of politics justifies preferences.”
 Max Weber– “the struggle for power or influencing of those in power.”
Further, it includes within its study the struggle between the State and the
individuals and between the organised groups and the State.
 Bryce-Politics is the conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
 Hillman:Politics is the science of who gets what, when and why.
 Bottomore:Political institutions are concerned with the distribution of
powers in society.
 Garner- The meaning of the term “politics” is confined to that of the
business and activity which has to do with the actual conduct of affairs of
the State.
1.4 MEANING OF POLITICAL SCIENCE: TRADITIONAL VIEW
According to the traditional Political Scholars, Political Science was mainly the
study of State and Government.They focused on legal, institutional and structural
aspects of State Government and Law.
According to the traditional view:
 i. The State is the central theme of Political Science. Political Science
studies about the State, its origin, its nature, its functions and so on.
Hence, Political Science may also be defined as : a historical
investigation of what the State has been, an analytical study of what the
State is and a politico ethical speculation of what the State ought to
be.Political Science, as narrowly conceived, is the science of the State.
As it is a study about the State, it makes an enquiry into the origin of the
State and the political authority. In this sense, it is a historical
investigation about the origin of the State.Political Science also studies
about the structure and functioning of the State, Governments, inter-state
organization, etc. In this sense, it is an analytical study of what the State .
ii. Political Science does not confine its area to the past and present study
of states only. It also attempts to formulate principles of good government
or in other words, it suggests what the State ought to be.
iii. Political Science not only deals with the State and government, but also
deals with law. Men should be ruled by law. Law is necessary to regulate
social life and without law there would be chaos and confusion. Law
regulates and controls the behaviour of the man. It prevents anarchy.
Hence, Political Science deals with the State, Government and law.
iv. Political Science is a social science. As a social science, it deals with
relationship of man with man. It also makes an attempt to explore the
ideal relationship between man and the State. Aristotle rightly said; “The
State originates in the bare needs of life and continues for the sake of
good life.”How man should adjust himself with society is a major concern
of political science. It deals with freedom of individuals. Maximum State
intervention leads to loss of liberty. How individual liberty should be
safeguarded is an eternal problem in political science.
Thus, according to traditional political scientists,Political science is mainly: a
study about the State and the Government. It makes an enquiry into the origin of the
state. Political Science also studies the structure and functioning of the state government
inter-state organizations etc. In this sense it is an analytical study of what the state is. It
also attempts to formulate principles of good government, or in other words it suggests
what the state ought to be. It is sometimes said that Political Science deals with the
reality, while political philosophy tries to determine what they ought to do in keeping with
the ultimate good or purpose of human life. Political philosophy may properly be
recognized by its critical function. Political Science is concerned with the theoretical
explanation of Political reality, namely the phenomenon of the State. It attempts to
discuss the forms of political organization and logical justification of the state. It studies
the relationship between the sate and the individual
1.5 MEANING OF POLITICAL SCIENCE: MODERN VIEW
Political Science, is the systematic study of governance by the application of
empirical and generally scientific methods of analysis.As traditionally defined and
studied, political science examines the state and its organs and institutions. The
contemporary discipline, however, is considerably broader than this, encompassing
studies of all the societal, cultural, and psychological factors that mutually influence the
operation of government and the body politic.
 The term Politics has acquired a new meaning in the context of
advancements of late made in the discipline of Political Science. It hinges
upon the political activity carried on human environment, in time and
space, and thus a product of economy, the society, history and
geography. Political activity is based on agreement and whenever there is
freedom a great deal of politics is likely to be found. This follows because
men have diverse views, interests and characteristics.
 Political Science is the systematic study of governance by the application
of empirical and generally scientific methods of analysis. As traditionally
defined and studied, political science examines the state and its organs
and institutions. The contemporary discipline, however, is considerably
broader than this, encompassing studies of all the societal, cultural, and
psychological factors that mutually influence the operation of government
and the body politic
 Political Science is a scientific study of the State – its nature, condition,
origin and developments – and government, their functions and purposes
and the institutions they foster in order to make the task of “good life”
possible. A student of Political Sciences will know something of society
whose political system is involved, its history and traditions, its physical
and human environments in order to assess to what extent the existing
intuitions fulfil the aspirations of the people and help in achieving the goal
of good life.
 The term politics now-a-days refers to the problems of government. As
such now-a-days a politician means a man who is interested in the
current problems of the day and not necessarily in the study of the state-
its nature, origin and characteristics. He is not a student of political
science but a member of political party. His activity is confined to the
actual conduct of the government. He works either in the policy-making
office or law-making legislature, or in the office or platform of the party he
belongs. But a political scientist is a student of political science; he is
concerned with the body of knowledge relating to the phenomena of the
state. His place of work is not the office of the government or the party but
the library. Thus between a politician and political scientist there may not
necessarily be a conflict, but their function are quite separate. So, though
there is a difference between the politician and political scientist, the view
that 'there must always be a conflict between the politician and the
political scientist' is not correct. In fact, to be a good politician, a man
must be first a political scientist. A man may simultaneously prove himself
a politician and political scientist.
 Robert Dahl is of the opinion that every human association has a political
aspect and it is in this context that he defines political system. A political
system, he says, “is any persistent pattern of human relationship that
involves, to a significant extent, power, rule, or authority”. He would,
accordingly include in his definition of a political system all sorts of human
associations, as private clubs, business firms, religious organizations, civil
groups, primitive tribes, clans, “perhaps even families”.W.WWilloughby-
Political Science is the science which has for its object the ascertainment
of political facts and arrangement of them in systematic order as
 determined by the logical and casual relations which exist between them.
According to Paul Janet, Political Science “is that part of social science
which treats the foundations of the State and principles of government
have their roots in the past and their branches swing towards the future. It
is a systematic study which goes deep into the political problems of
yesterday for the benefit of today and utilizes the wisdom gained there
form for the aspirations of better tomorrow.
 Politics, as such, is striving to share power, or to influence its distribution
as well as the actual exercise of such power. Lasswell and Kaplan,
according, definite Politics “as an empirical discipline, (as) the study of
the shaping and sharing of power” and “a political act (as) one performed
in power perspectives” in every phase of the society.
 Politics is, thus, a struggle for power on all the three levels it can be
looked at- State, intra-State and inter-State- and it is of the same species.
The role of leadership as well as the struggle for leadership is inherent in
the game of politics. It follows that every society or group requires some
power over other people which is recognized by a sufficiently large
number of people as legitimate and acceptable to them.
 Political science is the scientific designation of the subject of our study, and
this name has been accepted by the political scientists drawn from various
countries. It covers the whole range of knowledge regarding the political
governance of man.
1.6 NATURE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
Political Science is a study about the State. It makes an enquiry into the origin of
the State and political authority. In this sense, it is a historical investigation about the
origin of the State. Political Science also studies the structure and functioning of the
State, governments, inter-State organisations, etc.In this sense, it is an analytical study
of what the State is, Garner has rightly said that “Political Science begins with the State
and ends with the State”. But Political Science does not confine its area to the past and
present States only. It also attempts to formulate principles of good government or in
other words, it suggests what the State ought to be. It is therefore, a study of past,
present and future of the State.
However, the study of Political Science is wider than the activities of the
State.Upson writes “More limited than politics is the concept of the state.” The point that
politics is broader than the state can be easily demonstrated. Wherever the State exists,
there is also politics. But the reverse is not true-that wherever politics exists, so does the
State. We can rightly speak of international politics but we know that there is not as yet a
super national state.
Modern View
The recent view is that political science is not confined to an enquiry about the
state; it also deals with the social and psychological factors which influence the activities
of men in the state. It has to take into consideration the social science like sociology,
psychology, economics, ethics and history. The UNESCO in the definition of the scope
of political science included not only political theory and institutions, but also parties,
public opinions and international relations. Thus it becomes obvious that political science
has to study not only state but also the society as a whole in so far as it is related to the
various institutions of the state.
 Politics is a Science
Politics is considered as science on the following grounds.
 Politics can be studied in a systematic manner.
 It is said that experimentation is possible in politics.
 Political Science, like other Sciences, has absolute and universal laws.
 It is possible to make predictions in politics, but in a limbed are. (5).These
are certain principles and methods on which political thinkers
unanimously agree.
 Politics is a subject which has scientific nature.
Writers like J.S. Hill, Maitland, Collin, Barker, etc, maintain that is only on art.
Politics is not considered as science on the following grounds
 Politics is not a Science
 Politics has no absolute and universal laws like physical sciences or exact
sciences.
 It does not observe the theory of cause and effect which is the basis of all
Sciences.
 The subject of politics has not developed in a steady, regular and
continuous manner.
 Scientific methods of observation and experimentation cannot be applied
to politics.
Political Science is neither an exact science nor can it claim to predict the future
with certainty. The results in physical sciences, like Physics and Chemistry, are definite
and remain true under given conditions for all men and different claims. If there is any
variation, it can be tested and explained. But it isnot possible to impose precise
laboratory conditions on the political sphere in real life. Political Science deals with men
and it is a living subject matter which can be explained in terms of living human activity.
It cannot be expressed in fixed or static formulae. Man is dynamic and so must his
institutions be.
Political Science and Political Theory
As a discipline political science is much more comprehensive and includes
different forms of speculation in politics such as political through, political theory, political
philosophy, political ideology, institutional or structural frame work comparative politics,
public administration, international law and organization. With the rise of Political
Science as a separate discipline, political theory was made one of its subfields.
However, when used specifically with emphasis on science as distinct from theory,
Political Science refers to the study of Political Science refers to the study of politics by
the use of scientific methods in contrast to political philosophy which is free of follow
institution. Political theory on the other hand is not only concerned about the
behavioural study of the political phenomena from empirical point of vie but also
prescribing the goals which states governments, societies, and citizens ought to pursue.
Political theory also aims to generalize about the right conduct in the political life and
about the legitimate use of power. Political theory is neitghted pure thought nor
philosophy nor science. While it draws distinct from them. Contemporary political theory
is trying to attempt a synthesis between political philosophy and political science.
Although political science borrows heavily from the other social sciences, it is
distinguished from them by its focus on power—defined as the ability of one political
actor to get another actor to do what it wants—at the international, national, and local
levels. Although political science overlaps considerably with political philosophy, the two
fields are distinct. Political philosophy is concerned primarily with political ideas and
values, such as rights, justice, freedom, and political obligation (whether people should
or should not obey political authority); it is normative in its approach (i.e., it is concerned
with what ought to be rather than with what is) and rationalistic in its method. In contrast,
political science studies institutions and behaviour, favours the descriptive over the
normative, and develops theories or draws conclusions based on empirical observations,
which are expressed in quantitative terms where possible.
Although political science, like all modern sciences, involves empirical
investigation, it generally does not produce precise measurements and predictions. This
has led some scholars to question whether the discipline can be accurately described as
a science. However, if the term science applies to any body of systematically organized
knowledge based on facts ascertained by empirical methods and described by as much
measurement as the material allows, then political science is a science, like the other
social disciplines. In the 1960s the American historian of science Thomas S.
Kuhn argued that political science was “pre-paradigmatic,” not yet having developed
basic research paradigms, such as the periodic table that defines chemistry. It is likely
that political science never will develop a single, universal paradigm or theory, and
attempts to do so have seldom lasted more than a generation, making political science a
discipline of many trends.

Self Assessment Questions

Q1. Define Political Science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q2. “Political Science is not a Science”. Explain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.7 SCOPE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

There is no general agreement on the nature and scope of Political Science, “the
master science” as Aristotle described it, since there is no generally accepted definition
of the discipline, and its organizing concept, the State.In fact, there are as many
definitions as there are writers on the subject and all these definitions give to the entity-
the State-different meanings and conflicting roles.
Some writers restrict the scope of Political Science to the study of the State
alone, for example, Bluntschli. All such writers exclude the study of government from the
scope of political science deals only with government. Karl W. Deutsch says, “Because
Politics, the making of decisions by public means, it is primarily concerned with
government, that is, with the direction and self-direction of large communities of the
people.” According to Robson, “The purpose of political science is to throw light on
political ideas and political action so that the government of man may be improved.”
Harold Laski takes a more realistic view and emphasizes that the scope of political
Science embraces the study of both the State and Government, tough he maintains that
the State in reality means the government.
The scope of Political Science implies its jurisdiction or subject matter. Political
Science is a very wide and comprehensive subject. There is no agreement among the
Political Scientists as regard to the scope of Political Science. Despite this
disagreement, we may make an attempt to define the scope of Political Science which
includes the followings:.
1. Study of the State and Government
Political Science primarily studies the problems of the State and Government.
The state is defined as a group of people organised for law within definite territory. The
State possesses four characteristics, viz. Population, territory, government and
sovereignty. Government is an agent of the Stale. Political Science studies the activities
of the State and explains the aims and objectives of the State and government.
 Study of the State in historical perspective.
 Study of origin and evolution ofState.
 Study and analyses of functions of state at different periods of time.
 Study of the modern form of state.
 Study of different forms of Government, its specialized agencies and their
functions.
 Study of relationship between the people and the government.
The State is a people organized for law within a definite territory. This entity, the
sovereign political unity of life, orders and compels obedience by punishing those who
violate it commands. But no State acts by itself. There must be present in every State
some men or body of men competent to issue orders on its behalf and to see that they
are actually obeyed. That is the Government. This is, however, the conventional field of
functions of the government. The modern government has emerged as an active and
positive agent in the direction of affairs of all communities. In the older democracies, and
still more in the newer developing States as well as in the Communist countries,
government is looked on as a major, or even the dominant, organizing power in society.
A description of the State must, therefore, include the study of the structure and
functions of government.
Traditionally, the study of political values- of what, for example, ought to be the
political structure and what political goals ought to be sought-has been the field of
political philosophers. A main concern of the modern political philosophers is the study of
great thinkers of the past- PLato, Aristotle ,Machivelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau among
other. In the process he will analyse such value words as ‘Justice’, ‘rights’, ‘freedom’.
This activity is currently supplemented by the study of values as political facts.
The State, all the same, remains the central subject of the study of Political
Science as the whole mechanisms ofgovernment emerges from and revolves around
this entity. The need for government arises because there had been and there is need
for the state. The need for the State is deeply embedded in the compelling necessities of
human life and the advantages accruing from dwelling together on a defined territory and
sharing the benefits of political life.
When the State plays such a vital role in the life of man, it becomes all the more
important to know it in all its aspects: what the State has been what it is, and what it
ought to be. The State, as it is, refers to its existing structure and the analysis of the
principles and practices of modern governments. But what the State is can only be
understood by knowing what it had been. As we have seen, the study of the origin of the
State, its evolution, and the development of the mechanism through which it functions.
All this elates to the study of the State as it ought to be. Here Political Science
enters the realm of political ethics and studies the moral problems of mankind in order to
establish the principles of collective morality. We consider and evaluate the pruposes
and ends of the State and the fundamental topics involved in such a study are: the
ethical foundations of authority; the nature and limits of political obligation; the rights and
freedoms of the individuals, groups and nations and an examination of the entire body-
politic from the point of view of the ultimate end of human life.
2. Study of relations of the individuals with the State
Relationship between an individual and a state is an interaction in which an
individual owes allegiance to that state, and in turn is entitled to its protection.
Citizenship implies the status of freedom with accompanying responsibilities. Citizens
have certain rights, duties, and responsibilities that are denied or only partially extended
to aliens and other noncitizens residing in a country. In general, full political rights,
including the right to vote and to hold public office, are predicated upon citizenship. The
usual responsibilities of citizenship are allegiance, taxation and military service.
3. Comparative Politics
Comparative Politics focuses on politics within countries (often grouped into
world regions) and analyses similarities and differences between various constitutions,
political processes, structures, political functions and political environment. Comparative
politics is a field and a method used in political science, characterized by
an empirical approach based on the comparative method. In other words comparative
politics is the study of the domestic politics, political institutions, and conflicts of
countries. It often involves comparisons among countries emphasizing key patterns of
similarity and difference
4. International Relations
International relations (IR) is the study of relationships among countries,the roles
of sovereignstates, inter-governmental organizations (IGO), internationalnon-
governmental organizations(INGO), non-governmentalorganizations (NGO),
andmultinational corporations (MNC). International relations is an academic and a public
policy field, and so can be positive and normative. It analyzes and formulates the foreign
policy of a given State.
The scope of Political Science includes a study of International relation is which
has become significant since the first quarter of the 20 th century. It covers a wide range
of subjects and includes diplomacy, international law, international organizations, lie the
U.N. etc. because of scientific inventions and discoveries, the cooperation and contact
among different nations of the world have become easier and the whole world turns to
be a family.
5. Study of International Law
Basically defined, International Law is simply the set of rules that countries follow
in dealing with each other.International law is the set of rules generally regarded and
accepted as binding in relations between states and between nations.It serves as a
framework for the practice of stable and organized international relations.International
law differs from state-based legal systems in that it is primarily applicable to countries
rather than to private citizens. National law may become international law
when treatiesdelegate national jurisdiction to supranational tribunals such as
the European Court of Human Rights or the International Criminal Court. Treaties such
as the Geneva Conventions may require national law to conform.International Law, also
called Public International Law or Law of Nations, the body of legal rules, norms, and
standards that apply between sovereign states and other entities that are legally
recognized as international actors.
6. Political Theory
Political theory is the study of the concepts and principles that people use to
describe, explain, and evaluate political events and institutions. Traditionally, the
discipline of political theory has approached this study from two different perspectives:
the history of political thought, and contemporary political philosophy. Political Theory
includes classical political philosophy and contemporary theoretical perspectives (e.g.,
constructivism, critical theory, and postmodernism).
7. Public Administration
Public administration is the implementation of government policy and also an
academic discipline that studies this implementation and prepares civil servants for
working in the public service. As a field of inquiry with a diverse scope, its fundamental
goal is to advance management and policies so that government can function. Public
administration is centrally concerned with the organization of government policies and
programmes as well as the behavior of officials (usually non-elected) formally
responsible for their conductstudies the role of the bureaucracy. It includes instruction in
the roles, development, and principles of public administration; the management of
public policy; executive-legislative relations; public budgetary processes and financial
management; administrative law; public personnel management; professional ethics.
Public Adminstrationis the field most oriented toward practical applications within political
science and is often organized as a separate Department that prepares students for
careers in the civil service.
8. Public Policy
Public policy is the principled guide to action taken by the
administrative executive branches of the state with regard to a class of issues in a
manner consistent with law and institutional customs. In general, the foundation is the
pertinent national and substantial constitutional law and implementing legislation such as
the US Federal code. Further substrates include both judicial interpretations
and regulations which are generally authorized by legislation. It examines the passage
and implementation of all types of government policies, particularly those related to civil
rights, defense, health, education, economic growth, urban renewal, regional
development, and environmental protection.
9. Study of Political Theory
Political theory is a major branch of Political Science. On the basis of the political
ideas or thoughts of political thinkers, political theory formulates definitions or concepts
like democracy, liberty, equality, grounds of political institutions including government,
explains their merits and demerits, their structure and working and arrives at different
conclusions on comparative basis. A student of Political Science must start his lessons
with political theory. Political theory explains the rudimentary concepts of Political
Science. It also includes the study of political philosophy.
Political theory is the study of the concepts and principles that people use to
describe, explain, and evaluate political events and institutions. Traditionally, the
discipline of political theory has approached this study from two different perspectives:
the history of political thought, and contemporary political philosophy. Political Theory
includes classical political philosophy and contemporary theoretical perspectives (e.g.,
constructivism, critical theory, and postmodernism).
10. Study of Political Dynamics
The study of political dynamics has become significant in the 20th century. It
means the current forces at work in government and politics. It covers a wide range and
includes the study of political parties, public opinion, pressure groups, lobbies, etc. A
scientific study of the working of these political dynamics helps to explain the political
behaviour of individuals and different groups. The study in this field is often done in
collaboration with other social sciences like sociology, anthropology and psychology.
11. Study of Political Institutions
Political institutions are organizations which create, enforce, and apply laws; that
mediate conflict; make (governmental) policy on the economy and social systems; and
otherwise provide representation for the populous. Examples of such political institutions
include political parties, trade unions, and the (legal) courts. The term 'Political
Institutions' may also refer to the recognized structure of rules and principles within
which the above organizations operate, including such concepts as the right to vote,
responsible government, and accountability.
For a long period the study essentially centered around the legislatures,
executives and judiciaries, the three institutions from making, carrying out and
interpreting the law. As the study developed and knowledge advanced, the area
extended to include political parties, bureaucracies, interest groups and other groups
engaged in politics which have a continuous existence. At a later stage , it was further
supplemented by how political communications work though press, radio, television,
discussions or meetings and how demands emerge and are formulated through interest
groups and political parties. The emphasis is on procedures and institutions through
which authoritative decisions are made, and the outcome of such decision-making in the
form of rule-making, rule-application and rule-adjudication.
12. Political Behaviour
Political behaviour may be defined as any action regarding authority in general
and government in particular. An obvious example of an act of political behaviour is the
act of voting. In casting your vote you are, in a democracy, relating to government by
voting for whom you feel should form the government. In this act of political behaviour,
you also decide who you do not want to form the government.
 The term political behavioris very broadly defined to include not only tangible
forms of behavior (such as voting and participation), but also topics such as public
opinion, mass communications, political psychology, and more. Politicalbehaviour
focuses less on political institutions and more on the individuals and/or groups. Which is
not restricted to declared behviouralists,concentrates on the behaviour of the individuals
and groups within political institutions.
13. Political Socialization
Political Socialization is the process by which political culture is transmitted in a
given society. It occurs at both the individual and community level, and it extends
beyond the acquisition of political culture to encompass the learning of more
sophisticated political ideas and orientations. Political socialization is a life long process
and a variety of individuals and institutions contribute to its shaping effect. For example,
individuals are politically socialized by such groups as their family, peers, and social
class. Furthermore, they are socialized by existing laws, media, religion, education, their
own gender, and more. Basically, the process is never ending and the factors which
shape it are all encompassing.
Those groups and institutions which contribute to the process of political
socialization are known as the agents of socialization. These sources affect the
development of political values and attitudes differently, but they all contribute to the
individual's understanding of and orientations toward politics. The primary agents of
socialization are those that directly develop specific political orientations such as the
family. Whereas, the secondary agents of socialization tend to be less personal and
involved in the process of socialization in a more indirect manner such as the media.
Political socialization is a lifelong process by which people form their ideas about
politics and acquire political values. The family, educational system, peer groups, and
the mass media all play a role. While family and school are important early in life, what
our peers think and what we read in the newspaper and see on television have more
influence on our political attitudes as adults.
The above contents show the wide range of subjects that come under the fold of
Political Science. Broadly speaking, political science contains the topics dealing with
both empirical facts and philosophical values. Questions of facts are concerned with
“what is” and those dealing with values are concerned with “what should be”. The
contents of political science fall in either of these two broad categories. It is the human
element or the livingness of the subject which makes Political Science a wide area of
study.
1.8 SUMMARY
Political Science, thus, enters into various fields and touches many horizons. The
process of specialization on the various aspects of the discipline, orientation of
methodology, importantly behavioural, and the interdisciplinary explanations has
together brought about radical change in the scope of the discipline. Political decisions
are not made in vacuum or due only to the personal idiosyncrasies of political factors.
Economic factors, the social structure, the class, status and stratification systems
influence both the content and mode of making political decisions.
The scope of Political Science implies its jurisdiction or subject matter. Political
Science is a very wide and comprehensive subject. A conference of political scientists
held under the auspices of the Inter-national Political Science Association in Paris in the
year 1948 demarcated the Scope of Political Science to four zones, namely Political
theory, Political Institutions, Political dynamics and international relations. Political
Scinece has been referred to as a Master Science- by Aristotle. Since then, this subject
has a history of noble growth. Over these years, such concepts like sovereignty,
revolution, liberty, equality, democracy etc. have been vividly dealt with political science.
So to speak, Political Science primarily deals with in the state and government. The
credit goes to Greeks for developing Political Science in this pure and systematic form.
The study of Political dynamics has become significant in the 21st century. It
means the current forces at work in government and politics. It covers a wide range and
includes the study of political parties, public opinion, pressure groups. A scientific study
of the working of the political dynamics helps to explain the political behavior of
individuals and different groups. Political scientists like David Easton, Charles Lindblo
and Thomas R. Dye hold the view that Political Science is a Policy Science. This
concept of Public Policy is of recent origin. It is also a product of Post-Behaviouralism. It
deals with the implementation, execution and formation of policy. In this process the
formal political groups play a vital role. Thus the scope of Political Science has been
widened greater importance in recent times.
1.9 GLOSSARY
1) Government – the group of people with the authority to govern a
country of state.
2) NGO – Non government organization is an organization that
generally is formed independent from government.
1.10 FURTHER READINGS
• Johari, J. C. (1985).Principles of Modern Political Science. Sterling
Publishers, Pvt.Ltd.UP.
• Verma, S.P. (1975).Modern Political Theory.Vikas Publisher.
• Gauba, O.P (2016).An Introduction to Political Thought Mayer
Paperback.
1.11 MODEL QUESTIONS
1) Discuss the Meaning and Nature of Political Science.
2) How the scope of Political Science has widened in the modern era.
Discuss

---00---
 Lesson-2

RELATIONSHIP OF POLITICAL SCIENCE WITH HISTORY

AND ECONOMICS

Structure:

2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Meaning and Definition of History
2.3 Relationship of Political Science with History
2.4 Meaning and Definition of Economics
2.5 Relationship of Political Science with Economics
2.6 Summary
2.7 Glossary
2.8 Further Readings
2.9 Model Questions
2.0 OBJECTIVES:
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:
 understand the meaning of History and Economics as independent
disciplines.
 discuss and access the relationship of Political Science with other Social
Sciences viz.: History and Economics.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
It is of utmost importance for the proper understanding of any subject of inquiry to
establish its relationship with other subjects, to see clearly what elements of its
reasoning it has to take from them, and what in its turn it may claim to give them.
Political science is deeply related to all other social sciences, because knowledge that is
gained about any phase of human behavior and attitudes, about the institutions that men
build, or the ideas to which they respond, cannot fail to be of use in similar fields of
inquiry. Each social science-Sociology, History, Economics, Ethics, Psychology,
Geography and Political science- supplements and fortifies the rest. If we divide them
into different sciences, they are distinctions within a unity as all aim at the study of man
in society. All are inter-dependent and inter-related. Each contributes importantly
to the advancement of the other
2.2 MEANING AND DEFINITION OF HISTORY
History is the study of the past, specifically how it relates to humans. It is
an umbrella term that relates to past events as well as the discovery, collection,
organization, and presentation of information about these events. The term
includescosmic, geologic, and organic history, but is often generically implied to
mean human history. Scholars who write about history are called historians. There is no
universally agreed definition of history. It has been defined differently by different
historians
 According to the earliest definition of Aristotle, “History is an account of
the unchanging past.”
 E. H. Carr gives a very beautiful definition of history. He says — history is
an unending dialogue between the past and the present.
 According to H. G. Wells, “Human history is in essence a history of
ideas.”
According to Freud, “Historical records are a law of right and wrong.”
 Pt. Nehru says, “History is the story of man’s struggle through the ages
against nature and the elements; against wild beasts and the jungle and
some of his own kind who have tried to keep him down and to exploit him
for their own benefit. “
 Dr. Radhakrishnan says, “History is the memory of a nation or a race.”
 The best definition which is scientific to a great extent was given
byRapson. According to him, “History is a connected account of the
course of events of progress of ideas.”
History also refers to the academic discipline which uses a narrative to examine
and analyse a sequence of past events, and objectively determine the patterns of cause
and effect that determine them.Historians sometimes debate the nature of history and its
usefulness by discussing the study of the discipline as an end in itself and as a way of
providing perspective on the problems of the present
The modern study of history is wide-ranging, and includes the study of specific
regions and the study of certain elements of historical investigation. Often history is
taught as part of primary and secondary education, and the academic study of history is
a major discipline in University studies.
2.3 RELATIONSHIP OF POLITICAL SCIENCE WITH HISTORY
The state and its political intuitions grow instead of being made. They are the
product of history and in order to understand them fully one must necessarily know the
process of their evolution: how they have become what they are, and to what extent they
have responded to their original purposes. All our political institutions have a historical
basis as they depict the wisdom of generals. History furnishes sufficient material for
comparison and induction, enabling us to build an ideal political structure of our
aspirations.
History, in its turn, has much to borrow from Political Science. Our knowledge of
history is meaningless, if the political bearings of events and movements are not
adequately evaluated. The history of the nineteenth-century Europe, for example, is an
incomplete narration of facts unless full significance of the movements, like nationalism,
imperialism, individualism, socialism, etc., are brought out. Similarly, the history of
India’s independent is devoid of all logic, if we do not sufficiently explain the political
result of the rise of the Indian National Congress: the Muslim demand for separate
electorates; the benevolent despotism of the Government of India Act , 1909; Montagu’s
August 1917 Declaration; the Reforms of 1919 and the experiment with Diarchy. The
Cabinet Mission plan; the June 3, 1947, announcement; and the Independence Act,
1947.
Political Science, says Bryce, “stands midway between the past and the present. It has
drawn its material from the one, it has to apply them to the other.”.
The relationship between Political Science and History is very close and intimate.
John Seeley expressed this relationship in the following couplet-
“History without Political Science has no fruit,
Political Science without history has no root.”
 Hegel- “Political history is a concept of the state with a moral and spiritual
force beyond the material interests of its subjects: it followed that the
state was the main agent of historical change.”
 Willoughby.-History gives the third dimension of Political Science.
 Lord action- The science of politics is the one science that is deposited
by the stream of history like the grains of gold in the stands of a river.
 Freeman goes to the extent of saying that “History is Past Politics is
present history.”
Both Political Science and History are contributory and complementary.
I. Political Science is, undoubtedly, dependent on History for its material,
but it supplies only a part of the marital.
II. History is a chronological narration of events including wars, revolutions,
military campaigns, economic upheavals, religious and social movements
and the rest. A good part of this material is not required by Political
Science. The main concern of a political scientist is to study the evolution
of the political institutions and the facts which bear, directly or indirectly,
on the State and government, and its socio-economic problems.
III. History deals with concrete and matter of fact things. It presents to us not
only facts things. It presents to us not only facts, but the causal
connection between the facts. Political Science is speculative as well,
since it deals with what the State ought to be. This speculative character
of the subject necessitates the consideration of abstract types of political
institutions and laws. History has hardly anything to do with this aspect of
Political Science. Finally, the historian’s task is not to pass moral
judgments, but the political scientist is bound to do so. It is here that
political Science joins hands with Ethics and parts company with
Sociology, History and Economics.
IV. Political Science uses historical facts to discover general law and
principles.
V. Political Science stands midway between History and Politics.
 VI. Political History is the narrative and analysis of political events, ideas,
movements and leaders.
VII. It is usually structured around the nation state.
VIII. History furnishes sufficient material for comparison and induction,
enabling us to build an ideal political structure of our aspirations. In the
absence of historical data, the study of Political Science is sure to
become entirely speculative.
IX. The writings of historians, in brief, form a vast reservoir of material which
a student of Political Science can analyse into meaningful patterns and
guide him in understanding the present and outlining the future.
Moreover, with its chronological treatment, history offers a sense of
growth and development thereby providing a base or an insight into the
social changes.
X. History, in its turn, has much to borrow from Political Science. Our
knowledge of history is meaningless, if the political bearings of events
and movements are not adequate evaluated. The history of the
nineteenth-century Europe, for example, is an incompletely narration of
facts unless full significance of the movements, like nationalism,
imperialism individualism, socialism, etc., are brought out.
The conclusion is obvious. Political science and History are two distinct
disciplines with separate problems, yet they have a common subject in the phenomena
of the State and, as such, their spheres touch at many point and overlap at others.
Leacock rightly remarks that some of History “is part of Political Science, the circle of
their content overlapping an area enclosed by each.” Our Political Institutions are the
product of history and in order to understand them fully one must necessarily know the
process of their evolution: how they have become what they are, and to what extent they
have responded to their original purposes. Both Political Science and History are
contributory and complementary. So intimate is the affinity between the two that Seeley
maintained: “Politics is vulgar when not liberalized by History, and History fades into
mere literature when it loses sight of its relation to Politics.
2.4 MEANING AND DEFINITION OF ECONOMICS
Political science and economics are social sciences. Political science is the study
of politics in theory and practice, while as well as dealing with subjects that often relate
to one another in everyday life. Political Science and Economics are commonly seen as
sister subjects in academic terms.
Economics
Theterm economics comes from the Ancient Greek οἰκονομία (oikonomia,
"management of a household, administration”) rules of the house(hold for good
management)". 'Political economy' was the earlier name for the subject, but economists
in the late 19th century suggested "economics" as a shorter term for economic science
to establish itself as a separate discipline outside of political science and other social
sciences.
Economics isthe social science that studies the behavior ofindividuals,
households,and organizations (called economic actors, players, or agents), when they
manage or use scarce resources, which have alternative uses, to achieve desired ends.
Agents are assumed to act rationally, have multiple desirable ends in sight, limited
resources to obtain these ends, a set of stable preferences, a definite overall guiding
objective, and the capability of making a choice.
There exists an economic problem, subject to study by economic science, when
a decision (choice) is made by one or more resource-controlling players to attain the
best possible outcome under bounded rational conditions. In other words, resource-
controlling agents maximize value subject to the constraints imposed by the information
the agents have, their cognitive limitations, and the finite amount of time they have to
make and execute a decision. Economic science centers on the activities of the
economic agents that comprise society. They are the focus of economic analysis.
Economics focuses on the behavior and interactions of economic agents and
how economies work. Consistent with this focus, primary textbooks often distinguish
between microeconomics and macroeconomics. Microeconomics examines the behavior
of basic elements in the economy, including individual agents and markets, their
interactions, and the outcomes of interactions. Individual agents may include, for
example, households, firms, buyers, and sellers.
Macroeconomics analyzes the entire economy (meaning aggregated production,
consumption, savings, and investment) and issues affecting it, including unemployment
of resources (labor, capital, and land), inflation, economic growth, and the public policies
that address these issues (monetary, fiscal, and other policies). Microeconomics is the
study of how individual consumers and businesses make production, purchasing,
investment, and saving choices. Macroeconomics looks at how an entire economy works
and the way policies can affect the combined effects of microeconomic decisions.
It can be argued that economics is a social science rather than a pure science,
because it is based around resolving an irresolvable dilemma: how to meet people's
unlimited wants with limited resources. economics is the study of how resources are
produced, allocated, and distributed. A study of economics can describe all aspects of a
country’s economy, such as how a country uses its resources, how much time laborers
devote to work and leisure, the outcome of investing in industries or financial products,
the effect of taxes on a population, and why businesses succeed or fail.
People who study economics are called Economists. Economists seek to
answer important questions about how people, industries, and countries can maximize
their productivity, create wealth, and maintain financial stability. Because the study of
economics encompasses many factors that interact in complex ways, economists have
different theories as to how people and governments should behave within markets
Adam Smith, known as the Father of Economics, established the first modern
economic theory, called the Classical School, in 1776. Many authors, Math and
business experts have defined what economics means to them. A selection of
their definitions are as follows:
Adam Smith (1776) defines the subject as "an inquiry into the nature and causes of the
wealth of nations,"
 Lionel Robbins -"Economics is a science which studies
human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which
have alternative uses."
 W. Stanley Jevons - "The mechanics of utility and self interest."
  Alfred Marshall - "A study of mankind in the ordinary business of life; it
examines that part of individual and social action which is most closely
connected with the attainment and with the use of the material requisites
of well-being. Thus it is on one side a study of wealth; and on the other,
and more important side, a part of the study of man."
 Paul Samuelson - "The study of how a person or society meets its
unlimited needs and wants through the effective allocation of resources."

Self-Assessment Questions
1. Define Economics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Define History.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.5 RELATIONSHIP OF POLITICAL SCIENCE WITH ECONOMICS

i. Political Science and Economics are both social sciences and hence they
are closely connected. In the past, economics which was regarded as a
branch of Political Science was called political economy. Today the two
subjects have been separated and study different areas, but the areas
are closely related to each other. In the promotion of welfare both the
subjects go hand in hand.
ii. Modern economists do not agree with the older point of view. They regard
Economics as a separate discipline, which seeks to inquire how man gets
his income and how he uses it. Alfred Marshall, the celebrated
economist, considers it “on the one side the study of the wealth and on
the other and more important side a part of the study of man.” Its scope is
the study of human welfare and includes a discussion on Consumption,
Production, Exchange, and Distribution- the four pillars on which the
edifice of economics is built.
iii. In spite of its treatment as a separate discipline, there is now no
difference of opinion that Political Science and Economics are auxiliary to
one another. Man in society is a common factor in the study of both these
sciences and it is the welfare of man and society for which each strives.
The study of both Political Science and Economics is directed to the
same common end. The welfare of man can only be obtained under
conditions of an orderly society, because both are inseparable. It is the
function of the State to secure these conditions so that every individual
gets an opportunity for pursuing his activities, economic activities, of
course, preceding the rest.
iv. No State can remain content merely to provide conditions of peace and
order. The purpose of the State is to create that atmosphere which may
be conducive to the good life of man and to give all an equal opportunity
for growth and development. The State performs certain functions in
 order to achieve its purpose. It is one of the important functions of the
State to see what its citizens consume. Every State is vitally concerned
with the health of its people, as the people are the health of the State.
v. It also becomes necessary for the State to see how commodities are
produced and the nature and conditions of their production. For example,
the Government of India is now making ceaseless efforts for growing and
producing more, as the existing scale of production does not keep pace
with the total demand of the country with its explosive growth of
population.
vi. When demand exceeds supply, conditions of scarcity are created and
prices rise. Rising prices cause distress for the masses and throw out fog
rear the orderly conditions of society it is the primary duty of the
government to remove conditions of distress and alleviate the sufferings
of the people.
vii. Similarly, banks, too, play an important role in controlling the price level
by regulating credit. The paper currency of a modern State is issued by its
Central or Reserve Bank. It is within the jurisdiction of the State to
regulate the functions of banks by necessary laws for even to nationalize
them, if necessary.
viii. The most baffling problems which confronts every country is that of
distribution. In Economics, under the heading distribution, we study how
the landlord, the worker, the capitalist, and the organizer are paid for the
work each does in the field of production.
ix. The theories of individualism and Socialism, with its different varieties,
illustrate better than any other the interaction of political science and
economics.
x. Political and economic conditions act and react on another. As a matter of
fact, the solution of many of the economic problems must come through
political agencies sand the major problems of every State are economic in
character. Britain’s political policy in India, and her reluctance to grant
independence to Indians was more an economic expediency than a
political advantage.
xi. The burning questions of present-day politics, viz., government control of
industries, the relations of the State to industries, its attitude towards
labour and capital and a multitude of other similar problem, are all
economic questions interviewed in the political issues.
xii. A good government, in brief, judiciously plans for plenty and it is judged in
terms of specific economic achievements, that is, by the harsh realities of
administrative performance; by the production of food and arrangements
for its distribution at a reasonable price, by the growing production and
equitable distribution of essential commodities, by the growth of
employment opportunities, by the timely and efficient completion of
development projects and by the judgment of their priorities.
xiii. The most prominent link between political science and economics is in
the practicalities of government. For example, there may be a connection
 between whether a politician considers himself left-wing or right-wing,
within the context of the country concerned, and whether the politician
puts more weight into fiscal economics, which aims to stimulate the
economy through government spending, or monetarist economics, which
aims to stimulate the economy by influencing the price and availability of
credit.
xiv. There are many topics in which stances can have both a political and
economic element, such as whether a government should attempt to
reduce inequalities across society, work towards equalities of opportunity,
or avoid any interference wherever possible. Taken as a whole, political
and economic views can't always be simplified into two camps; for
example, some politicians consider themselves economically
conservative but socially liberal.
xv. Political Economy is most commonly used to refer to interdisciplinary
studies that draw on economics, law and Political Science in order to
understand how political institutions, the political environment and
economy influence each other.
xvi. Within Political Science, the term refers to modern liberal, realist, Marxian
and constructivist theories concerning the relationship between economic
and political power among and within states.
xvii. Historians have employed the term to explore the various ways in the
past that individuals or groups with common economic interests have
utilized the political process to effect change over time that is beneficial to
their interests.
xviii. Economists and political scientists often associate the term with
approaches using rational choice assumptions, particularly game theory,
to explain phenomena beyond the standard limit of economics. In this
context, the term “positive political economy” is common.
xix. Other especially anthropologist, sociologists and geographers use the
term “political economy” to refer to Neo-Marxian appraohces to
development and underdevelopment set forth by Andre Gunder Frank
and Immanuel Wallerstein.
2.6 SUMMARY
Social sciences study how people interact with and relate to one another.
Political science, with its emphasis on political systems and the distribution of power,
falls into this larger academic category. A multidisciplinary field, political science draws
from some other social sciences, including Sociology, History, Economics, Psychology
and Anthropology.
Political Science has a definite and proper relationship with many social
sciences, influence one another. It is thought that a number of sciences indirectly imply a
relationship and eventually a progress in political science seems to be continuous due to
the involvement and role of political science in many social sciences. Thus, the
relevancy of political science to other social sciences, viz and specifically History,
Sociology and Economics is described through several methodologies whereby it seems
to be highly acceptable and outstanding. This acknowledges that political science has
influences on other sciences, as well describe how essential this science as a reference
to observe or access the phenomenon of life and human activity very recently.
Political Science cannot be an isolated field as all branches of the social
sciences purport to explain the larger questions concerning people and the state. Hence,
there are symbiotic relationships between political science and other sub-disciplines of
social sciences as they have common ground in their quest to understand how political
systems work and how politics and governance functions in various diverse situations.
2.7 GLOSSARY
1) Realist- a person who accepts a situation as it is and is prepared to
deal with it accordingly.
2) Judiciously – Showing good judgment
3) Electorate – All people in a country who entitled to vote in an
election.
2.8 FURTHER READINGS
• Johari, J. C. (1985). Principles of Modern Political Science. Sterling
Publishers, Pvt.Ltd. UP.
• Jain, M.P. (2012). Political Theory.Bookage Publication, Delhi.
• Asisvatham, E &Misra K. K (2014-15). Political Theory. S. Chand & Co
Ltd, New Delhi.
• Ray, A, Bhatacharya M (1962). Political Theory. Eastern Publisher, New
Delhi.
2.9 MODELQUESTIONS:
1. Discuss the relationship between Political Science and History.
2. The inter-disciplinary study of History and Economics is necessary for
understanding various issues and aspects of Political Science. Discuss

---00---
 Lesson-3

RELATIONSHIP OF POLITICAL SCIENCE WITH

SOCIOLOGY

Structure:
3.0 Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Meaning and Definition of Sociology
3.3 Relationship of Political Science with Sociology
3.4 Summary
3.5 Glossary
3.6 Further Readings
3.7 Model Questions
3.0 OBJECTIVES:
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:
 understand the meaning of Sociology
 discuss and access the relationship of Political Science with Sociology.
3.1 INTRODUCTION
It is of utmost importance for the proper understanding of any subject of inquiry to
establish its relationship with other subjects, to see clearly what elements of its
reasoning it has to take from themand what in its turn it may claim to give them. Political
science is deeply related to all other social sciences, because knowledge that is gained
about any phase of human behavior and attitudes, about the institutions that men build,
or the ideas to which they respond, cannot fail to be of use in similar fields of inquiry.
Each social science-Sociology, History, Economics, Ethics, Psychology, Geography
and Political science- supplements and fortifies the rest. If we divide them into different
sciences, they are distinctions within a unity as all aim at the study of man in society. All
are inter-dependent and inter-related. Each contributes importantly to the
advancement of the other
3.2 MEANING AND DEFINITION OF SOCIOLOGY
Sociology
The term Sociology is derived from the Latin word ‘Socius’, meaning
companion or associate, and the Greek word ‘logos’ , meaning study or science.
Thus, the etymological meaning of sociology is the science of society.
Sociology is the scientific study of human social behavior and its origins,
development, organizations, and institutions. It is a social science that uses various
methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to develop a body of knowledge
about human social actions, social structure and functions. A goal for many sociologists
is to conduct research which may be applied directly to social policy and welfare, while
others focus primarily on refining the theoretical understanding of social processes.
Subject matter ranges from the micro level of individual agency and interaction to
the macro level of systems and the social structure.
Sociology is the study of human social relationships and institutions. Sociology's
subject matter is diverse, ranging from crime to religion, from the family to the state, from
the divisions of race and social class to the shared beliefs of a common culture, and
from social stability to radical change in whole societies. Unifying the study of these
diverse subjects of study is sociology's purpose of understanding how human action and
consciousness both shape and are shaped by surrounding cultural and social structures.
Sociology is an exciting and illuminating field of study that analyzes and explains
important matters in our personal lives, our communities, and the world. At the personal
level, sociology investigates the social causes and consequences of such things as
romantic love, racial and gender identity, family conflict, deviant behavior, aging, and
religious faith. At the societal level, sociology examines and explains matters like crime
and law, poverty and wealth, prejudice and discrimination, schools and education,
business firms, urban community, and social movements. At the global level, sociology
studies such phenomena as population growth and migration, war and peace, and
economic development.
Some Important Definitions of Sociology
 AugusteComete, the founding father of sociology, defines sociology
as the science of social phenomena "subject to natural and invariable
laws, the discovery of which is the object of investigation".
 Kingsley Davis says that "Sociology is a general science of society".
 Harry M. Johnson opines that "sociology is the science that deals with
social groups".
 Marshal Jones defines sociology as "the study of man-in-relationship-to-
men".
 Max Weber defines sociology as "the science which attempts the
interpretative understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a
casual explanation of its course and effects".
 Alex Inkeles says, "Sociology is the study of systems of social action and
of their inter-relations".
 Kimball Young and Raymond W. Mack say, "Sociology is the scientific
study of social aspects of human life".
Of the various definitions of sociology the one given by Morris Ginsberg seems
to be more satisfactory and comprehensive. He defines sociology in the following way:
"In the broadest sense, sociology is the study of human interactions and inter-
relations, their conditions and consequences".
Sociologists emphasize the careful gathering and analysis of evidence about
social life to develop and enrich our understanding of key social processes. The
research methods sociologists use are varied. Sociologists observe the everyday life of
groups, conduct large-scale surveys, interpret historical documents, analyze census
data, study video-taped interactions, interview participants of groups, and conduct
laboratory experiments. The research methods and theories of sociology yield powerful
insights into the social processes shaping human lives and social problems and
prospects in the contemporary world. By better understanding those social processes,
we also come to understand more clearly the forces shaping the personal experiences
and outcomes of our own lives. The sociological imagination is extremely valuable
academic preparation for living effective and rewarding personal and professional lives
in a changing and complex society.
Sociology offers a distinctive and enlightening way of seeing and understanding
the social world in which we live and which shapes our lives. Sociology looks beyond
normal, taken-for-granted views of reality, to provide deeper, more illuminating and
challenging understandings of social life. Through its particular analytical perspective,
social theories, and research methods, sociology is a discipline that expands our
awareness and analysis of the human social relationships, cultures, and institutions that
profoundly shape both our lives and human history.

Self-Assessment Questions
1. Give any two definitions of Sociology.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.3 Relationship of Political Science with Sociology

Sociology and Political Science are closely related. They both lack clearly
defined meaning. The origin of the term Political Scienceis rather old, as it is associated
with the Greek word Polis whereas the term Sociologywas coined by AugusteComtein
1839 to designate the science of society. Political science and sociology are very
intimately connected and rare mutually contributory.
i. Sociology is the parent science of all the social sciences. It deals with
social development in general and analysis and describes social life in all
its phases and complexities through all ages and climes. Sociology may,
thus, be defined as the science of the origin and development, structure
and functions, of social groups , their forms, laws, customs, institutions,
modes of life, thought and action and their contribution to human culture
and civilization. These sociological aspects form the basis for the study
(genesis, growth and development) of political institutions and structures.
ii. Sociology seeks to discover the general principles underlying all social
phenomena and social relationships to establish the laws and rules of
change and growth in a particular society.
iii. Both Political Science and Sociology are mutually contributory. Political
Science gives to Sociology facts about the organization and functions of
the state, and obtains from it knowledge of the origin of political authority
and laws which controlled society.
iv. A Political Scientist must be a sociologist and a sociologist ought to be a
political scientist. For example, the institution of marriage by itself is an
element in the social life of man and is the concern of Sociology. But if a
 code of marriage, like the Hindu Marriage Act, is enacted to regulate it in
a particular way, it at once falls within the domain of political Sciences as
it comes within the scope of organized control and obedience.
v. The analysis of political parties, pressure groups, Political associations,
unions and political roles cannot be divorced from their relationship to
social classes. The sociology of the electorate-behaviour of man in the
associated process- solves the difficulties emerging from the basic
democratic mechanism.
vi. Various methods and concepts of sociology were applied to the study of
political behaviour and institutions which gave rise to a new branch called
Political Sociology.
vii. Political Science provides information to sociology about the organization
and functions of the state and knowledge of the origin of political authority
and laws which control society.
viii. Policies are formulated and laws are enacted only after a careful
consideration of the social needs and the consequences the laws of the
people concerned.
3.4 SUMMARY
In spite of this close affinity between Sociology and Political Sciences, the study
of both the sciences is distinct and their problems are by no means the same. Sociology
deals with man in all his varied social relations and in all forms of human associations.
Its study is not confined to one aspect of man alone.
Political Sciences, on the other hand, is the study of the political governance of
man and it is a specialized branch of Sociology. It has a narrower and more restricted
field to cover than Sociology. Secondly, the political life of man begins much later than
his social life. Sociology is prior to Political Science. Thirdly, Sociology embraces the
study of organized and unorganized communities and the conscious and unconscious
activities of man. The province of Political Science is the politically organized society and
conscious political activities of man. Finally, Political Science aims at the past, present
and future determination of the political organizations of mankind , whereas Sociology is
the study of various social institutions that exist or have existed. It does not and cannot
predict about the future of society and social relationships. Its study is empirical and has
no philosophical trend to follow.
3.5 GLOSSARY
1. Empirical – verifiable by observation.
2. Prejudice - preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual
experience
3.6 FURTHER READINGS
• Johari, J. C. (1985). Principles of Modern Political Science. Sterling
Publishers, Pvt.Ltd. UP.
• Gauba, O.P (2016). An Introduction to Political Thought Mayer
Paperback.
 • Jain, M.P. (2012). Political Theory.Bookage Publication, Delhi.
3.7 MODEL QUESTIONS:
1. Sociology provides the material for the analyses of Political issues. Give
your arguments.
2. Discuss major similarities between the subject matter of Political Science
and Sociology.

---00---
 Lesson-4

THE STATE
Structure
4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Salient features of the state
4.3 Elements of the State
4.4 Non-essential elements of the state
4.5 State and other related concepts
4.6 Summary
4.7 Glossary
4.8 Further Readings
4.9 Model Questions
4.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson you will be able :
• to understand the concept of state
• to understand the importance of State' in a study of politics
• to locate the elements that join to form a state
• to understand the relationship of state with other institutions the
government, society, association and nation
4.1 INTRODUCTION
“The purpose of the state is always the same: to limit the individual, to tame
him, to subordinate him, to subjugate him” (Max Stirner, The Ego and His
Own, 1845)
The politics is often understood as the study of the state. Political science used to
be defined by almost all the political scientists as the science of state. A large majority of
political scientists accepted as valid the statement made by Garner, “Political science
begins and ends with the state”. This is widely mentioned that, “State as old as history
and politics is as old as state”. According to Woodrow Wilson, “State is a people
organized for law within a definite territory”. In this lecture script, we are going to
acquaint you with the concept of the State, its element, and how does it differ from the
Government, Society Association and Nation?
The traditional political scientist like Gamer, Gettle, Pollack and Strong accept the
centrality of the concept of State in Political Science. To Gamer, Political Science begins
and ends with State. While describing the scope of the subject, these political scientists
had preferred to use the term state because it is so comprehensive that it includes all
other institutions like Government Constitution etc. The term State in the modem sense
was used for the first time by Machiavelli in his book. 'The Prince', To the Greeks, the
concept was ambiguous. They used the word 'polls' which means 'city state'. In these
city states, the emphasis was on rights and duties not upon supremacy and obedience.
As Catlin points out, "they could more appropriately be described as the city community
rather than the modern state". However the concept of State began to emerge during the
later medieval age, but it was not well articulated, it was only in the 16th century that the
term or concept of State became current.
In common usage the term State is used in varied sense. We often come across
such phrases as 'state transport', 'State College of education', 'State aid to industries'
etc. Strictly speaking all such usages of the term 'state' are wrong. The fact is that when
we talk of the state transport we refer to that transport which is run by the government,
as distinguished from the one that is managed by a private company or an individual
capitalist. We thus confuse the two terms-state and government and do not understand
the difference between the two. Another equally wrong usage of the term is with regard
to the units of federation. We often describe Punjab, Harayana, HimachalPradesh etc.,
as states. These units are even officially described as states. But a Political Scientist
would not accept them as states. In fact, Punjab, Haryana and Himachal are the units of
a bigger state, India. All these so called states in India are the units of federation. In this
way, we can say that though term 'State' has been distorted in a number of ways to
cover a number of diverse units and usages yet in political science it has a definite
meaning and a precise definition.
Aristotle, “State is an association of families and villages having for its end a
happy and prosperous living- a self sufficient existence
Burgess says that state is "a particular portion of mankind viewed as an
organized unit."
Woodrow Wilson says that the state "is a people organised for law within a
definite territory."
Bodin defines the state as, "an association of families and their common
possessions governed by a supreme power and by reason".
Gilchrist, “A state is the concept of political science and exists where a number
of people, living on a definite territory are unified under a government which in the
internal matters is the organ for expressing their sovereignty and in the external matters
is independent of other government
Gamer, “the state is "a community of persons more or less numerous
permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent, or nearly so of
external control and possessing an organized government to which the great body of
inhabitants render habitual obedience". This definition covers all the elements of modern
state which are: first a number of persons. Second, the occupation of a definite territory,
third,having a well organized government, fourth, possessing independence of external
control.
4.2 SALIENT FEATURES OF THE STATE
The state can most simply be defined as a political association that establishes
sovereign jurisdiction within defined territorial borders and exercises: authority through a
set of permanent institutions. It is possible to identify five key features of the state.
1. The state exercises sovereignty: it exercises absolute and unrestricted
 power in that it stands above all other associations and groups in society;
Thomes Hobbes, for this reason, portrayed the state as a “Leviathan”, a
gigantic monster.
2. The state institutions are recognizably “public”: in contrast to the
private institutions of civil society- state bodies are responsible for making
and enforcing collective decisions in society and are funded at the
public’s expense.
3. The state is an exercise in legitimation: its decisions are usually
accepted as binding on its citizens because it is claimed; it reflects the
permanent interests of society.
4. The state is an instrument in domination: it possesses the coercive
power to ensure that its laws are obeyed and that transgressors are
punished.
5. The state is a territorial association: it exercises jurisdiction within
geographically defined borders and in international politics is treated as
an autonomous entity
The State may thus be said to consist of four elements namely, population
territory, government and sovereignty. We discuss them as under:
4.3 ELEMENTS OF THE STATE
• Population, Territory, Government, Sovereignty
1. Population:State being a human institution, cannot be conceived of without
human beings. Population is a essential to a state as threads are to a piece of
cloth. A desert or a mountain peak where people, normally do not live can not be
described a state. This much is, therefore, certain that there must be some
people to constitute a state. Now the question arises how many people should
be' there to form a state? This question regarding the number of persons
necessary or desirable for constituting a state can not be answered in concrete
terms. There is no limit to the size of its population. All that is required is that
there must be some human being living in it. This does not mean a dozen people
or so living in place will form a state. Their number should not be very small, but
there is no ceiling (limit) to the population of the state. Some writers have tried to
suggest a limit for example; Plato felt that an effective number of 5040 citizens
should be sufficient.
His disciple Aristotle opined that the population should be large enough to
be self-sufficing and small enough: to be well-governed. According to him a
hundred persons would rather be too small a number but a hundred thousand
would be too unmanageable. Likewise Rousseau, a great-admirer of small
republics and direct democracy, thought that ten thousand may be an ideal
number.While some states like the U.S.A. Russia and Canada are still under
populated relative to area, resources and similar factors. Other states like India,
China and Italy are confronted by the problem of a population which is expanding
too rapidly for their natural or technological resources. Therefore, every state
strives to confine its population within its exiting or potential resources. The
former set of spates (U.S.A., former U.S.S.R. and Canada) encourages
 increased population in comparison to the latter which attempts to control the
population.
2. Fixed Territory:Territory is the second essential element of the state. The
people do hot become a state unless they permanently settle down in some
territory. Previously, philosophers like Hall. Duguit, Seeley, etc. did not attach
much importance to the permanent settlement of a people on some territory.
There is now a consensus that nomadic people do not form a state though they
may not be deficient in political organisation. There have been numerous
organised groups in the early periods of human civilization which occupied no
fixed territory. It is now a fairly common opinion that such tribal formations, so
long as they do not settle down on a definite piece of territory, do not constitute
States. There is no such thing as migratory state. For example, the Jews were
not able to form themselves into a state till recently because they had no home-
land of their own. They lived scattered over various parts of the globe. But now a
good number of them have settled down in the parts of Palestine, and the Jewish
state of Israel has consequently come into being. Therefore, territory is
indispensable in the making of the state. The authority of the state extends not
only over persons, but over the territory also.
With regard to the extent of territory also we cannot fix any hard and fast
rules. The modem states vary greatly in size. On the other hand, the state of San
Marino has an area of only 38 squaremiles.There was a time when political
thinkers considered the smaller state to be better. This view prevailed in ancient
Greece. Aristotle was of the opinion that if the size of the state was very large,
good administration was difficult. Rousseau also subscribed to this view. These
writers were to some extent justified partly because the means of transport and
communications were then un-developed and partly because the representative
institutions had not yet been well organised. But now when the problems of
communication and government no longer hamper us, large size states are
preferable. That is why we find smaller states drawing closer to each other and
forming federations. Larger states have an added advantage of a vast economic
potential.
The extent of territory that a state should possess depends upon the size
of the population it has to support. If the population is larger than what the natural
resources of the country can sustain, complications are likely to arise unless it
rapidly becomes highly industrialized and economically efficient. On the other
hand, if the population is small many tracts of the territory would remain
uninhabited. This vital relationship between the territory and the population of the
state had impelled Aristotle to remark that the territory of a state should be small
enough to be well governed and large enough to be self-sufficient.It may be
added that the territory of a state also includes, besides the land surface the
entire air space above the land surface. Further, the authority of the state also
extends over a part' of the sea that touches its territory coast. The extent of this
maritime or coastal belt as it is called is generally three miles.
Finally, it may be remarked that the territory of a state should preferably
be contiguous. If it scattered and separated, it will pose, administrative
difficulties. Pakistan as it existed before the creation of Bangladesh consisted of
the East and West Pakistan separated from each other by two thousand miles
has been a victim of this geographical misfortune.
3. Government: Government is the concrete expression of the state. The people
may live in a particular piece of territory, but that inhabited territory cannot be
termed as state unless the people are controlled by a common government.
Government forms the agency through which the will of the state is formulated,
expressed and executed. Population in the absence of government is only an
unorganized mass of people. The government brings about regulation and
adjustment in the life of the people. The ends of the state can be achieved
through the government only. Moreover, the state is incapable of collective action
in any sphere without such an agency. All this means that government in one
form or another is essential for the existence of the state.
The Government has three branches - legislature, executive and
judiciary. The legislature makes laws, the executive enforces and execute them
and the judiciary interprets and punishes the breach of laws. The government
exercises the physical coercion at the disposal of the state and punishes
disobedience to its command.The form of Government is immaterial so far as the
state is concerned. It may be kingship, democratic or dictatorial, parliamentary or
presidential, federal or unitary. A change in government does not bring a change
in the state.
4. Sovereignty:Sovereignty is the most important element of the state. It alone
distinguishes the state from other associations. There are two kinds at
Sovereignty, (a) Internal and (b) External.
Internal Sovereignty: Internal sovereignty implies the supremacy of the state
over its citizens, over all their associations and over their entire possessions.
This means that the state possesses authority to secure and unquestioned
obedience from all citizens to its laws. If any one of them throws a challenge to
its authority by disobeying its laws, it .can inflict upon him any type of
punishment, ranging from a simple warning to death penalty depending of course
on the gravity of the crime.
External sovereignty: External sovereignty implies that a state is independent in
its external actions. This means that outside the territorial bounds of the state,
there is no other state, government, king or any authority, who may issue
command to this state. It is completely free from any such limitation. It may
voluntarily accept and abide by the dictates of the international law and
obligations.
To sum up, sovereignty means full authority over the citizens within and
complete independence from outside. But several other essential elements of a
state are described by writers. Burgess for example, gives all
comprehensiveness and permanence as peculiar elements of the state. But
those are the merits of a state not the essential elements constituting a stated
Population definite territory. Well organised government and sovereignty are thus
the essential elements of the state.
4.4 NON-ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE STATE
Some political scientists are of the view that a state has certain other attributes in
the addition to the four features mentioned above. These are:
1. Unity: The feature of the unity implies that the people inhabiting the
territory of the state should have one political organization. The people
 and the territory of one state cannot become the part of any other.
Therefore, there cannot be a territory of a state which is under the control
of any other state. According to Garner, “It means that there can be but
one state organization upon the same territory over the same people.
2. All comprehensiveness: All comprehensiveness means that all the
people or groups of people come with the jurisdiction of the supreme
power of the state. No individual or group of people, organization or
institution can be out of the jurisdiction of state sovereignty.
3. Continuity: The form of government in a state may undergo frequent
change but it does not affect the existence of the state. Monarchy may be
replaced by a republic form of government, the government by one
political party may be substituted by the government of some other
political party, but it will not affect the existence of the state.
4. Permanence: It means that the state is a permanent institution.
According to Garner, “A population organized as a state remains always
under some organization.” Many times the existence of the state is
abolished or a portion of the territory of a state is given to some other
state due to war or peace treaties but in all such cases it is the change of
sovereignty and people continue to inhabit the same territory.
5. Equality: The term equality means that all the state are equal in the eyes
of the international law. The smallness or vastnessof the territory of the
state, it developed, developing or under developed nature, and its
richness or poverty in no way affect the international status of a state.
6. International recognition: Many scholars are of the view that the
recognition of the state by the international community is absolutely
necessary for a state. Its after attainment of international recognition that
a state becomes the member of the community of nations and establishes
diplomatic relations with other state.

Self-Assessment Questions
1. Define State.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What are the main essential elements of the State?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Write down the essential elements of the State

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.5 STATE AND OTHER RELATED CONCEPTS

 • State and Government
• State and Association
• State and Society
• State and Nation
I. State and Government: The term "State" and "Government" confuse the
layman. People generally use them in an identical sense. Even Kings like Louis
XIV confused state with government. He used to say "I am the state". He could
claim that he was government as he was an absolute monarch and all
government authority vested in him. But he himself could not claim to be a state
as the state is altogether a different concept. Similarly the Stuart kings of
England lived under the same misconception.
It is not only the great kings’ arid monarchs who used the term state and
government in the identical sense. Even in the ordinary life, we find that the two
terms are used inter changeably, as if there were no difference between the two.
It is most noticeable when a classification of government is mistaken for
classification- of state or when acts of government are treated as if these were
acts of the state.The state is the politically organised"person" for the promotion of
common ends and the satisfaction of common needs, while the government is an
essential element of the state, through which the will of the state is expressed,
formulated and realized. State and government are two different terms having
altogether different meanings. The following points bring out the distinction
between the two.
1. State is the whole government is a part thereof: State is a
combination of four factors, viz, population, territory, government and
sovereignty whereas government is only one of the factors which
constitute the state. Government is only a part of the state and is not the
whole. Government is the working machinery through which the purpose
of the state are formulated and carried into effect. It is that agency of the
state through which the will of the state is formulated, expressed and
executed. Government is thus, only part of the state.
2. Membership of the state extends to/the total population but that of
the government to a part thereof: The state contains the total
population living in its territory, but the number of people who constitute
the government is much smaller, even though with the progress of
democracy this number also is on the increase. The government consists
of such people as are required to man its legislative executive, and
judicial departments.
3. State is permanent, government is temporary: The state is permanent.
A state remains a state so long as it fulfils four conditions, viz, population,
territory government and sovereignty. Obviously, these factors are not
easily destructible. But governments are temporary. They always go on
changing. They come and go but states continue forever. Death of a
monarch or a ruler or the forcible overthrow of a government or its
peaceful replacement through a democratic election does not mean the
extinction of the state. This means that change in the government do not
 constitute a change in the state because state is permanent and
government is temporary.
4. The state is abstract, the government is concrete: The state is merely
a concept, which cannot be perceived by our senses; it is something
abstract and can only be understood and not seen. As against this, the
term 'government' refers to a certain number of people who can be seen
and known. Unlike the state which is all identical, the governments exhibit
different forms such as - monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, unitary
and federal, cabinet and presidential government. All states are alike in
essence and it is possible to conceive of a state without reference to any
particular government.
5. The individual can have rights against the government but not
against the state: The individual may have rights against the
government, but can certainly have no right against the state, because
the state is the source of all power. The government and the individuals
are both under it. Further, individuals can have complaints and grievance
against the government and not against the state. State never acts by
self. It always acts through the government which alone can inflict injury
on others.
6. Sovereignty belongs to the state, not to the government:Sovereignty
is the exclusive characteristic of the state, whereas the government is
only an agent of the state. Whatever authority or power belongs to the
government is derived from or-delegated by the state. The state can
increase or decrease this power. Thus, the relationship between the state
and government is that of a master and a servant.
7. Territory is characteristic of states, not of government: State, is a
territorial 'organization: As stated earlier, state cannot be found unless it
has a permanent territory. Territory is thus one of its essentials elements.
The government, on the contrary, does not have reference to territory.
It may be noted in the end that distinction between state and government is more
of theoretical nature than of any practical value. That is why recent thinkers like Harold,
J. Laski and G.D.H: Cole have, for practical purposed, slurred over this distinction. We
all know that all actions of the state are taken by the government.
II. State and Society: Society is a sociological term. In ordinary parlance, it is used
to denote a jumbled collection of groups, associations that men form in order to
fulfil their varied needs. Actually, however, it is something much wider than those
social groups. Besides, being a sum total of associations. It also includes the
whole range of human relationship-social, economic, cultural, religious, and
political, etc. It has, thus a wider connotation than what the term 'state' implies. In
plain words, it is a wider whole and state is a part thereof. Society may be
defined as the complex of organized associations and institutions within a
community. It is a web of social relationship. Let us work out this distinction in
details in the following manner.
(1) Scope of society is wider than that of state: State is a community of
persons organized for law within a definite territory. It has definite scope.
The state is only concerned with political relations of the organized
 communities. Society, on the other hand, is comprehensive and covers
the whole range of human relation i.e. social, economic, political religious
etc. All relationship between man and man, whether direct or indirect,
conscious or unconscious, organized or unorganized are covered society.
It is universal, all pervading and all-inclusive group of human beings. The
purpose of the state is to maintain only the external, conditions of society.
Therefore, we can easily conclude that scope of society is much wider
than that of the state.
(2) State has territorial reference but society has no territory: State is a
territorial organization. It has well defined boundaries of its own. But
society is not restricted to any geographical area. The Jews, for example,
constitute a society, although they are spread all over the world. So is the
case with the Hindu society, the Islamic or the Christian society. It has
thus no territorial reference as the state always has. Its scope may cover
the entire world transcending the boundaries of various states. Further in
the same state the people may be organised into different societies
having different social tradition. But you know that the state has always a
define territory.
(3) State creates order in Society:It is clear that society is not the same
thing as state, but it is the state which maintains the frame work of social
order. The society is held together by the state which is the highest form
of social organization. It makes the individual obey certain laws without
which well ordered social life would not be possible.
(4) State has an element of coercion: State is a coercive organization in
the sense that it demands obedience from all its citizens. If anyone
disobeys its authority, it can punish him, its punishment can assume, any
form, ranging from a simple warning to death penalty. Society, on the
other hand is voluntary and an informal organization possessing no such
competence to punish its members.
(5) Society is prior to state: In point of time, society is prior to state. As has
been described by various writers society preceded the state just as it
preceded the family, the church, the corporation and the political party. It
unites all these like a tree unites its branches. It is now generally
conceded that a considerable time must have lapsed before man evolved
the form of political organization called the state. The primitive people
lived in kinship groups before the state emerged. Historically considered,
therefore, the state comes into existence much later than the society.
These differences apart, the state and society have many things in common with
each other. The relationship between the two is quite intimate. One depends upon other.
Society cannot progress unless state takes upon itself the task of its welfare.
Conversely, state cannot function properly if society does not furnish to it the right type
of human material and proper social milieu.
III. State and Association: In our daily life, we observe that man forms a variety of
groups and associations partly with a view to satisfying his social instinct and
partly with a view to fulfilling his wants. The groups which formally organize
themselves in order to meet certain specific wants are known as associations.
State is also one such association, because it is also formally organized with the
 overall purpose of advancing the political welfare of its citizens, it is however, a
unique type of association, different from the other associations. It differs from
others in the following manner:-
1. State possesses territory while association does not: One of the
central features, of the state is that it possesses territory. Without territory,
state cannot come into existence. On the other hand, association does
not possess territory.
2. Membership of the state as compulsory, but that of an association is
voluntary:The membership of the state is obligatory. The mere fact that
one is born in a state, confers upon him its membership which cannot be
resigned under normal conditions. The membership of the association, on
the other hand, is voluntary. One can acquire the membership of an
association at will and surrender it whenever it so chooses.Further, one
can at one time be a member of one state only. If one acquires the
citizenship of another state, he automatically, relinquishes the citizenship
of the first state. On the other hand, one can acquire the membership of
as many associations as one likes. As a matter of fact, one does
associate oneself with a number of associations.
3. State has coercive power but an association has no legal force: As
said earlier, the state possesses an element of coercion. It punishes the
offenders through its authority. This power is enjoyed only by the state
and not by any other association because state alone is sovereign.
4. State is permanent but an association may be temporary: State is a
permanent association. Once formed, it does not come to an end so
easily. On the other hand, associations are formed when need be and
dissolved when their purpose is served.
5. State is a multipurpose association but association may have a
single purpose: The main feature of an association is singleness of
purpose for the achievement of which it is formed. A cricket club is formed
for the promotion of the game of cricket. A state does not have any one
single object to achieve. It is multipurpose organization: All human
activities; social, economic, political, etc. fall directly or indirectly in its
purview.
6. State is a supreme association and all other associations are
controlled by it: State is a supreme association. It controls and co-
ordinates the activities of all other associations. Sometimes it creates
associations like the universities, trade unions etc. The state is, therefore,
an all-pervasive, all embracing and all inclusive association. It brings
harmony by controlling the external behaviour of these associations.
IV. State and Nation: The term nation' has been derived from Latin word 'Natio'
meaning race. This is a term which is used to denote that group of people who
are united among themselves by the bonds of brother hood or the sentiments of
oneness, In good old days, when racial bonds were quite strong to hold people
together, nation was considered more or less equivalent to race. When racial
bonds grew feeble, their place was taken by such factors as common history,
common religion, common language and common interests. With the passage of
 time the term nation come to be associated with nationals of a sovereign state,
who are united among themselves by the community of governmental system,
mutual political interests, cultural background and economic aspirations etc. Thus
the two terms nation and state came to coincide with each other. Even today
sometimes these two terms are used interchangeably e.g. western nations,
European nations or African nations etc. Here we do not mean nation but state.
There is a difference between these two terms which is given below.
(1) State is political and legal concept whereas nation is a psychological
concept, state refers to certain institutional apparatus whereas nation
refers to feelings of attachment and loyalty. It is the mental and emotional
integration of the people.
(2) For constituting a state we need population, fixed territory, Government
and sovereignty. All these four elements are essential if anyone of these
elements is missing, state cannot be constituted. Since nation is a unified
group of people, its constituent elements are common race, common
language, common culture, common religion, common history etc. None
of these is an essential element. They go on changing. As in early times
common race was the unifying factor but now it has been replaced by
other factors.
(3) Fixed territory is essential for the state but not for the nation. Before 1948
the Jews were a nation but they had no fixed territory of their own. When
in 1948 they got the fixed territory, they established the state of Israel.
Same is the case of sovereignty. Before 1947, India was a nation but it
could not be called a state because it had no sovereignty, it was ruled by
the Britishers. After 1947 when it attained independence India became a
state.
(4) There can be two or more nations in one state. Former U.S.S.R was one
state but there were many nationalities within it.
(5) Nation can be wider than the state. State has a fixed well defined
boundary. But Nation can extend beyond that denned boundary. For
example from racial point of view French nation extends to Italy,
Switzerland, Canada etc.
(6) A nation is a natural and spontaneous organisation. After Second World
War, Germany was divided into two separate independent states. But
they remained emotionally one and in October 1990 were united into a
single state. North and South Vietnam have also become one state.
4.6 SUMMARY
The state has always been central to political analysis, to such an extent that
politics is often understood as the study of the state. This is evident in two debates.
1. The first and most fundamental of these focuses upon the need for
the state and the basis of political obligations: The classic justification
for the state is provided by social contract theory, which constructs a
picture of what life would be like, in a stateless society, a so called “state
of nature”. In the view of thinkers such as Hobbes and Locke (1632-
1704), as the state of nature would be the characterized by an unending
 civil war of each against all, people would be prepared to enter into an
agreement- a social contract- through which they would sacrifice a portion
of their liberty in order to create a sovereign body without which orderly
and stable existence would be impossible. In final analysis, individuals
should obey the state because it is only safeguard they have against
disorder and chaos.
2. The second area of debate concerns the nature of state power: The
major positions in the debate can be summarized as follow. Liberal view
the state as a neutral arbiter amongst competing interests and groups in
society, a vital guarantee of social order; the state is at worst a necessary
evil. Marxists have portrayed the state as an instrument of class
autonomy from the ruling class oppression, a bourgeois state, or allowing
for its “relative autonomy” from the ruling class, have emphasized that the
role is to maintain stability within a system of unequal class power.
The late twentieth century nevertheless witnessed a general “hollowing out” of the
state, leading, some argue, to its growing irrelevance in the modern world. Chief
amongst these developments have been: globalization and the incorporation of national
economies into a global one that cannot be controlled by any state; privatization and the
growing preference for market organization over state management; and localism, the
unleashing of centrifugal pressures through a strengthening of regional and community
politics and the rise of particularistic “nationalisms”.
4.7 GLOSSARY
1. Globalization- The process by which people and goods move easily
across borders.
2. Kinship- Blood relationship.
4.8 FURTHER READINGS:
• Verma, S.P. (1975). Modern Political Theory.Vikas Publisher
• Asisvatham, E &Misra K. K (2014-15). Political Theory. S. Chand &
Co. Ltd, New Delhi.
4.9 MODEL QUESTIONS
1. Discuss the elements of State.
2. Discuss the differences between State, Society and Nation.

---00---
 Lesson-5

THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF STATE: SOCIAL

CONTRACT THEORY

Structure
5.0 Objectives
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The Social Contract Theory: Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau
5.3 Rousseau’s Comparison with Hobbes and Locke
5.4 Critical Evolution of Social Contract Theory
5.5 Summary
5.6 Glossary
5.7 Further Readings
5.8 Model Questions
5.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson you will be able:
 to discuss and critically evaluate the Social Contract Theoryof the origin
of the State.
 to understand the views of Hobbes, Locke and Rosseau on the Social
Contract.
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Reaching an agreement about what we mean by “the state” provides a basis
upon which to examine a deeper problem: what is the nature of state power, and what
interests does the state represent? From this perspective, the state is an “essentially
contested” concept. There are a number of rival theories of the state each of which
offers a different account of its origins, development and impact on society. Indeed,
controversy about the nature of state power has increasingly dominated modern political
analysis and goes to the heart of ideological and theoretical disagreement in the
discipline. Four contrasting theories of the state can be identified as follows:
1. The Pluralist State
2. The Capitalist State
3. The Leviathan State
4. The Patriarchal State
 In this context, there are many theories which have endeavoured to answer the
question: how has the state come into being? The oldest theory about the origin of state
is perhaps the Divine Theory. The theory, that God ordained the state, found its
advocates in various religious utterances. For example, Christians believed that God had
imposed that state upon men as a punishment for his sins represented by Adam's fall
from grace in the garden of Eden. Throughout the middle ages divine origin theory held
sway, but the revolution of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries waged in the name
of the people destroyed all the divine pretensions of a fading royal absolutism.
Another theory holds that state originated in conquest, 'War begot the king' is the
postulate of Force Theory. The supporters of this theory opine that state has its basis in
justice and is essentially evil. The weak are subdued by the strong who later clothe
themselves with the pretensions of legitimacy. This theory does not sanction any
resistance to the state actions and it does not recognize those natural rights of life,
liberty and property, which are supposed to be the life and breath of any organized
living. Its over emphasis on force is the greatest argument against it.Family Theory
explains that state originated with the family which later developed into the clan and
tribe. It was family where from the individual inculcated the habits of obedience carried
over from the father to the tribal council of elders. This theory oversimplified the origin of
state which has not been such a straight and simple process and hence only, partly
explains the origins of state.There is then the Social Contract Theory which signified the
ultimate triumph of the principle of popular sovereignty over the irrational concept of
divine rights of kings. This makes the state a man-made institution which rests on the
consent of the individuals. Once an accepted view, this theory gained more democratic
orientations at the hands of various political philosophers - Rousseau being the foremost
of them. The other two philosophers whose names have almost become synonyms for
this theory are Hobbes and Locke. But this theory being too speculative, also failed to
solve the issue of how state came into being Speculation in the realm of political science
is a virtue only to a limited extent and social contract theory is wholly based on
speculation and imagination, which means that history .does not come to its rescue.
This is quite evident that the state has always been there even though in a
rudimentary form, ever since man inhabited this planet. But the origin of state like all
human institutions cannot be explained in terms of any single factor, neither can its
development be traced to an unbroken chain of progressive evolution, starting from a
specific period to the present day. In fact state is neither an artificial creation (Social
Contract Theory) nor a divine make (Divine Origin theory) - neither does it trace its origin
in coercion (Force theory) 'nor did man straight jumped into political organization rising
from the family living - It is a natural and beneficent institution. It is there because it is
needed to be there - what exists must have a reason to exist otherwise it would cease to
exist. State is an evolution out of a complex set of human needs. This evolution forbids
any explanation in terms of human reason, since it delies any set pattern of growth.
Evolutionary theory offers the most convincing answer to this problem of state origin
laying down that the state is a continuous development of human society out of a grossly
imperfect beginning through crude but improving forms of manifestation towards a
perfect and universal organization of the mankind.
However, before discussing the evolutionary theory, we shall discuss in detail the
Social Contract Theory about the origin of state.
5.2 THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
 The social contract theory played a very important role both in political theory and
practice. It, therefore, needed to be discussed at length. A social contract theory is a
voluntary agreement amongst individuals through which an organized society, or state,
is brought into existence. Used as a theoretical device by thinkers such as Hobbes
Locke and Rousseau. In the classical form, social contract theory has three elements:
1. The image of a hypothetical stateless society (a ‘state of nature’) is
established. Unconstrained freedom means that life is solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish and short’ (Hobbes).
2. Individuals therefore seek to escape from the state of nature by entering
into asocial contract, recognizing that only a sovereign power can secure
order and stability
3. The social contract obliges citizens to respect and obey the nature,
ultimately in gratitude for stability and security that only a system of
political rule can deliver.
In brief the social contract theory, based' on speculation, as it had been,
considers the state a man made institution, its exponents hold that there was a time
when state did not exist anywhere in the surface of the globe. At that time, nature ruled
and regulated the conduct of the primitive man. To that stage, they describe as the state
of nature. They further say that the primitive man, compelled by certain circumstances
thought of establishing the state and, he actually established one by means of a social
contract. In their opinion, the state is, thus, the result of a conscious effort on the part of
man.
This theory has been as old as the history' of the political ' philosophy. Like any
other branch of human knowledge this theory also traces its origin to the pre-Platonic
days. In the Greek city states of ancient times, there lived', a group of philosophers,
called the Sophists, who believed that the state was the outcome of a convention, hence
it impinged upon the natural freedom of the man. Since those Greek-days, this theory
found its reference in all periods in the long history of the Western political thought. It
was also upheld by the Indian philosophers. Kautilya in his Arthasastra says, "People
suffered from anarchy as illustrated by the proverbial tendency of a large fish swallowing
a small one, first elected Manu to be their king and allotted one sixth of the grains grown
and one tenth of their merchandise as sovereign's dues. Supported by this payment,
kings took upon themselves the responsibility of maintaining the safety and security of
their subjects."
This theory found its first detailed exposition at the hands of three eminent writers
of the recent times, namely, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, it is they who pushed this
theory of prominence. Let us now, study their views at length.
Thomas Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher who lived in England (1588-1679)
at the time of the civil war. The Roman Catholic King, Charles I had entered into a very
serious political controversy with his protestant Parliament. The controversy had
culminated into worst type of civil war, leading to a ghastly situation of disorder and
anarchy. After eight years of that nerve-breaking situation, the King lost and he was
beheaded. The monarchy also temporarily abolished. Thomas Hobbes who had once
been a tutor to Charles I felt very much fomented partly over the loss of his favourite
King and partly over the lawlessness that he witnessed and experienced. Being a
philosopher, he brooded over the situation and then arrived at the conclusion that the
only method by which the recurrence of any such situation could be avoided, was to
strengthen the authority of the king. He gave expression to his views in the form of a
theory which he expounded in his famous book. Leviathan, published in 1651. Since he
stood to strengthen the authority of the King, the sovereign of his conception wielded the
power and might of a despot. That sovereign came to be symbolically described, after
the name of the book, as Leviathan. We will discuss Hobbes's theory in detail in the
following paragraphs.
State of Nature
Hobbes begins his theory with a critical analysis of the nature of many He held
that man is by nature a selfish being. He is also an egoist. Both these features of his
personality combine to make him a self-centered human being, always worrying about
himself and ceaselessly engaging himself in satisfying his own personal wants. He is
least mindful of the convenience of others and does not hesitate even to the slightest to
trample over the needs of his so-called fellow beings if these needs clash with his own.
If, to-day, man does not behave in that selfish manner, the reason is not that he has
improved but because there is an established authority which checks and regulates his
conduct at every step. If there is no policeman to stop him, he would not spare any effort
to look and tease others.
Keeping in view the prevalent situation of disorder and confusion, he
philosophized that there must have been one period in the life of man when there did not
exist any authority whatsoever anywhere in the world. At that time man lived in the state
of nature. In the absence of anyone who would exercise a check upon him, he gave the
fullest display to his selfish and egoistic nature. At that time he could lay his hand upon
anything that appealed to him and could retain that as long as he could physically
manage to do so. Thus, the man lived by the strength of his physical power. He was at
war against everyone else and behaved like famished wolves seeking to devour
whomsoever they came across. Liberty that he possessed meant to him a license to use
his power for his own preservation, might that mean the death and destruction of
everyone else. In that ghastly situation, the law of the jungle 'might is right'-prevailed,
with the result that the life of man, to quote Hobbes's own words, was "solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish and short."
In the opinion of Hobbes, the state of nature was, therefore, both pre-social and
pre-political. It was pre-social in the sense that the modern civilization had not drawned
as yet and man led the most uncultured life. He did not know those sophistications of
social living as form the basic governing norms of our life, today. It was pre-political in
the sense the political authority in the form of a state or government had also not come
into existence. In a word, man led the most primitive type of life.
Social Contract
Hobbes further explains how that state of nature came to be transformed into a
civilized state. He says that people must have at one stage, been fed up with uncertain,
insecure state of nature and must have, thought of getting rid of it, and live peacefully
and happily in a civilized way. With that end m view, they must have gathered together
at one place and must have collectively deliberated over that question. In the end, they
must have decided to set up a state by means of a contract or compact. One of them
must have got up, so conjectured Hobbes, and must have addressed others in the,
manner, "I authorize and give up my right of governing to this man or this assembly on
this condition, that thou give up thy right to him and authorize all his action in like
manner." When each one of the assembled voluntarily surrendered his right of governing
himself to another, a state came into existence and the person with whom that right was
deposited by others became their ruler. In this way, a contract was entered into by the
primitive man, out of which the state and the sovereign both emerged.
The Emergent Authority
If we carefully study the manner in which the contract was entered upon, we find
that the authority that emerged out of the contract might that be called the state, the
sovereign, the ruler, the Government or the Leviathan was quite despotic. Two facts lead
to this conclusion; firstly, man surrendered the right of governing himself. It was that
basic right by virtue of which he conducted his whole life. He would no longer be guided
and governed by his own will, but, instead, by the will of .the ruler. He thus ceased to be
at his own. Secondly, the ruler to whom he surrendered his right to govern himself was
not a party to the contract. The ruler's consent to act as such was never obtained. In
fact, he did not utter even a single word, this way or that way. The assembled ones
talked among themselves, one telling the rest that he had surrendered his right of
governing himself to someone and would submit to him provided they also do so. He,
therefore, stipulated with his fellow beings and not with the one whom he gave his right
to rule. The conferment of sovereignty upon the ruler was thus unconditional, which
implied that whatever the ruler commanded his people to do, they must abide by his
orders. They would not raise even their little finger in defiance of his command. The only
logical limit to his authority was that he could not ask them to commit suicide or to do a
thing which might cause some physical harm to them. This he could do because they
had surrendered to him the right to govern with the sole object of making their lives more
secure and happier.
The characteristic 'features of Hobbes' sovereign may be summed up, as under:
(1) Hobbes sovereign is an absolute despot whose authority cannot be
challenged or flouted by his subjects under any circumstances
whatsoever.
(2) The sovereignty of Hobbes conception is absolute, unlimited, inalienable
and indivisible.
(3) Law is the command: of the sovereign. In other words, all laws emanate
from the will of the ruler.
(4) Hobbes' contract was binding and irrevocable. To break it was to revert
back to the same old state of savagery, murder and loot. There is no
intermediary stage between the two-the state of nature and the state of
the sovereign ruler. People may live in the either.
(5) The contract transforms the state of .nature into a civilized state. Since
both the ruler and the state emerge from the contract, there is hardly any
difference between the two. Hobbes's does not, therefore, make any
distinction between the government and the state, as the later two
philosophers do.
 (6) Hobbes contract was both social and political in nature because it
established not only a civilized society but a state also.
Criticism of Hobbes’s Social Contract Theory
1. Wrong definition of Human Nature: Hobbes argued that an individual is
unsocial selfish, brutish and cruel. But Man is a social human being who
leads a life of cooperation and friendship.
2. Need of the two parties for a contract: Hobbes’s contract is one sided
because the sovereign created by Hobbes was not party to the contract
nor he was bound to obey the conditions of the contract.
3. State and Human liberty: There is no place of human liberty or human
will against the state. Hobbes established a absolute state by the social
contract.
4. Definition of history and state of nature: There is no historical proof of
Hobbes’s view that before the state came into being; individual was living
in the state of nature.
5. It is against the liberal democratic principles: Today, the liberal
democracy is popular in the world in which the supreme power is vested
with the people and the government, State cannot be absolute beyond its
subject.
6. Difference with the state and government: Hobbes is not mentioned
any difference between state and the government, whereas these are two
different organizations.
7. How a uncivilized person can become civilized overnight: Leopard
cannot change his colour overnight meaning by that a night before an
individual was uncivilized brutish and cruel whereas next morning he
became civilized. How could it be possible before contract an individual
was bad and just after the social contract he became a noble being.
John Locke
Like his predecessor, John Locke was also the product of his times. He lived in
England (1632-1704) at that time when one unpopular King' quietly vacated the palace
and another, chosen by his people, came and occupied the throne. That event called the
glorious or bloodless Revolution, transformed the basic character of the British Kingship.
One long era of despotism came to an end another of constitutional monarchy ushered
in. Highly impressed by this significant event, the philosopher John Locke propounded
the theory of constitutionalism. In justification thereof, he talked about the origin of the
state and adopted the same line of approach as Hobbes did. He thus made a very
significant contribution to the development of the social contract theory.
State of Nature
Locke was also of the opinion that before the advent of the state, people lived in
the state of nature: He, however, does not subscribe to the view of Hobbes either with
regard to the human nature or with the state of nature. He says that man is basically not
a selfish animal. On the contrary, he is a social being, always animated by fellow-
feelings reason and justice. Accordingly, the state of nature was not a state of war and
constant fear. It was a state of perfect freedom wherein man lived in peace with his
fellow-beings and always actuated by the noble instinct of compassion and mutual help.
Man's conduct was regulated by the laws of nature which everybody keenly and
peacefully obeyed. He also possessed certain natural rights; noteworthy among them
were the rights to life, liberty and property. He not only enjoyed those rights himself but
also allowed others to enjoy them. The state of nature was thus a state of positive peace
and or natural give and take. Locke himself describes the state of nature as "a state of
perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their persons as they think fit,
within the bounds of the law of nature without asking leave or depending upon the will of
any other man."
Even though the state of nature was one of peace and goodwill, it suffered from
two basic shortcomings. Firstly, the laws of nature were uncertain. Secondly, there was
no recognized authority who could either give an authoritative interpretation to the laws
of nature or could settle the mutual disputes of the people. These two insufficiencies
often created difficulties for them, more specifically made, the enjoyment of their rights to
life, liberty and property difficult. Despite their best intentions to the contrary they began
to quarrel among themselves' in an ever increasing measure. To eradicate this lacuna
and to make their life more peaceful and orderly, people thought in terms of establishing
political machinery and, consequently, they held a convention and concluded a contract.
To sum up, Locke's state of nature, compared to that of Hobbes, was not pre-
social but only pre-political. Man knew the basic ingredients of social living, peace,
fellow-feelings, goodwill, and mutual give and take. The only thing that was missing was
the state. It was thus pre-political and non pre-social.
Social Contract
Locke was of the opinion that since the state of nature was deficient only in one
respect, i.e. there did not exist any political authority which could enforce law and order,
people had a very limited objective when they concluded a contract among .themselves.
He says that people mutually agreed to surrender only one right - the right to settle their
disputes and to punish others. By the surrender of this right they incorporated
themselves into a body public and thus the state was born. To elaborate, hitherto people
possessed a number of rights. Out of that multitude, they surrendered only one right and
not all the rights, as Hobbes suggested. This right that they surrendered was the political
one. They surrendered it not to any individual or to any assembly, but to an authority
which was to be subsequently established. By the surrender of this right, they stipulated
among themselves that in future whenever they quarreled among themselves, they
would not settle their disputes themselves, according to their individual conveniences.
They would instead, refer their dispute, to the authority concerned whose verdict they
would honour and abide by. This contract therefore, procured for them those basic
conditions of law and order as better facilitated the preservation of their life, liberty and
property. It was thus a social contract.
After they had organized themselves into a body politic, they proceeded ahead to
establish the authority which would settle their disputes. Locke says that people must
have picked up a person from among themselves and then stipulated with him that he
would act as a ruler or a government for them. They must have imposed certain
conditions upon him and if he accepted those conditions, he would have become their
ruler. In this way, that authority was established which they needed to enforce law and
order. This second contract, of which Locke does not make a direct reference, was the
political and governmental contract because it set up the political authority.
Emergent Authority
Locke suggests that the people of the state of nature concluded two contracts
and not one. Out of the" first contract, which people concluded among themselves by
surrendering one right, the body politic emerged. Through this contract people mutually
agreed not to handle the law themselves and instead, to get all their disputes settled
through a commonly constituted and accepted authority. This contract bound the people
in one harmonious whole it was irrevocably according on all. The body that emerged out
of it can rightly be described as the state. The second contract through which people
established the authority to settle their dispute was of a transitory nature in the sense
that whenever that authority violated the terms of the contracts would expose itself to the
people for dismissal, the limited powers that authority possessed and their exercise
having been hinged to the will of the people, made it resemble to the constitutional
government, of the modem times. Thus suggesting two contracts, Locke makes clear cut
distinction between the state and the government.
The government of Locke's conception was a limited government unlike that of
Hobbes which possessed all the features of an absolute despot. By making the
government a party to the contract, and by vesting in the people the right to revolt in
case of any breach of the contract, Locke seals the fate of his ruler. He thus, recognizes
the sovereign character of the people over their ruler and, thereby, upholds the doctrine
of popular sovereignty.Locke also makes a distinction between the legislature and the
executive forms of the government. He vests in the people's body established through
the first contract, the right to make law and thereby to streamline the law of nature. He,
likewise, vests in the other body established through the later contract, the right to
interpret and enforce the law. This provides a clear cut clue that the first body was the
legislature and the second, the executive.
Criticism of Locke’s Social contract theory
1. Wrong narrative of history: There is no proof of the state of nature as
presented by Locke, therefore to accept that earlier in the state of nature
the life of an individual was very peaceful and then suddenly it became
unpeaceful.
2. Danger of revolution: If any case state or the government is not working
according to the conditions of the contract then the people can revolt
against such government and can change the government.
3. No difference between state and society: Locke makes no difference
between state and government, whereas state and society are two
different institutions Society is older than state and the scope the society
is much wider than that of the state.
4. Rights are possible in the state: According to Locke, individual enjoyed
rights of life, liberty and property in the state of nature. But we know it
quite well that the rightscan be enjoyed only in the state because rights
are those conditions of social life which are recognized and protected by
 the state.
To conclude, Locke's theory was more comprehensive than of Hobbes. He not
only upheld the doctrine of constitutional government and of popular sovereignty, but
also clearly saw the distinction between the State and the government, on the one hand,
and between the legislature and the executive on the other.
Rousseau
The last in the series of the contractualist was Jean Jaques Rousseau. Unlike his
two predecessors, he was not the product of his times. He was French and lived much
earlier than the breaking out of the French Revolution (1712-1778). His writings, in fact,
inspired the people of France to rise into a revolution. He was never motivated by the
idea of expounding a theory, much less than that of the origin of the state. He wrote a
book, named the "Social Contract" (1762) wherein he wanted to assert the supremacy of
the collective body of the citizens over the ruler. It was in justification of this thesis that
he entered into the discussion of the state of nature and the origin of the state. The
social contract theory that he expounded was thus incidental, an appendix, to his basic
objective. We examine his theory in detail in the following paragraphs:-
State of Nature
Like other contractualists, Rousseau also begins his theory with the description
of the state of nature. He himself was not, however, very clear about what the state of
nature was. He took some hints from Hobbes and some from Locke and tried to logically
blend them together so as to present a somewhat integrated account of the state of
nature. He says that the state of nature, to begin with, was a state of eternal bliss and
idyllic happiness. Since modem civilization had not dawned yet a man did not know the
so-called present day sophistications. He was neither clever nor deceitful, neither-good
nor bad, neither virtuous nor vicious. He was an innocent noble beast. At the same time,
he was also a savage brute. He himself would not attack another because no physical or
any other want impelled him to do so. But if somebody attacked him, he would not spare
him at all. Like a savage animal, he would tear him to pieces. Rousseau, thus aptly
describes himself 'a noble savage'. In that state of nature, no authority of any types
existed nor was there any law to bind the conduct of man. He was solely guided by his
biological instincts. He was thus absolutely free to do anything he linked. Gamer very
beautifully portrays the picture of the state of nature of Rousseau's conceptions in these
words: "It is an earthly paradise in which happiness, innocence and joys of unrestricted
freedom abound without limit, where equality reigns, where the yoke of law and the
burdens of state press upon the shoulders of no man and where none are subjects and
none sovereign". Rousseau than rightly describes it as a state of eternal bliss and idyllic
happiness.
Rousseau says that this state of eternal bliss did not last for long. Gradually,
population increased and with it the foodstuffs fell short of the demand. Side by side,
man also developed reason. Compelled by the scarcity of the means of subsistence and
impelled by reason, man "began to acquire and hold things. This acquisitive instinct led
to the emergence of the institution of private property. This in its turn further aroused
another instinct of man, namely, the possessive instinct. When man asserted his right
over his property, he was challenged by his fellow-beings. These acts of assertion and
challenge made him conscious of such notions as 'mine and thine'. This marked the
beginning of that civil strife which went on increasing with the passage of time and which
ultimately left the society torn into pieces. When man's life became-insecure and self-
preservation posed problems, he thought in terms, of restoring the lost peace. It was this
pursuit for self-preservation that m. de men negotiate a contract among themselves
which, consequently, established the state.
Social Contract
Unlike Locke and very much like Hobbes, Rousseau says that people concluded
only one contract, wherein each individual surrendered all powers that he possessed
and pooled them in common. The authority that emerged out of this contract was
described by Rousseau as the General Will. Rousseau gives philosophical dimensions
to this individual surrender of power.
He says that the will of each individual has two aspects - one that wills the private
.good and the other, the common or collective good. The people in the state of nature,
impelled by the common desire of establishing peace, surrendered only that part of their
will that willed the common good. The sum total of these wills that emerged was the
General Will would always be actuated by the welfare of the whole collectivity of the
people. It was thus the sovereign possessing paramount powers on all individuals.
Dwelling his concept of the General Will, Rousseau says that the individual, while putting
his person and powers in common, did not reduce himself to zero as was suggested by
Hobbes. He got back as much as he surrendered. Previously his person and his powers
belonged to him and to him alone.
He could employ them in any manner he liked, may be in partial or total disregard
of the convenience of his fellow beings. Now after he has surrendered his will, he
becomes a member of the collectivity, an inseparable component of the whole. He gets
back in lieu of his will an indivisible part of the power of the General Will. To illustrate the
point, if the General Will commands him to gallows, we would say that he himself goes
to the gallows because the General Will when-passed that order also involved the best
part of his will. His going to the gallows would thus be tantamount to his committing
suicide. Rousseau himself explains this in these words, "Since each gives himself upto
all, actually there is little he gives up. In fact, he acquires over every associate the same
right that is given up by him. Man thus not only gains the equivalent of what is lost but
also acquires greater power to preserve what is left. "In this way, we find that this
contract established a sovereign in the form of the General Will and every individual was
a part of it and possessed co-equal powers.
Rousseau further says that this sovereign General Will can command any one
person or a set of persons to run the day to day affairs of the State. This person or
persons became executive and its function was to execute the law was enacted by the
sovereign, the General Will. Rousseau does not agree with Locke that the general body
of the citizens entered into a separate contract with one individual or a set of individuals
and thereby established the government. He says that the General Will is the sovereign
and everyone living in the society is subordinate to it. The question of the General Will
entered into a contract with any single individual or individuals do not arise at all. It,
therefore, commanded anyone of the individual or individuals to act as the government
for the whole society. That government, being subordinate, to the General Will, would
remain in power only so long as the latter wished. As and when it so the General Will
can ask the government to go and substitute another government in its place.
 To sum up, Rousseau talks of only one contract and that contract not only
created order out of chaos but also established a body politic in the form of the General
Will. It was thus both social and political in character.
The Emergent Authority
The General Will emerged out of the contract, composed the best part of the wills
of all the individuals. Since each individual surrendered Ills will and pooled it in common
and got back in return an indivisible part of the whole, the General -Will was a
permanent entity and a sovereign body. This body was always actuated by the higher,
common good of the whole society because it was the sum total of that part of the
individual wills which was always motivated by the general, and not the private, interests
of the people. Everyone must, therefore, willingly obey it not necessarily because it is the
sovereign body but also because its orders imply his good as well, which he may not be
able to perceive at the moment. If he somehow does not obey its orders, he can
legitimately be coerced by it to do so and thereby "force him to be free".
Agreeing with Hobbes, Rousseau says that sovereignty is inalienable and
indivisible. The sovereignty which rests with General Will cannot be transferred or
delegated to someone else. People can collectively deliberate among themselves and
enact laws and decide other vital state matters, and then pass their decision to the
government for implementation. But they cannot delegate or transfer their original
powers. He does not, therefore, subscribe to the modern theory of representative
democracy where under people periodically delegate their sovereign rights to their
democratically elected representatives. He emphatically assets, "As soon as a nation
appoints a representative, it is no longer free, it no longer exists."
The General Will, however, vests its authority of implementing the laws and of
handling the day to day affairs in a government which is subordinate to it in every
respect. Its authority as well as its tenure is limited. It is there at the behest of the
General Will which can dismiss it whenever it so pleases. Rousseau thus indirectly
subscribes to the concept of the limited government.
Criticism of Rousseau’s Social contract theory
1. Social contract theory encourages Absolutism: According Rousseau,
General will is sovereign and an individual’s freedom lies in obeying the
general will. Even if general will is wrong, an individual cannot oppose it.
2. Difficult to understand the concept of general will: Rousseau’s idea of
general will is vague and it is very difficult to determine it. In general will
the will of all or the will of majority has not been clarified by Rousseau.
3. State of nature is just an imagination: According to rousseau, the
state of nature was a ‘golden period’ in which an individual lived a very
peaceful life. But such a state of nature can be possible only in utopia and
not in real world.
4. Disrespect of individualism: Rousseau merges individuals’ personal will
into the general will as a result of which an individual loses his personal
will and becomes just a drop in a absolute general will.
To sum up, the emergent authority of Rousseau's contract has two facets. One
comprises the General Will which is sovereign, indivisible and inalienable. In other
words, one that possesses all the features of an absolute despotic ruler. The other facet
is the government which the General Will establishes by its demand. The government is
limited in every respect. Rousseau may thus be described as champion of popular
sovereignty, on the one hand, and the limited government, on the other.
Self Assessment Questions
1. Who wrote “Social Contract”?
___________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
2. Locke’s views of Social Contract.
___________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

5.3 ROUSSEAU’S COMPARISON WITH HOBBES AND LOCKE

At the outset we hinted that Rousseau did not command much of originality in so
far as the raw material that he used to explain his basic thesis was concerned. He
borrowed something from Hobbes and something from Locke and tried to logically blend
them so as to produce his theory. Let us compare him with his two predecessors in
some details.Beginning with his description of the state of nature we find that Rousseau
begins with Locke and ends with Hobbes. He says that, to begin with, the state of nature
was one of peace, containment, and happiness. No one quarreled with another, the
reason being that there was no need or occasion for any such quarrel. That state of
nature, thus, resembled to some extent with that of Locke. Later on, when population
increased and reason downed, private property' crept in, the urge to acquire and hold
property made man to quarrel with one another. Gradually, the hitherto, peaceful state of
nature degenerated into a civil war wherein everyone behaved in the most savage
manner. Life became-insecure and uncertain. In other words, the .same law of the jungle
began to operate as Hobbes referred to in his .Leviathan.
Moving further on to the social contract, we find that Rousseau amply agrees
with Hobbes. Like the latter, he says that only one contract was concluded wherein
people surrendered all the powers that they possessed. This contract was both social
and political because it not only transformed the population of the noble savages into a
civilized society but also organized the people into a body politic.
By the surrender of powers, the authority that emerged - a sovereign ruler in
case of Hobbes and the General Will in case of Rousseau - was a permanent entity and
possessed all the features of an absolute despot. Since the people had surrendered all
their powers, they were no longer in a position to rebel against the ruler. The argument
that each of the philosophers adduces is, however, different, Hobbes, plea is that man
after transferring all his powers to the ruler, reduces himself to zero, hence loses his
right to rebel. So far as Rousseau is concerned, he says that man, actuated by the
general good of the society, surrenders his person and powers in common and in return
gets back his rights as an indivisible part of the whole. Since the General Will not only
involves his own will but also aims at the common good of the whole society, he should
not, and in fact cannot, disobey the General Will. If he somehow violates its command,
he can be coerced to obey it. To Hobbes and Rousseau the ruler is, therefore, an
absolute sovereign. His will know no bound. His every word is law for the people.
Sovereignty vests only in him. He cannot transfer or delegate his sovereign powers in
another. Delegation would destroy sovereignty. In a word, sovereignty in the eyes of
both these philosophers is absolute, inalienable and unlimited.
 There is, however, a difference between the sovereigns of Hobbes and
Rousseau. The former vests sovereignty in a person or a set of persons and the latter in
the General Will the former in a determinate human being and the latter in an intangible
Will of the people. In other words, to Hobbes one single person or a body of persons can
possess powers far higher and better than the rank and file and can thus issuer
command to them. To Rousseau, on the other hand, no single person can occupy a
position superior to the rest and to the denial of the same status to others. In his opinion
the General Will and not any single individual can alone be sovereign. To sum up, both
Hobbes and Rousseau subscriber to the theory of absolute sovereignty with the only
difference that to Hobbes' sovereign is an individual and to Rousseau, the General Will,
Commenting upon it, one writer says "Rousseaus" General Will is Hobbes' Leviathan
with its head chopped off.
It will, however, be a statement of partial truth if we say that Rousseau
subscribed only to Hobbes' theory of sovereignty. He was equally obliged to Locke for
his concept of limited government. Credit goes to Locke for enunciating the concept of
constitutional democracy. He says that man in the state of nature surrendered his right
to govern himself and pooled it in common. The body politic (state) that thus emerged
concluded a subsidiary' contract with one person (who was one among them) and
conditionally gave to him the right to rule over them. The moment he violated his
contract, people revolted against him and removed him, substituting another in his place.
In this way, he enunciates and upholds the theory of limited government. Rousseau also
subscribes to it and goes a step farther. He says that the general will that emerged out of
the basic contract was the sovereign body. None was superior to it in any way. This
sovereign will appoint one person to enforce the laws that it enacted from time to time
and also to handle other day to day affairs of the state. Being a sovereign body, it
possessed all powers to appoint and remove the government at will. The government
was a body subordinate to the general will. While, on the one hand, Rousseau
subscribes to Lacke's theory of constitutional government, he, on the other totally
subordinates it to the general will.
Another striking similarity in the views of Locke and Rousseau is that both of
them made clear cut distinction between state and government and a.lso between the
legislature and the executive. To Locke the general body of the people established by
means of the first contract, was a state and hence also. acted as the legislature, and the
ruler who emerged out of the subsidiary contract, was the government as well as the
executive. To Rousseau, the general will was the state as well as the legislature and the
government that the general will established also acted as the executive. Their theory
thus marks a definite improvement over the one presented by Hobbes.
5.4 CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
The social contract theory enjoyed its maximum popularity during the 17th and
the 18th centuries. The 19th century marked a period of its decline. It attracted criticism
from a number of quarters. Philosophers like Ludwig Van haller, HermyBenthem, Sir
Henry Maine, T.H. Green, Edmund Burke, Bluntschli subjected it to severe criticism, with
the result that it gradually tottered to its grave leaving behind a large progeny of scholars
to indulge in useless academic discussion.
The main points of criticism can be discussed, as under:-
1. Historically False: The Primary object of this theory was to speculate
about the origin of the state. It miserably failed to achieve that lofty
objective. History does not furnish any instance when a state might have
 been established by .means of a contract and much less of that state
which was deliberately established by such people as were nothing short
of brutes. The advocates of this theory, however, cite the case of the
May-flower. When after the discovery of America the nationals of a
number of European countries began to migrate to that new land, a ship,
called the Mayflower, sailed with some British Puritans in 1620. Its
passengers contracted among themselves to establish in the name of
God a new state. This case no doubt provides an apt example where
people voluntarily and consciously established a state through a contract.
But it must be noted that all the Mayflower people were the civilized
citizens of England and were fully familiar with the working of the political
institutions. It was not the case of a people who lived in the state of nature
and behaved more beasty than the beasts of the jungle. This evidence is,
thus a self defeating one, T.H. Green was, therefore, very correct in
describing this theory of historical fiction.
There is another aspect of this theory which is also not supported
by history. The contractualists say that in the state of nature man lived
singly and led the life of an isolated individual. In the opinion of Hobbes
and also in that of Rousseau (in the later stage when private property
merged) man was a deadly enemy of man and was always haunted by
the ear of others. The contract that man concluded with his fellow beings,
brought an end to that lonely, individualized life and established in its
place a community and, therefore, man began to lead a collective life.
History does not subscribe to this theory of the social evolution of man.
The evidence gathered by historians reveals that the primitive man lived
in communities. To keep his body and soul together, he moved from
place to place in large groups, may those be described as tribes or herds.
In those communities, compassion and fellow-feeling prevailed. The
weaker were not allowed to die. They were adequately protected by the
entire folk. There was no such thing as man killing to man. It was much
later in the march of civilization, that the individual appears and replaces
the community life of the tribes. Highlighting this process. Sir Henry Maine
says, "Early laws are biding not on individuals but on families .......The
movement of progressive societies has been uniform in one respect.
Through all its course it has been distinguished by the gradual dissolution
of family depending and the growth of individual obligations in its place.
The individual has been steadily substituted for the family as the unit of
which civil laws take account.
2. Scientific Illogical: In the second place, the theory, says Garner, "must
be rejected upon grounds of philosophy and reasons." It suffers from a
inherent contradictions. To point out a few, we find Hobbes and
Rousseau telling .us that there was a time when state did not exist
anywhere on the surface of the glotre. At that time, man lived in the state
of nature. In the absence of any legal authority to exercise a check upon
his activities, he gave the fullest display to his selfish nature. Man was an
enemy of a man. He could kill anyone he liked and could snatch anything
from anyone. The law of the jungle 'might is right' was the only rule that
guided his conduct. Then' they tell us that man when got tired of that
reckless state of war, thought of establishing a state by means of a
 contract and he did so. Now question arises how could that man who until
yesterday was a savage and who could not bear the sight of another, who
was at war with all others, ever think of establishing a peaceful order?
How could political consciousness dawn upon him quite all of a sudden?
Much more puzzling than all this was: how could man ever think of that
institution which he had neither seen nor experienced, nor had heard
others of having either seen or experienced? It is all logical. Either man in
the state of nature was not a savage as these contractualists: describe
him or he was as such, he did not establish this state. If both these
assumptions are correct, then it may not be a wonder if tomorrow all the
lions of India hold a convention at Delhi and negotiate among themselves
in their own language a social-cum- political contract.
Another contradiction is that these contractualists on the one
hand, hold that in the state of nature man enjoyed natural liberty and
rights, and, on the other, deny the existence of any legal authority. We
know that rights and liberty impose upon people certain obligations, to
enforce which some sort of legal authority is a must. Rights and liberty
without corresponding duties are nothing but a license to do anything one
likes. Now question arises, how could rights exist without an authority?
Either there were no rights in the appropriate sense of the term or some
sort of authority did exist to enforce them.
3. State is not based on Contract: The notion that state is based on a
contract is also a false basis. It may be rejected on a number of grounds;
Firstly, contract is always bilateral in character, i.e. it always presupposes
the existence of two equal partners, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau do not
work on this basic premise. The man in the state of nature surrendered
his powers and person to one individual in case of Hobbes and to the
collectivity in case of Locke and Rousseau without any conditions
whatsoever. The person to whom powers are surrendered is never taken
into confidence. He becomes their ruler without making any commitment
at all. Is it justified to describe this act of the surrender of powers by such
terms as contract or compact?
Secondly, contract is always supported by some sort of a legal sanction, which
means that any breach of the contract by either party must be duly punished. None of
the contractualists make a reference to any such sanction, Locke does, however, say
that the government when violated the contract can be punished by dismissing it and
substituting another in its place. But the trouble is that he does not admit in explicit terms
that the constitution of the government was effected through a contract. When the two
parties are not referred to at all, as in the case of Hobbes and Rousseau and no
conditions are imposed upon the one whom powers are transferred, the question of
sanction does not arise at all. Moreover, sanctions are meaningless when there is no
legal authority. In the state of nature, no-such legal authority existed. Hence sanctions if
at all incorporated in the contact would have been devoid of any significance.
Thirdly, this theory when speaks of the state as having come out of a contact,
hinges the relationship of the citizen with the state to that basic contract, which
proposition is again seriously exposed to criticism. To say that my relationship with the
site is contractual in nature implies that I and the state both are at liberty to break the
contract and free ourselves from mutual obligations resulting from the contract. If that
were so, people would have resigned the membership of the state when that suited their
convenience and would have acquired it when haunted by some danger. Gamer very
rightly points out. "Such a view tends to make the state a matter of individual caprice and
if the doctrine is followed to its logical conclusion, is subversive of authority and leads to
anarchy and dissolution." On the contrary, the relationship of the individual with the Sate
is a partnership of a very high order. It is an ever-lasting thing never coming to an end. It
does not involve any element of violation or option.
Finally, apart from the danger of this relationship encouraging anarchy, it is
inherently illogical Contract is always entered into between two equals and not between
two unequal. Here, in this case the contract takes place between an individual and the
state. The former in comparison to the latter is far too '• unequal. This does not,
therefore, sound logic, "It would be just as logical", points out Ludwing von Haller, "to
speak of a contract between an individual and the sun that he would allow himself to be
warmed by it, or between him and the frost that he would clothe himself better."
To sum up, the theory of social contract does not furnish a satisfactory, logical
and scientific explanation, much less an authentic one, regarding the origin of the state.
Someone has aptly remarked that it was a bad history, bad philosophy and bad law: If
we objectively look into those events in the context of which this theory was expounded,
we find that the primary object of these philosophers was not to put forward any cogent
explanation regarding the origin of the state. Each had his own motive. Hobbes to
defend monarchy, Locke to justify the Glorious Revolution and Rousseau to establish
the right of resistance on the part of subjects to sovereigns. The talk of the origin of the
state was Just incidental or a corollary to the main mission. This theory, however, served
a very useful purpose. It finally exploded the myth of the divine origin of the kings and
established in its place a theory of popular sovereignty and limited government. This has
been quite a significant contribution of this theory of the development of political philosophy.
5.5 SUMMARY
Social Contract theory was advanced in 17th and 18th centuries by the eminent
philosophers. This social contract theory throws light on the origin of the society. The
classical representatives of this theory are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and J.J.
Rousseau.According to this theory men lived in a 'state of nature'. Society came into
existence because of an agreement or contract among themselves in order to achieve
certain ends. However, the supporters differ from one another and give their individual
views.
The theory of such a contract, first formulated by the English philosophers
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, assumes that men at first lived in a state of anarchy in
which there was no society, no government, and no organized coercion of the individual
by the group. Hobbes maintained that by the social contract men had surrendered their
natural liberties in order to enjoy the order and safety of the organized state. Locke
made the social contract the basis of his advocacy of popular sovereignty, the idea that
the monarch or government must reflect the will of the people. Like Locke, the French
philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau, in Le Contract social (1762), found the general will
a means of establishing reciprocal rights and duties, privileges, and responsibilities as a
basis of the state. Although historically important, the theory as a basis of society and
the state has generally been discarded by modern social and political scientists.
5.6 GLOSSARY
 1. Glorious Revolution – A revolution in Britain in 1688 in which the
parliament disposed king James-II.
2. Sovereign – A supreme ruler.
5.7 FURTHER READINGS
• Verma, S.P. (1975). Modern Political Theory.Vikas Publisher
• Asisvatham, E &Misra K. K (2014-15). Political Theory. S. Chand &
Co. Ltd, New Delhi.
5.8 MODEL QUESTIONS
1. Discuss the Social Contract Theory based on the views of Hobbes and
Locke.
2. Compare the Views of Hobbes, Locke and Rosseau on the Social
Contarct theory of the origin of the State.
3. Critically Evaluate the Social Contract Theory.
---00---
 Lesson-6

THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE: THE

HISTORICAL/EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

Structure
6.0 Objectives
6.1 Introduction
6.2 The Evolutionary Theory of the Origin of the State and its Various Determinants
6.3 Summary
6.4 Glossary
6.5 Further Readings
6.6 Model Questions
6.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able :
 tounderstand the Historical or Evolutionary theory of the Origin of the
State.
 critically discuss various dimensions of the Evolutionary Theory of the
State.
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Various theories have been put forward to explain the origin of the state. Some
philosophers assert that the state is the result of social contract or an agreement
between the people and the sovereign. There are others who feel that it is the direct
result of force.There is yet another set of philosophers who contend that the state is a
magnified image of the family. All these theories, however, are maimed and fallacious
and have little truth in them.This led Garner to remark that the state is neither a
handiwork of God, nor the result of a superior physical force, nor the creation of a
contract, nor a mere expansion of family. It is a slow process of growth and evolution.
The state did not come into existence abruptly.It has developed from its crude and
simple form to the modern, complex structure slowly. In the words of Leacock, "the state
is a growth, an evolution, the result of a gradual process running through out all the
known history of man and receding into remote and unknown past."The origin of the
state cannot be traced to a single factor of a definite period. The historical theory regards
the state as a product of slow historical evolution extending over a long period. Various
factors have contributed to its development.
The theory which explains, and is now accepted as a convincing origin of the
State, is the Historical or Evolutionary Theory. It explains that the State is the product of
growth, a slow and steady evolution extending over a long period of time and ultimately
shaping itself into the complex structure of a modem State. Burgess has aptly said that
the State is a “continuous development of human society out of a grossly imperfect
beginning through crude but improving forms of manifestation towards a perfect and
universal organisation of mankind.” It is difficult to say how and when the State came
into existence. Like all other social institutions, it must have emerged imperceptibly,
supported by various influences and conditions.
Apart from the influences of physical environment and geographical conditions,
there are five important factors which made men to aggregate at different places and
separated one group from another, thereby paving the way for the rise and growth of the
State.
6.2 THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE AND
ITS VARIOUS DETERMINANTS
The researches in history, anthropology, ethnology (science of races and their
relation to one another) and comparative philosophy have amply established that state is
an outcome of a long process of historical evolution. It is a finished product of
innumerable centuries and millions rolled by in this process of historical evolution: the
element at consciousness did not play any role worth the name even. Taking its start
from an awfully crude beginning this unconscious march of civilization was spread over a
number of stages, each of which was an improvement over the one immediately
preceding it. This process gradually flourished into this institution which is so perfect, so
well organized and so fine as to ensure the best possible development of human
personality.
In this development, a number of factors played their part. It would be a gross
exaggeration of facts if we say that Kinship or Force has exclusively been responsible
for the emergence of the state. In fact not one but many factors made their contribution.
Another point which is to be taken note of is that all these factors worked not in isolation
of one another, but, more or less in union. Sometimes one factor was more significant
than the rest; sometimes they worked simultaneously, and so on. For our convenience
we will, however, discuss them individually under separate headings.
1. Kinship: The first major fact that substantially contributed to this process
of state building was kinship. It is now widely recognized that family was
the original basic institution out of which state gradually emerged.
Consisting of father, mother and children the family was held together by
the bonds of kinship, all the members of this institution, were as they are
today, sentimentally attached with one another.
Father, who was the head of the family, was highly respected by everyone and
his command in that crude social organizational set up extended over the life and death
of every member of the family. Gradually, as the family enlarged, grand old father
assumed the role of a patriarch. His decree still remained valid over his folks. Each such
family maintained its independent entity and in time of inter-family feuds, the members
zealously fought for the honour and existence of their respective units. Kinship was the
only bond which held them together and instilled in them a sense of love and pride for
their families. The bond of kinship was so strong for the primitive man that even at a later
stage when it became difficult to trace one's ancestory, if someone cited of an ancestor
who also happened to be the ancestor of another person, the two sentimentally felt
attached with each other and considered themselves as the offspring of the same family
stock.
 Even today, the Indian concept of 'biradari' is nothing but the recurrence of the
same old spirit of family affection. Emphasizing the role of kinship in the development of
the state. Maclver says, "the magic of names reinforced the sense of Kinship as the
course of generation enlarged the group. The blood bond of kinship changed
imperceptibly into the social bond of wider, brotherhood. The authority of the father
passed into the power of the chief.... Once more under the aegis of Kinship new forms
arise which transcend it. Kinship creates society and society at length creates the state."
2. Religion: As time rolled by and the membership of the families
tremendously increased, it became a problem to trace one's ancestory. In
that changed situation, religion emerged as a strong bond of unity,
holding the people together. To the primitive man, ignorant as he was,
anything that failed to touch his imagination, appeared to him as of divine
origin and he, consequently began to worship that. Each family adopted
its own God and began to identify itself by the God it worshipped. Hence
emerged such separate families as worshipped sun, moon, rain, earth
etc. If sometime some head of the family saved it from a disaster either in
war or in some natural calamity, he also began to be worshipped by his
posterior generation. It is in this way that the origin of the Hindu ‘gotras’
names was founded.
In primitive times, when blood bond came to be weakened as a result of the large
expansion of family, religion stepped in to hold the members of the same tribe together.
People when found others worshipping the same god as they did, felt automatically
attracted to one-another. A sense of oneness, a sentiment of brotherhood was aroused
by them. In this way, religion very eminently served the purpose which kinship had now
failed to do. F.G. Frazer has conducted an extensive study of the primitive societies and
has highlighted the role of religion in the origin and development of society. He says that
"to begin with, common worship of gods and ancestors was a potent welding factor
among families and tribes. Later oh, the magician who created a profound impact by his
magic and intelligent interpretation of things,' held sway in the society. He gradually
became the priest king, serving both the religious needs of the society and holding them
together in the face at any danger. Frazer gives a large mass -of evidence to prove this
development of events. It is thus proved beyond doubt that religion played a very
significant part in the development of state."
3. Force: Another very important factor that helped the transformation of the
primitive society into the modem state was the force. Some thinkers
consider force as the only factor responsible for the birth of the state. That
was, however, not the case Force contributed but partially.
The primitive man did not know the act of cultivation and he consequently, lived
on the wild natural growth. When population grew, the available foodstuffs of one locality
ran short. The residents decided to send out to the neighbouring place one section of
theirs. Another group was already living there. The latter finding the former encroaching
upon their land and foodstuffs checked them obviously, the two groups came to clash. It
is in this way that force came to play its part. Since in the initial stages the problem was
that of foodstuffs, the visitors killed the vanquished groups and regained supreme in the
new found land. By and by, more groups began to move from place to place. Clashes
increased and force became a dominant factor in the expression of society. Later on, a
consciousness dawned upon the victors not to put the vanquished to death and instead
assign to them such odd jobs as they did not like to do themselves. That was the
beginning of the practice of command and obedience.
When population came to acquire a stable position, force assumed a new role.
There started intra-group feuds. The stronger took the help of force in' order to keep the
other contenders for power in check. Those who maneuvered to throw a successful
challenge to the stronger, replaced him and those who lost to him were either
mercilessly crushed or were made him councilors and advisors. The force was also
needed by the stronger to establish law and order in the society and also to keep off the
aggressor. Thus force played a very significant role not only in the emergence and
development of the state but also in its continued existence.
4. Political Consciousness: The last factor in the series was the political
consciousness. The society gradually came to live in permanent
habitations. But that did not confer on it the status of the state. So long as
political consciousness did not dawn upon a society, state was not born.
The political consciousness was, thus, the supreme element in the
process of the state building. By political consciousness, we mean the
existence of certain ends, which can be achieved through political
organization. These pre-conceived ends did not exist earlier because
man was not conscious of what he was striving for. It was at a much later
stage in the development of society that the people were forced by the
circumstances to frame their goals, and establish some sort of political
organization to achieve these goals. The stage arrived when aggressions
increased and the need was increasingly felt to have some permanent
force to fight out the aggression so that every time the whole population
was not required to define itself. Further, the need to support those who
fought at the frontiers and their dependents was another additional factor
which helped this consciousness to grow. It may be wrong to suppose
that the rank and file in society all at once began to think in terms of the
political organization. This consciousness first dawned upon a few natural
leaders and then gradually spread among the rest. Guided by these
leaders, the society worked out a political organization needed for the
purpose. By and by, this organization improved upon itself as
circumstances required ultimately flourishing into the modern state.

Self-Assessment Questions
1. Role of Political Consciousness in the origin of the state?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What is minimal State?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Role of the State

Contrasting interpretation of state power has clear implication for the desirable role or
responsibilities of the state. What should state do? Among the different state forms that
have developed are the following:
 1. The minimal state
2. The developmental state
3. The social democratic state
4. The collectivized state
5. The totalitarian state
The minimal state: The minimal state is the idea of classical liberals, whose aim
is to ensure that individuals enjoy the widest possible realm of freedom. This view is
rooted in social contract theory, but it nevertheless advances an essentially ‘negative’
view of the state. The state is merely a protective body, its core function being to provide
a framework of peace and social order within which citizens can conduct their lives as
they think best.
The developmental state: A developmental state is one that intervenes in
economic development. This does not amount to an attempt to replace the market with a
socialist system of planning and control, but rather to and attempt to construct a
partnership between the state and major economic interests, often underpinned by
conservative and national priorities.
Social Democratic state: The social democratic state is an active participant,
helping in particular to rectify the imbalances and injustices of market economy. It
therefore tends to focus less upon the generation of wealth and more upon what is seen
as the equitable os just distribution of wealth.
Collectivized state: The justification for state collectivization stems from a
fundamental socialist preferences for common ownership over private property. However
the use of the state to attain this goal suggests a more positive attitude to state power
than that outlined in the classical writings of Marx and Engles.
Totalitarian State: The essence of totalitarianism is the construction of an all
embracing state, the influence of which penetrates every aspect of human existence.
The state brings not only the economy but education, culture, religion, family life and so
on under direct state control.
6.3 SUMMARY
No single factor is responsible for state building. It is result of evolutionary
process in which kinship, religion, property, force and consciousness of people are main
factors.To sum up, the origin of the state cannot be traced to a single factor of a definite
period. The historical theory regards the state as a product of slow historical evolution
extending over a long period.
6.4 GLOSSARY
1. Democratic - Relating to or supporting democracy or its principles.
2. Totalitarian - Relating to a system of government that is centralized and
dictatorial.
6.5 FURTHER READINGS:
• Verma, S.P. (1975). Modern Political Theory.Vikas Publisher
 • Asisvatham, E &Misra K. K (2014-15). Political Theory. S. Chand &
Co. Ltd, New Delhi.
 Duggal, R.N. (2014), Political Theory, Duggal Publishing House,
Jallandhar.
6.6 MODEL QUESTIONS
1. Discuss the various dimensions of the Evolutionary Theory of the Origin
of the State.
2. Critically Evaluate the Evolutionary Theory of the Origin of the State.

—00—
 Lesson-7

STATE: LIBERAL VIEW

Structure
7.0 Objective
7.1 Introduction: State and Liberalism
7.2 Elements and salient feature of Liberalist State
7.3 Liberalist view point about the nature of state: salient features and criticism
7.4 Summary
7.5 Glossary
7.6 Further Readings
7.7 Model Questions
7.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson you will be able :
 to understand the Liberal views of State.
7.1 INTRODUCTION: STATE AND LIBERALISM
Liberalism is a political ideology whose central theme is a commitment to the
individual and to the construction of a society in which individual can satisfy their
interests or achieve fulfillment. The core values of liberalism are: individualism,
rationalism, freedom, justice and toleration. The liberal belief that human beings are, first
and foremost, individuals, endowed with reason, implies that each individual should
enjoy the maximum possible freedom for all. On the other hand, the politics is often
understood as the study of the state. Political science used to be defined by almost all
the political scientists as the science of state. A large majority of political scientists
accepted as valid the statement made by Garner, “Political science begins and ends with
the state”. This is widely mentioned that, “State as old as history and politics is as old as
state”. According to Woodrow Wilson, “State is a people organized for law within a
definite territory”. In this lecture script, we are going to acquaint you with the concept of
the State, its element, and how does it differ from the Government, Society Association
and Nation?
Significant differences nevertheless exist between classical liberalism and
modern liberalism:
In Classical liberalism is distinguished by a belief in a “minimal state”,
whose function is limited to the maintenance of domestic order and personal security.
Classical liberals emphasize that human beings are essentially self-interested and
largely self-sufficient; as far as possible, people should be responsible for their own lives
and circumstances. As an economic doctrine, classic liberalism extols the merit of a self-
regulating market in which government intervention is seen as both unnecessary and
damaging.
 Modern liberalism exhibits a more sympathetic attitude towards the state,
born out of the belief that unregulated capitalism merely produces new form of injustice.
State intervention can therefore enlarge liberty by safeguarding individuals from the
social evils that blight their existence. Whereas liberals understand freedom in negative
terms, as the absence of the constraints of the individual, modern liberals link freedom to
personal development and self realization. This creates clear overlaps between modern
liberalism and social democracy.
7.2 ELEMENTS OF LIBERALIST STATE
1. Individualism: Individualism is the core principle of liberal ideology. It
reflects a belief in the importance of the human individual as opposed to
any social groups or collective body. Human beings are seen, first and
foremost, as individual. This implies both that they are equal moral worth
that they possess separate and unique identity.
2. Freedom: Individual freedom or liberty is the core value of liberalism. It is
given priority over, say, equality, justice or authority. This arises naturally
from a belief in the individual and the desire to ensure that each person is
able to act as he or she pleases or chooses. Nevertheless, liberals
advocate “freedom under the law”, as they recognize that one person’s
liberty may be a threat to liberty of others.
3. Reason: Liberals believe that the world has a rational structure, and then
this can be uncovered through the exercise of human reason by critical
enquiry. This inclines them to place their faith in the liberty of individual to
make wise judgments on their own behalf, beings, in most cases, the best
judges of their own interest.
4. Equality: Individualism implies a belief in the foundational equality: that is
belief, that individuals are born equal, at least in term of moral worth. This
is reflected in a liberal commitment to equal rights and entitlements,
notably in the form of legal equality (equality before law) and political
equality (one person, one vote, one value).
5. Toleration: Liberals believe that toleration (the willingness of people to
allow other to think, speak and act in way of which they disapprove) is
both a guarantee of individual liberty and a means of social enrichment.
They believe that pluralism in the form of moral, cultural and political
diversity is the positively healthy: it promotes debate and intellectual
progress by ensuring that all belief is tested in a free market of ideas.
6. Consent: In the liberal view, authority and social relationships should
always be based on consent or willing agreement. Government must
therefore be based on the “consent of governed”. This is a doctrine that
encourages liberals to favour representations and democracy. Similarly,
social bodies and associations are formed through contracts willingly
entered into by individuals’ intent on pursuing their own self interests.
7. Constitutionalism: Although, liberal see government as a vital guarantee
of order and stability in society, they are constantly ware of the danger
that government may become a tyranny against the individuals (power
tent to corrupt, Lord Acton). They therefore believe in the limited
government, this goal can be attained through the fragmentation of
 government power, by the creation of checks and balance amongst the
various institutions of government, and through the establishment of a
codified or written constitution embodying a bill of rights that defines the
relationships between the state and individual
Features of liberalist state
An 'ism' is a way of life drive towards a certain ideal. This 'push' towards the ideal
is anchored on certain principles which in the long run tend to materialize its goals and
ends through the conceptualization of certain values, incarnation of a method of thinking
covering politics, economics, education, ethics and the various activities of the spirit.
Through the institutional framework an attempt is made to channelize activities in a way
that the set goals are reached at-or at least an attempt is made to reach them. While
trying to reach it, so many times, arrangements are waived, institutional edifices are
altered, policies are framed and reframed to suit the journey towards the target, that is
why an 'ideology' is very seldom a dogma or an inflexible rigidity. This is what makes it
difficult to come upon agreed explanations of the 'liberalism'.
1. Liberalism is a flexible, alterable arrangement of political 'ideals'
which are relative to time and place: Otherwise why and how would
Lenin the inventor of twentieth century totalitarianism be allowed to, pass
as the greatest of liberals by some. It is interesting how at one time or the
other the conservatives, the stories were also complimented with the
'Liberal' adornment. But then there must be some common denominators
which could be marking the liberal ideology otherwise it would not have
stood apart from the rest of the ideologies; it would have blended and
merged with them. An analysis of what liberalism is and what it is not, is
the only denominator which we can address this strand of thinking in an
authentic way.
2. The idea of progress: The idea of progressis at the centrality of
liberalism of all kinds and brands. Progress is taken as a social
inevitability and that accords it the sociological validity also. It turned out
in the course of time that liberalism was indissolubly intertwined with
humanism, personal rights and human rights. It was also at times realized
that the main threats to this cult arose from the interventions in free
development in the name of industrialization and to check the abuse of
power. As the conservatives were osculating between reaction and
continuity- the socialists between revolution and democracy the liberals
were persuaded by doubts between their economic and political
postulates - the irony of the whole thing is that in every conflict as the
state who was the beneficiary.
3. The state not only as a negative instrument but as a positive
medium for the maximization of freedom: liberalism is understandable
because its basic theme human progress is also riddled with numerous
social economic, political and cultural ambivalences. It was under the
deadening experience of the dictatorship and the 2nd World War that the
World realized the validity of the anti-totalitarian attitude of the liberalism
which culminated in a demise of the absolutist claim of the various
ideologies and a survival of a libertarian social democracy. Now the time
has come of the trend of generalization and integration of liberalism in all
 democratic parties and a reigning voice in revived western libertarian
parliamentary democracies. There was a hush attempt to forsake the
impact of the totalitarian yoke and to favour the emancipation of the
fetters on thinking, human freedom and dignity and the economic growth.
Even though liberalism at various times has acquired various shapes and
manifestations variously different from each other because of the
pressures of historical relativity, it can laboriously be summed up into
certain tight and defined categories.
4. Upholds the idea of individuality: Just as in the totalitarian ideology
success becomes the barrier of truth, in the liberal ideology the truth itself
is a final and determining category and upholding of human dignity and
human reason is the cardinal principle of the truth. In the liberalist cult
individual takes precedence over group-equality over freedom. Since
individualism is the keynote that keeps the liberalism going, it is
worthwhile here to illustrate the difference between the classical liberal
notions of individualism and the modem ones. Early liberalism i.e. the
classical liberalism was individualistic-undiluted and clear-the
governments are there to protect the individual rights. The man who
previously was the executor and judge of natural law gave way to the
circumspection of this right to the state for a larger cause-the well being of
all. The rationale, therefore, for the state is to defend the rights of
individual-thus Locke, one of the earlier individualists, pleaded for the
idea of 'limited government.
5. Recognition to the elective principle or an advocacy of
representative Government: Liberal idea takes its roots from a very
different premise as compared to the democratic idea in democracy "who
rules' is one basic concern and liberalism's concern is what the
government does. This is why the liberals are not smitten by the
democratic idea but in the final analysis of the problem "what is done for
the individual" necessarily gets linked with "who rules' - and there we find
the convergence of both democracy and liberalism. One must bear in
mind that the identification of the two ideas was the result of historical
development and not of logical necessity. This also makes us to
appreciate the suspicion of the earlier liberals towards the democratic
ideal, they were skeptical that if power was allowed to pass over to the
ignorant and property less masses they might abuse it.
This dilemma of liberalism is well focused by George Grote a
prominent English liberal in 1867. He said, 'I have outlived my faith in the
efficacy of republican government regarded as a check upon the vulgar
passions of a 'majority in a nation and I recognize the fact that supreme
power lodged is their hands may be exercised quite as mischievously as
by a despotic ruler. Modem liberalism has announced truce with the
democracy but off and on it keeps cautioning democracy to be genuinely
'democratic'.
6. Primacy to reason: The rise of liberalism is from the debris of
unreasonableness-what irrationality does to human dignity, its intolerance
towards a counter argument and its rigid adherence towards dogmatism
the toward fanatical espousing of religious heresies - it is from here that
 the liberalism takes roots as a movement giving priority to reason over
non-reasonableness, as a rejection of dogmatic rationalism-secularization
of law and of politics too, through a non-religious approach-ushering in
individualism combining the humanists dignity and the protestant's
responsibility, at the same time an enthusiastic response to the new ideas
and new movements. The liberalist's main worry is the defence of
individual's dignity and capacity for choice that is why it seems at variance
at various historical junctures because of : the varying sources of
resistance, which it sought to counter. At times it looked like democratic
socialism, at others democratic progressivism so many times it has
passed for liberal conservatism and liberal socialism-one contradictory to
the other. Liberalism is the freeing of human potentialities in the sciences,
arts and literature. For the unfolding of the individual's capacities, the
greatest handicap and risk is from intolerance and hence liberalism is all
for the tolerance in human relations. Looked at intimately tolerance is the
off shoot of reason. The emancipation of conscience through the
elimination of religious discrimination, emancipation of minds through free
universal education, emancipation of women through free and
compulsory education in them and corresponding change in social morals
have been the liberal stands at various times and various places.
7. Right and equality of opportunity: The classical liberal belief is that
achievement criteria such as talent, industry and creativity-rather than
birth criteria should be the determining factor of one’s' social position.
While they made a case for equality of law they did not put up a plea for
equality of conditions-because to do that they had to attack them favourite
them-the idea of private property.
In its import, modem liberalism is much more equaliterian since it
accepts that the formal legal equality does nothing to mitigate the
vastness of disparities in the life chances of the children of affluent and
paupers. Modern liberalism gives sanction to such differences rather than
raise a voice against them- it liberalizes its guarded sanctity to private
property only to accommodate a generous allowance for 'every citizen to
have the full means of earning by socially useful labour for a healthy
civilized existence. They can still go further as to say in the words of
Hobhouse that if the economic system did not so provide the citizen he
still has a claim not as of charity, but as of right on the national resources
to make good the deficiency'.
8. A case for Reforms: Liberalism is a midway approach between the
revolution of extreme left and the reaction of extreme right. As if to suit
itself to the clamours of times it has adjusted its endowments to quicken a
revolutionary pace or a conservation posture. But it is more like itself
when it mouths the reformist thesis. Since it has basic faith that men are
rational and responsible so the reordering of social and political
arrangements can be furnished by them in a constitutional way without
raising any disproportionate din. But the desire to new arrangements of
reforms should be deliberate and conscious. Dictums like 'trial and error",
'experimental approach', keeps on surfacing over and over again amidst
the liberal philosophy.
9. A new approach towards religion: Which is opposed to clericalism but
is not atheist or irreligion? The liberalist's anticlericalism has sprung out
from its stress on individualism. Freedom means freedom of conscience
too besides of press, speech and assembly. Liberalism grants religion a
private place in individual's life. Ritualism of any kind is considered
repugnant to individual's freedom of conscience. Religion has to rest on
faith rather than fear, (rather than the mechanized working of ritual and
conformity). It anchors at spontaneity and not formalism.
10. An unflinching trust in education-as a method to bring about
revolution: Education unlike in totalitarian ideology is not regarded as a
medium of indoctrination but as a way to formulate and develop individual
personality. Education is stressed upon as an excellent method for
socialisation and training of skills by the communist regimes, the liberals’
humanist approach did not find this idea congenial. Their idea of
education is unique in that education is considered in liberal lexicon as
every body's own way of finding guidance and key to development. That
makes a liberal society like that in the United States essentially different
in appearance from the one where the indoctrination is education. This
kind of liberal education has its pitfalls too. This kind of self-education
presages a strong character on the part of its recipients and also an
exceptional calibre on the part of its students to cope with the multiplicity
and diversity of ideas which lie scattered during school and college life to
assimilate it in a proper way and to properly incarnate thinking with the
aid of them unaided by any outside help. This system leaves a lot to the
individual's initiative".
11. Liberal defence of property: Locke was of the opinion that before the
advent of the state, people lived in the state of nature: He, however, does
not subscribe to the view of Hobbes either with regard to the human
nature or with the state of nature. He says that man is basically not a
selfish animal. On the contrary, he is a social being, always animated by
fellow-feelings reason and justice. Accordingly, the state of nature was
not a state of war and constant fear. It was a state of perfect freedom
wherein man lived in peace with his fellow-beings and always actuated by
the noble instinct of compassion and mutual help. Man's conduct was
regulated by the laws of nature which everybody keenly and peacefully
obeyed. He also possessed certain natural rights; noteworthy among
them were the rights to life, liberty and property. He not only enjoyed
those rights himself but also allowed others to enjoy them. The state of
nature was thus a state of positive peace and or natural give and take.
Locke himself describes the state of nature as "a state of perfect freedom
to order their actions and dispose of their persons as they think fit, within
the bounds of the law of nature without asking leave or depending upon
the will of any other man. “Liberalists feel that property entails liberty as a
natural off shot. Jefferson, a onetime American President had opined that
it would be desirable to see the day when all families have some
property-that is why liberals shun the idea of abolition of property-diffusion
of it could be alright, to solve the problem of haves and have nots and an
iniquitous system.
 12. Economic ideas of Liberalism: The liberal's live and let live' stance
manifests itself in the economic field as near unbridled capitalism-a free
market. As a regulator of economics this economy accrued two
advantages to the liberalist: it enables more people than did any other
system to act in the economic field on the basis of their own decisions,
and the other, that it was by far the most productive. The disadvantages
of this economy were enormous but even then to its advocate the
advantages were more numerous. At certain junctures the liberals of
various countries did make a plea for state intervention in the market and
limited free enterprise as was the case with Swiss-French radical-still the
range of autonomy in economic activities remained considerable.
In sum, liberalism is basically concerned with the idea of liberty,
whether it be the liberty of religion or of economic activity it is first and
foremost-a choice, which is not value based for it is neither good nor evil,
neither right nor wrong, it is not even the welfare economy, or belief or
disbelief in god, it is to concur with Locke, 'a capacity for choices, inherent
in the reasoning faculties of human beings. Capacity for choice underlines
hostility to any determination of human beings and allowing them
abundant freedom for the variety of experiences conducive to the
richness and meaningfulness of active living. But one thing should be
taken care of that in the context of organised community the liberal's
liberty is the right to be exercised within limits dictated by the
requirements of social order. This endows liberty with a tinge of morality-
the discrete capacity of the individual to choose between right and wrong
responsibility. Liberty is the chance given to mankind to work out their
own destinies. We can associate with liberalism the names of Laski,
Hobhouse, J.S. Mill, Adamsmith-but this name dropping exercise is futile
because Liberalism as said earlier has meant different things at various
times, its protagonists are numerous and mutually incompatible.
7.3 LIBERALIST VIGILANT ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE STATE
The views of liberalists about the nature of the state can be divided into the
following headings:
1. State is a man made institution: According to liberalist, state is neither a
divine institution nor it is the outcome of force, but it is an institution made
by man for the fulfillment of his needs. Famous contractualists Hobbes,
Locke and Rousseau have supported this viewpoint.
2. State is a necessary evil: According to liberalists’ state is necessary fo
those functions which the individual himself cannot do. But with the use of
laws the state curtails the liberty of the individuals and becomes obstacle
in the way of his progress. Thus it is an evil. Keeping this view in mind
this objective, the liberalists who are also known as individualists,
advocated the principle of ‘Laissez faire” (The non-interference of the
state)
3. Difference between state and the society: Liberalists believe that the
state and society both are two different institutions. The society is older
than the society. Like state has fixed territory, society has not; state has
government but has not.
 4. State is a pluralist association: Liberalists, like the pluralists agree that
social, economic, political, religious and cultural are the various aspects
of individual life in a society. The individual has made various
associations for the fulfillment of his needs. Maclver, “State is one of the
associations among many within the community.”
5. State is only a mean for the sake of society: The state cannot be an
end in itself. In fact, it is e mere mean of all surrounding development and
welfare of the society. The state is for the individual, not individuals are
for the state, because the individual has created state in order to protect
their liberty.
6. State has limited sphere of its activity: According to the liberalists, the
state should undertake only those activity which the individual himself is
not capable to undertake. All the remaining work should be done by the
individual on his own. But contemporary liberalists consider the welfare
nature of the state and are in favour of assigning the state more and more
functions.
7. Reconciliation of conflicting interests: The state is an instrument of the
reconciliation of various conflicting interests. There is scarcity of many
things in the state and each individual wants to establish his control over
the maximum number of goods. All this leads to conflict and the state is
an instrument which tries to establish coordination among these
conflicting interests.
8. Supporters of democratic government: liberalist argues that till the
state does not possess a democratic government, it cannot perform its
welfare functions. They therefore, emphasize the importance of
democratic form of the government. They favour the institutions of
representative democracy.
9. Citizen’s allegiance towards the state; Liberalists are of the view that
the membership of the state is compulsory for each individual, whereas
of other institution it is optional and discretionary for the individual, the
state look for the interests of all the people whereas other institutions do
not do so.
10. Laws cannot limit the freedom of an individual: Classical liberalists
are on the view that laws limit the freedom of an individual; therefore they
are in the favour of making the minimum numbers of the laws. And
contemporary liberalists are on the view that the laws of the state do not
limit the freedom of the individual rather these create proper environment
for the enjoyment of freedom and are the guardian of the freedom.
In sum up, we can say that according to liberalists, the state is manmade
institution. It is a mean to protect the freedom of and individual. It maintains law and
order; it is not above the individual as the will of the people is the basis of the state.
Criticism of Liberalist View point:
Following critics may be mentioned to the liberalist view point about the nature of
the state:
1. The state is not an association like other association: This viewpoint
of liberalists cannot be accepted because the state cannot be placed at
 par with other association. The state is sovereign and it protects and
promotes the interests of all the citizens living in the state.
2. State is not an evil: The present state is concerned with the life of the
individual even before he is born and continues to look after his interests
even after his death.
3. The state is not an artificial institution: The state is the natural
institution because it is the natural institution and is the result of historical
process and various factors like nature of man, religion, magic; force,
economic welfare etc have contributed its growth.
4. Marxist Critic to the liberalist: Marxists do not consider the state as
having come into existence as a means of welfare of all the people. They
opine that the state is a class institution which came into existence in
order to protect the interests of ruling class only. The ruling class utilizes
the supreme power of the state in order to protect and promote their own
interests and to exploit and suppress the economically weaker sections of
the society.
5. State is the source of rights: According to Locke, sate is the protector
of the rights not the source of the rights. But in contemporary state, the
individuals enjoy only those rights which are made available to him by the
state. No individual claim to enjoy any right without the consent of the
state.
The state has always been central to political analysis, to such an extent that
politics is often understood as the study of the state. This is evident in two debates.
3. The classic justification for the state is provided by social contract theory,
which constructs a picture of what life would be like, in a stateless society,
a so called “state of nature”. In the view of thinkers such as Hobbes and
Locke (1632-1704), as the state of nature would be the characterized by
an unending civil war of each against all, people would be prepared to
enter into an agreement- a social contract- through which they would
sacrifice a portion of their liberty in order to create a sovereign body
without which orderly and stable existence would be impossible. In final
analysis, individuals should obey the state because it is only safeguard
they have against disorder and chaos.
4. The major positions in the debate can be summarized as follow. Liberal
view the state as a neutral arbiter amongst competing interests and
groups in society, a vital guarantee of social order; the state is at worst a
necessary evil. Marxists have portrayed the state as an instrument of
class autonomy from the ruling class oppression, a bourgeois state, or
allowing for its “relative autonomy” from the ruling class, have
emphasized that the role is to maintain stability within a system of
unequal class power.
5. The state is a historical institution: it emerged in response to a particular
set of circumstances in sixteen century Europe, and it has continued to
evolve in the light of changing circumstances. In today’s world,
developments such as the rise of international migrations and the spread
of cultural globalization have tended to make state borders increasingly
“permeable”. The power and significance of the state has also been
affected by the process of “political globalization”. However there is
 debate about the extent to which this has weakened state power.
Emergent market state are concerned less with the provision of the
economic goods and more with the maximizing the opportunity available
to citizens. Nevertheless, some weak postcolonial states barely function
as states, having a negligible capacity to maintain order.
7.4 SUMMARY
The late twentieth century nevertheless witnessed a general “hollowing out” of
the state, leading, some argue, to its growing irrelevance in the modern world. Chief
amongst these developments have been: globalization and the incorporation of national
economies into a global one that cannot be controlled by any state; privatization and the
growing preference for market organization over state management; and localism, the
unleashing of centrifugal pressures through a strengthening of regional and community
politics and the rise of particularistic “nationalisms”. We cannot ignore the significance of
the liberalist ideology. It is pertinent at the conclusion of a discussion of the role of the
state according to liberal theory, to compare the liberal theory with some current
tendencies in state practice. Firstly, the current reform mindset focuses upon problems
and provides sweeping solutions without regard to their wider ramifications. In this way,
the fine adjustments which the common law has made between rights and duties have
been overturned in vast blocks. The balance of order has been upset. For example, in
the field of family law, attention was given to the traumas undergone by litigants in efforts
to prove fault. "No-fault" divorce was introduced as a solution without consideration of
the effect of such a measure upon the status of marriage and the rights of innocent
parties. The liberal system by contrast, requires that adjustments to the system should
be carefully thought out so as to be consistent with the underlying rationale of the
system. Furthermore, because of the complexities and unforeseen factors involved
reforms should be introduced slowly and incrementally.
7.5 GLOSSARY:
1. Liberalism – Liberalism is a political & moral philosophy based on the
rights of individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before
law.
2. Constitutionalism – Doctrine that government’s authority is determined by
a body laws or constitution.
7.6 FURTHER READINGS
1. O.P Guaba (2005). An Introduction to Political Thought. Delhi: Mayur
Publications.
2. Heywood, A. (2007). Politics, New York, Palgrave MacMillan.
7.7 MODEL QUESTIONS:
1. Discuss the various determinants of Liberalist State
2. Critically evaluate the Liberalist view of the state

---00---
 Lesson-8

STATE: MARXIAN VIEW

Structure
8.0 Objective
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Elements ofMarxian views to the state structure
8.3 Features of Marxian view to the state structure
8.4 Marxist view point on the nature of the state: salient features and criticism
8.5 Summary
8.6 Glossary
8.7 Further Readings
8.8 Model Questions
8.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able
 to understand the Marxian concept of state.
 to understand the various determinants of Marxian view of the state
structure.
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Marxism is an ideological system within socialism that developed out of, and
drew inspiration from the writings of Karl Marx (1818-83). However, Marxism is codified
body of thoughts came into existence only after Karl’s death. It was the product of the
attempt notably by Friedrich Engels (1820-95), KalKautsky (1854-1938) and Georgie
Plekhanov (1856-1918), to condense Marx’s ideas and the theories into a systematic
and comprehensive world view that suited the needs of the growing socialist movement.
However, there are a number of rival versions of Marxism, the most obvious ones being
classical Marxism, Orthodox Marxism and Modern Marxism
1. Classical Marxism is the Marxism of Marx and Engels
2. Orthodox Marxism is often portrayed as dialectical materialism and later
formed the basis of Soviet Communism. This vulgar Marxism placed a
heavier stress upon Mechanistic theory.
3. Modern Marxism has tried to provide an alternative to the Mechanistic
and determinist ideas of orthodox Marxism by looking Hegelian
philosophy.
8.2 ELEMENTS OF MARXIAN VIEW TO THE STATE STRUCTURE
Historical Materialism: The cornerstone of Marxist philosophy of what Engels
called “the materialist conception of history”. This highlighted the importance of
economic life and the condition under which people produce and reproduce their means
of subsistence. Marx held that economic base consisting essentially of the mode of
production or economic system, conditions or determines of ideological and political
superstructure.
Dialectical Change: Following Hegel, Marx believed that the driving force of
history was the dialectic, a process interaction between competing forces that result in a
higher stage of development. In its materialistic version, this model implies that historical
change is the consequence of internal contradiction within a “mode of production”,
reflected in class antagonism. Marx’s critique of the bourgeois state, or his “critique of
politics,” first developed out of a critical confrontation with Hegel. The best place to start
is thus his 1843 Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, in which Marx challenges
Hegel’s dialectical justification for the status quo. There are two main lines of argument
that we should pay close attention to: (1) Marx’s conception of the political state as a
separate sphere and (2) his radical conception of direct democracy as opposed to the
democracy of the bourgeois state.
Alienation: Alienation was a central principle of Marx’s early writings. It is the
process whereby, under capitalism, labour is reduced to being a mere commodity, and
work becomes a depersonalized activity. In this view, workers are alienated from the
product of their labour, from fellow workers and ultimately from themselves as creative
and social being.
Class struggle: The central contradiction within a capitalist society arises from
the existence of private property. This creates a division between the bourgeoisie or
capitalist class, the owner of the means of production, and the proletariats who do not
have own property and thus subsist through selling their labour. The bourgeoisie is a
ruling class. It not only has economic power through the ownership of wealth, but also
exercises political power through the agency of the state and possesses ideological
power because its ideas are the ruling ideas of the age.
Surplus value: The relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is
one of irreconcilable conflict, reflecting the fact that the proletariat is necessarily and
systematically exploited under capitalism. Marx believed that all value derives from the
labour expended in the production of good. It means that the quest for profit forces
capitalist enterprises to extract “Surplus Value” from their workers by paying them less
than the value of their labour.
Proletariat revolution: Marx believed that capitalist was doomed and that the
proletariat was its “grave digger” According to his analysis, capitalism would pass
through a series of increasingly serious crises of overproduction. This would being the
proletariat to revolutionary class consciousness. Marx proclaimed that the proletarian
revolution was inevitable, and predicted that it would occur through a spontaneous
uprising aimed at seizing control of the means of production.
Communism: Marx predicted that proletarian revolution would usher in a
transitional social period during which a dictatorship of the proletariat would be required
to contain a counter revolution mounted by the dispossessed bourgeoisie. However as
class antagonism faced and a fully communist society came into existence, this
proletarian state simply “wither away”. A communist society would be classless in the
sense that wealth would be owned in common by all and the system of commodity
production would be replaced by one of production for use’ geared to the satisfaction of
genuine human needs.
8.3 FEATURES OF MARXIAN VIEW TO THE STATE STRUCTURE
Marx was a German, a thorough student of economics, Marxism is more a
philosophy which falls in the realm of economics than in political science, since it
assigns, and economic conditions a primary role in determining social and political ideas.
In this Marx reverses Hegel’s ideology that "idea" is the central theme of human
existence. Marx was-not the first to talk about society divided into hostile halves of
'haves' and 'have nots', before him there was a long array of people who talked about
one or the other aspect of socialism. Economic Determinism:According to Marx social,
political and ideological institutions are the outcome of economic forces. So much is
Marx hung up on material conditions calling the tune in the social, political and spiritual
processes of life that he accords human will a minimal place in organizing things
independent of material conditions. The fact that the forces of production and means and
conditions of production dictate terms in ascribing superior and inferior status to certain,
classes, is considered infallible by Marx, to him all the social, political, ethical, even
religious systems are the manifestations of nothing else but the systems of property and
economic production. It is the economically dominant class which used philosophy,
religion and law to its own advantage. Marx's theory of historical materialism in its
extreme form lays down that all art, religion and culture are nothing but the end result of
economic conditions, it however, ones down this sharpness later when it avers that if not
the result of materialistic forces they get very largely conditioned by the economic factor.
Engels says the same thing tough, in a different way that the economic conditions speed
up the process of social evolution in a way that religion, law and philosophy lend
substance to the forces of social evolution.
1. State, Class Conflict and Class Antagonism: The process of social
evolution gains speed through the action and reaction between two
hostile classes. Class conflict in Marxian scheme is a civilizing process.
What apparently seems hostility between two halves of society is in fact a
process of bargaining and accommodation to make society functional and
congenial to social change, which in turn acts as a stabilizing force? This
conflict between the positions of domination and subjection eventually
leads to a total transformation of the conditions which cause such a
conflict. The conflict takes birth because of the insistence of ruling class
to maintain itself whether by coercion, concessions or persuasion to
prevent the subordinated classes to seek redressed through
emancipation. Class domination is endeavored by the dominant class or
classes to continue or maintain, strengthen, extend or defend themselves.
Because of this intent theirs to dominate, the germs of class-conflict can
be assigned to the very anatomy of social order. The subjugated class
rebels against this kind of unequal arrangement and hence naturally rises
to change and replace it, with the passage of time, this change also
decays into breeding of forces of inequality and unfairness, again the
subjected interests give it a jolt and does away with it. Hence from
freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild master and
journeyman bourgeois and proletariat; human society's march can be
described as a struggle between the economic forces, dominant and
subjected. Marx's dialectical materialism treats the very problem at the
 level of academics and abstraction.
2. Dialectical Materialism: In the word dialectic what is impregnated are
two things the idea of progress, as well as 'self contradiction' hence it
denotes movement through self contradiction. The word dialectic rules out
the thesis that there could be any such thing as eternal 'principles' or
'systems'. It is based on the premise that the dialectical movement is the
law of nature which is evident in onward and upward movement from the
lower to higher, from simpler to complex forms. Dialectical materialism is
a still more advancement denoting that this material world develops in
accordance with the laws of movement of matter. As maintained by the
idealists the evolution of the world is not synonymous with the evolution of
ideas or universal spirit. It is the evolution of matter or material; forces.
Matter plays such a vital role in human evolution that even thought is the
outcome of it, not to speak of sensations, perceptions and consciousness.
Matter therefore is of foremost importance, consciousness or ideas are of
secondary importance. Human brain which generates thought is also
matter. Matter moves inspired by the necessity of its own nature hence it
is an active agent. The contradictions inherent in it cause struggle, which
is a negative aspect but it turns out to be positive because this very
struggle pushes forward movement. The source of motion eventually and
initially as propounded by Marx is matter and not brain. In the light of
these facts Marx goes on to interpret human history in a material context.
Let us pass on to that.
3. Materialistic Interpretation of History: The fact, that ideas are not
independent of the material environment -but are sublimates to it, is
supported by Marx by bringing in history as evidence. It is not the
consciousness of men that determines their material conditions but it is
their material conditions which determine their consciousness is Marx's
consistent refrain here. All human history can be explained in terms of
material conditions. The most important materialconditions of life are the
productive forces, which are both animate and inanimate, labourers,
inventors, engineers being the animate, and soil, raw material, tools etc.
being inanimate. Secondary in importance to the forces of production are
the conditions of production, which means the form of state, the laws and
the nature of the grouping of social classes. The social, political and legal
institutions of all times have a definite correspondence with the conditions
of production. The forces of production are a natural dispensation while
the condition of production is manmade. An improvement or alteration in
productive force renders redundant old laws, institutions and ideas
because they fail to match the forces of production which have assumed
dynamic nature. The result is a widespread dis-satisfaction and the
society clamours for a corresponding change in institutions. The
disharmony between the forces of production and the condition of
production creates conflict of interests and promotes class struggle so
that the old social order full of contradicting nature gives way to a new
one based on new conditions of production. It is apparent that the
essence of the historical development of human society has been so far,
the progressive unfolding of dialectic and perfection of the productive
 forces. Marx's historical materialism is the innovative interpretation of the
Hegelian idea who viewed nature being involved with the process of
evolution inherently propelled by the idea to create and negate and
recreate one stage after the other, each higher than the other, in eternal
progression each stage creating its own antagonism which negates it at
the same time creating a new higher state. Marx substituted instead of
idea the economic forces as the predominant dynamic agency of human
society and its history.
4. Marx's Theory of Surplus Value: Marx's theory of surplus value
propounds that the value of any commodity is the cost of raw material
plus the amount Labour spent on it to make it socially useful and
valuable. Labour is what transfers a mere mass of material into
something decorous and useful. Hence the labourer is the one who
should be accredited into transforming mass of anything into giving a
shape and form. Justifiably the extra money earned out of that commodity
minus the cost price of material should be that of the labourer. But the
irony of the situation is that it goes to the coffers of those who own means
of production. Since the onset of industrial revolution, the capitalists who
own the means of production create such competitive conditions that the
value of the commodity created by labour is appropriated by the capitalist
as his surplus profit. The throat cutting industrial competition by its nature
brings down the wages of labourer to a mere subsistence, resulting in the
labourer getting his minimum wages and no share in the profit. His
subsistence minimum is only a fraction of the value created by him, with
introduction of machinery this fraction is even on decrease. Let us put it in
plain arithmetic to make it more intelligible.
5. Dictatorship of the Proletariat: Having realized that there was an
implacable rift between the rich and the workers in the economic scene,
Marx, sought to bring about a-worldwide intensification of it. Workers
have no country was his slogan here. Though fully convinced that the
economic condition would eventually pit the capitalists and workers
against each other, Marx was not for the evolution taking its course. He
was all: for the revolution being precipitated and speeded up through
organization and energetic action on the part of workers, for this purpose
agitation could be launched by a great socialist political party. The affinity
of economic interests would impel the workers to come under the aegis of
a political party. A violent revolution by the workers -would bring about the
establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx was of the belief
that the revolution would be fostered and fomented by the capitalism itself
which inherits in itself the seeds of its destruction. Because the blind
competition in the industrial field would lead to over production, which
would give birth to unemployment and consequent depression, which
provide ideal conditions for the workers waging war. Marx nowhere
elucidates the strategy of revolution but accepts the inevitability of the use
of force. The workers by a social and political revolution would capture
the political power and do away with the vestiges of capitalism and
establish a communist society. After liquidating the last remains of the
capitalism, way shall be paved for a classless society.
 6. In Marx's scheme class occupies a central place: The individual has
importance only as the member of a particular class. He symbolizes the
ideas, traditions and character of the class he belongs to, by environment
and through education. The privileges of the economically powerful class
are transmitted into social rights which are reflected in the social and
political institutions. They naturally arouse the antipathy of those to whom
they are not congenial. So the human history evolves through this
antipathy finally into capitalist class and proletariat class. It is to the
proletariat that the final act of ushering into a classless society is
assigned but before the advent of the classless society, the proletariat
would use their political supremacy to wrest by degrees the capital under
the command of the bourgeois and to centralise all the instruments of
production in the hands of the state, the proletariat organise as a ruling
class in this case. Assured that the society is no more a group of mutually
hostile classes the proletariat would dissolve its own supremacy as the
ruling class. The dictatorship of the proletariat even if established by
violent methods would not be maintained by violence and repression. The
era of dictatorship of the proletariat is marked by two stages, the higher
and the lower ones, the power is the revolutionary transformation of
capitalism into communism and the higher is the elimination of all classes
and then finally the disappearance of the proletariat as the wielder of
power.
7. Classless Society: Marx had a natural antipathy towards the institution
of state. State becomes a means of exploitation in the hands of dominant
class, and its chief characteristic is its coercive character rather than
welfare activities. State's existence is necessary where there is capitalism
as capitalism warrants the existence of classes, the existence of class
implies the rule of a particular class, in such a state of affairs, Marx
ridicules the existence of any democracy. How can there be a
government of the people, where there are no people but classes. The
chief guarantee of the government of the people is the classless society,
where there will be no exploitation of man by man. Exploitation
dehumanizes human beings and has a debasing effect on them, it turns
men into commodity. In the classless society or the communist society
man will be totally free and rational. It will be a stage of perfection for man
and hence there would be no need for the coercive apparatus of the
state. There is not going to be any contradictory interests to be
harmonized by the state. Man from being a victim of coercion would
voluntarily perform I all those functions which are so much needed to be
performed in the interest of the society.

Self Assessment Questions

1. What is Alienation ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Explain Proletariat Revolution ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.4 MARXIAN VIEWPOINT OF THE NATURE OF THE STATE; SALIENT
FEATURES OF CRITICISM
The "material basis" of the state is "relative scarcity." Relative scarcity is a
condition in which the productivity of labor enables a group of people to produce a
surplus, that is, an amount of goods—food, clothes, tools—that is more than enough t o
enable them to survive, yet not enough to allow everyone to live in true abundance.
When productivity reaches such a point, society divides into classes: (a) the vast
majority, who spend most of their time working, while receiving an amount of goods (or
monetary equivalent) that barely enables them to live; and (b) a tiny minority who exploit
the majority—that is, appropriate surplus and live in luxury without performing productive
labor. The state is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the
admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with
itself, that it is cleft into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to disp el. But in
order that these antagonisms, classes with conflicting economic interests, might not
consume themselves and society in sterile struggle, a power seemingly standing above
society became necessary for the purpose of moderating the conflict, of keeping it within
the bounds of "order"; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it,
and increasingly alienating itself from it, is the state.
We can divide the Marxian views about the nature of the state into following
headings:
1. State is a class Organization: According to the Marxists, in every period
of the history, the state has remained as a class organization and it
always protected the interests of the class which controls production and
means of production. According to Lenin, “The state is nothing but the
machine of suppression of one class by another.
2. State is not a natural institution: Hegel, “State is the march of God on
earth.” But the Marxist do not agree with viewpoint, according to them
state protects and promotes the interests of particular class and such an
institution can be accepted as a natural institution. State is an instrument
of exploitation of the poor by the rich.
3. Class antagonism is the responsible for the origin of the state:
According to Marx, “in the ancient time when the private property had not
come into existence, then the state was also not there. But as soon as the
institution of private property came into existence, the society got divided
into two classes and with expansion of the private property, the division
became deeper. This way the class antagonisms in the society were
responsible for the origin of the state.
4. State is the result of Evolutionary process: According to Marxists, the
state is the result of class division, yet the class division is the process of
long evolutionary process. In the ancient time there was nothing like
private property and this was the age of primitive communism. But
gradually with the development of the institution of private property, the
society got divided into two classes.
5. State is an instrument in the hand of rich class: The class which has
control over production and mean of production has control over the state
and state protects the interests of the rich class only. According to Marx,
in the capitalist state, the power is under the control of capitalist class or
rich class.
6. State is a mean not an end: According to Marxists, the state is not a
natural institution, it is a means and the class which had control over the
state power, made use of it for the protection and the promotion of their
interests. In capitalist state, the power would be used by the rich, but in
the proletariats state, the power would be used by the proletarian class.
The state is only the means of power.
7. State cannot create unity and harmony in the society: According to
Marxists, State is only a class institution, which has control over the state
power. So state is itself a class institution, how it can create unity and
harmony in the society.
8. Force is the basis of the state: According to Marxists, force not will is
the basis of the state and state is the power institution, it is based on
force with the use of power. It tries to maintain the prevalent social
political and economic structure.
9. Welfare state is a means to save the capitalist order: Marxists argue
that the welfare functions of the state is not the welfare of the general
public, these functions are made to maintain the capitalist order and
pacify those who oppose it. As a result of revolution, a new
consciousness emerges among the poor and they accept that the
capitalist order is the root cause of all the problems.
10. State is the temporary institution and it shall wither away: According to
Marxists, the state is a class institution and it shall exist so long as the
classes exist. When the classes come to an end, then there will be no need
of the state. This way the state is the unnecessary institution and it shall
gradually wither away.
11. In general, the state is controlled by the economically dominant
class: the state is controlled by the economically dominant class,
enabling it to maintain its control over the exploited classes. "As the state
arose from the need to hold class antagonisms in check, but as it arose,
at the same time, in the midst of these classes, it is, as a rule, the state of
the most powerful, economically dominant class, which, through the
medium of the stat e, becomes also the politically dominant class, and
thus acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed
class. Thus, the state of antiquity was above all the state of slave owners
for the purpose of holding down the slaves, as the feudal state was the
organ of the nobility for holding down the peasant serfs and bondsmen,
and the modern representative state is an instrument of exploitation of
wage labour by capital.
12. The state is part of the "superstructure" of society: Marx and Engels
analyzed human society as divided into a material base (or basis), and a
superstructure that rests on it. The base is made up of the instruments of
 production, the social classes, chiefly the exploiting and laboring classes,
of the particular society, and the relations between these classes. The
superstructure consists of political and cultural institutions, including the
state, churches, schools, etc., as well as corresponding ideational realms:
politics, religion, science, art, etc. The state is a major, if not the major,
element of this superstructure.
Criticism of Marxist Viewpoint
1. State is not an artificial institution: The state is the natural institution
because it is the natural institution and is the result of historical process
and various factors like nature of man, religion, magic; force, economic
welfare etc have contributed its growth.
2. Stateless society is not possible: It is fact that nowhere in the world,
the classes have come to an end. The state is essential to establish
internal and external peace as no other association can do this function.
The present state establishes reconciliation among opposite interests and
this maintains harmony.
3. State is not the product of class struggle alone: Many other factors
namely the blood relations, religion, social nature of the individual, force,
political consciousness etc. have also significantly contributed to origin of
the state. We accept that the economic conflict has its big share ii the
origin of the state.
4. State does not be a mere instrument in the hand of rich class: The
contemporary state is an institution of public welfare which promotes the
interests of each class in the state. The spirit of public welfare has
become so popular that each state endeavors to become a welfare
institution.
5. The force cannot the basis of the state: Will, not the force is the basis
of the state (T.H Green). A state based on force cannot live for a long
period. The stability of the democratic states and instability in the
dictatorial states supports this viewpoint.
6. Human being is not all vile and evil, torn between the competitive
forces of disharmony: Cooperation, compromise and adjustments of
volition play a equally important role in human life. History is replete with
so many instances where human beings actuated by inner wealth of
compassion laid down their lives for lesser beings not caring for an
economic or physical survival. At many an important phases of the history
ideas played such a vital role in shaping the destinies of nations-.
Surprisingly these ideas came forth from the people who are slotted not in
the privileged class, for examples Gandhi and Abraham Lincon. A very
big flaw is awaiting our attention in the treatment of Marx's contention of
proletariat rule, which he terms as democratic. But so far as one
represses another, which may be proletariats ruling over the bourgeois
there cannot be any democracy. Freedom and democracy are antithetical
to suppression and violence.
7. Moreover, for Marx dictatorship of the proletariat is a temporary
phase: but once the taste of power is relished it is very hard to forsake it
 and relax one's hold over men and things. Power is a great intoxicant; it is
difficult to get cured of this. Marx considered religion as bane of human
society and as a thwarting force-to any revolution but in the modern times
religion goads men with a fevour to fight revolutions and becomes an
embedding factor to bring various divisions of society to work for a
common cause. It also has acted as s purifier of causes purifying those
who embattle them.
8. Marx's hostility to state is also a little too exaggerated: State is the
repository of wisdom of centuries and provides the necessary peaceful
conditions for the human evolution to endure. Even in Russia the state
has found a permanent stronghold, there are-no signs of its withering
away. In fact, what has withered away is Marxism.
8.5 SUMMARY
Marx and Engels saw the State as being a product of class struggle. It was the
executive committee of the ruling class. It was an instrument by which one class rules
another. In most of their writings they seem to see the State as a neutral tool. It can be
taken and used by either workers or capitalists. Their classical political statement is The
Communist Manifesto.As a theoretical system, Marxism has constituted the principle
alternative to the liberal rationalism that has dominated western culture and intellectual
enquiry in the modern period.
The state: (1) tends to perpetuate itself; (2) works to increase its power vis-a-vis
the rest of society, including the ruling class; (3) often acts ahead of the conscious
decisions of the ruling class, stepping in where action is necessary but before the ruling
class can agree on a policy; and (4) occasionally dominates the majority of the ruling
class, as in fascist and other types of dictatorships. As a political force, in the form of the
international communist movement, Marxism has also been seen as the major enemy of
Western capitalism. The core of Marxism is a philosophy of history that outlines why
capitalism is doomed and why socialism and eventually communism are destined to
replace it. This mistaken idea that Marxism is somehow pro-state comes first from the
development of reformist Social Democratic parties after Marx and Engels' death that
indeed argued that the path to socialism led through the existing state institutions. In
particular, Social Democracy of the early 20th century envisioned socialism as
something to be achieved by gaining a majority within the representative institutions of
the state, and then using its electoral conquests to implement a series of social reforms,
leading to full socialization of production. The “political state” that Marx refers to here is a
modern product: it is only on the basis of bourgeois relations that the state clearly
separates itself from civil society. Marx’s contrasting description of feudal relations in this
essay is helpful in this regard: “The old civil society [of feudalism] had a directly
politicalcharacter, i.e. the elements of civil life such as property, family and the mode and
manner of work were elevated in the form of seigniors, estate and guild to the level of
elements of political life.
8.6 GLOSSARY
1. Proletariat – working class people regarded collectively.
2. Materialistic – excessively concerned with material possession, money
oriented.
8.7 FURTHER READINGS
 • Kapoor, A C. (2009). Principles of Political Science, S. Chand &
Company, New Delhi.
• Heywood, A.(2004). Political ideologies: an introduction (3rd ed.)
Palgrave MacMillan.
• Robert A.Dahl& Bruce S. FinebricKner. (2003). Modern Political Analysis
(6th ed.) Pearson Education.
8.8 MODEL QUESTIONS
1. Discuss the various determinants of the Marxian view to the state
structure
2. Critically discuss the various features of the Marxian nature of state

---00---
 Lesson-9

STATE: GANDHIAN VIEW

Structure
9.0 Objective
9.1 Introduction: Political Ideas of Gandhi
9.2 Determinants of Gandhian Philosophy
9.3 Gandhian viewpoint of the state and ideal state, its criticism
9.4 Similarities and dissimilarities between Marx and Gandhi
9.5 Summary
9.6 Glossary
9.7 Further Readings
9.8 Model Questions
9.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able :
 to understand the Political Ideas of Gandhi.
 to explain the similarities & dissimilarities between Gandhi & Marx.
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Born on October 2, 1869 at Porbander Kathiawar, young Mohan DassKaram
Chand Gandhi was nurtured into religious and human values by his God fearing devout
mother. He did not show much promise as a student. After doing his bar-at-law from
England, he proceeded to South Africa to wage legal warfare in favour of the helpless
Indians there. His much loved Satyagraha was given a preliminary trial in South Africa
and it did bring dividends for him. When he came back to India, Indian national
movement was largely in the hands of Congress which had two dominant groups within
it— the Moderates and the Extremists. To start with Gandhi had the goodwill of both the
wings— even in the later years his line of action was the amalgam of the methods of
both moderates & extremists.
In the initial stages he believed in British sense of justice. In 1920 his faith was
rudely shaken due to the passing of Rowlatt Act, tragedy at ' JallianwalaBagh and
allowing General Dyer to" go free. In 1920 at a special meeting of the Congress, policy
of non-cooperation was accepted and subsequently launched. The movement had to be
withdrawn due to theviolent events in ChauraChauri. In 1930 after about eight years he
started, the civil disobedience movement and launched the historic Dandi March on
March 12, 1930 to violate the salt law. Gandhi-Irwin Pact was signed on March 5, 1931
which ended the eleven month old civil-disobedience movement. He went to England to
participate in the Second Round Table Conference as the sole representative of the
Congress to negotiate with the British Government but no solution was possible. He was
arrested and imprisoned like several other eminent leaders soon after his return to India.
Civil disobedience movement started once again and continued till July 23, 1933. In
1942 he started another movement which was known as the Quit India Movement. It
seemed that the whole nation was in revolt against the British.Quit India movement and
the earlier civil disobedience movements had made the government realize the intensity
of the feelings of the nation. Events moved very fast thereafter, till India became
independent on the- 15th August, 1947 and British really quit India.Gandhi was opposed
to the partition of the country but he had to yield, though unwillingly and the country was
divided into two parts. Due to this issue he came to be misunderstood. Soon after India
achieved her independence, on January 30, 1948 he was shot dead by Godse in his ''
PrathnaSabha at Delhi.
Political Ideas of Gandhi
Briefly put Gandhi's political philosophy is based on certain moral principles.
Truth, religion and non-violence form the central theme of his teachings- Describing the
modem civilizations as 'diseased' in the sense that it takes note neither of morality nor of
religion, he stands to radically reform it into a society where in everyone conscious of his
own self-realization, works for the greatest good of all; The society that he would like to
set up will be classless and stateless society' composed of autonomous village
communities. This objective would be achieved in a peaceful manner through non-
violence, 'ahimsa' and Satyagraha. Mahatama Gandhi can thus be described as a
philosophical anarchic.
Mahatma Gandhi does not present his philosophy in any systematic manner. It
is, in fact, full of contradictions and incoherence. These are two reasons responsible for
this. First, he seldom struck to one view. He would change his ideas every now and
then, in accordance with the needs of the situation. Hehimself would say, 'The opinions I
have found and conclusions I have tried at-are not final. I may change them tomorrow".
He used to argue that no dynamic person can ever afford to stick to one opinion or view.
Hemust change by his experience. Secondly he tried to apply the moral truths to politics
which, by its nature, is ever-shifting. He, therefore, could not help taking different stands
at different times. Hence there are contradictions in his philosophy.
He says, "I would like to say to the diligent reader of my writings and to others
who are interested in them that I am not at all concerned with appearing to be
consistent. In my search after truth, I have discarded many ideas and learnt many new
things. Old as I am in age, I have no feeling that I have ceased to grow inwardly or that
my growth will stop at the Dissolution of flesh. What I am concerned with is my readiness
to obey the call of the Truth, my rod, from moment to moment, and therefore, when
anybody finds any inconsistency between any two things of mine, if he has still faith in
my sanity, he would do well to choose the later of the two on the same subject ". T.K.
Mahadevan in one of the rare books on Gandhi, says that most people use Gandhi's
inconsistencies as a much needed alike to allow them to "tailor Gandhi to their size and
shape..., he continues further, to understand Gandhi the normal yardsticks are worse
than useless. It is because most writers on him have used these yardsticks.... that he
seems such a bundle of contradictions, inconsistencies and paradoxes." But Gandhi by
himself and on one strength of what he says is a, "Whole ... a complete thinker ". Those
who make a hue and cry about his inconsistencies, only have an inherent disloyalty to
this .vision and his approach. As for the following to his creed, Gandhi went along with
his ideas unmindful whether he had people toeing him or not.
 Let us now discuss the Political Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi at some length.
9.2 DETERMINANTS OF GANDHIAN PHILOSOPHY TO THE STATE BASIS
1. Man and Society:The convenient point from where we can begin our
description of the political philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi is his views
about man and society. Beinga saintly man he felt very much tormented
over the materialistic trends that have crept in our society. The dawn of
the machine age and the bewildering speed with which modem
technology has advanced have deprived man of his basic-moral values.
His whole outlook and approach to life stands fully surcharged with
materialism. He is mad after materialprogress and has completely
forgotten his true moral end. The result is that modern civilization is now
thoroughly diseased. It is a 'nine day wonder.' It isbound to meet its
disaster soon. It must be saved from its wreck. The only way to do so is to
reshape the whole outlook of man. The old moral values need to be
rehabilitated once again.
2. Religion: Religion is the basis of Gandhi's Political Philosophy. To him
"Politics bereft of religion is a death trap that would entrap and kill the
soul." By religion, he does not mean any particular creed or sect. He
considers religion as something more basic and fundamental, something
which lies at the root of all religions and something which unities all of
them. To quote his own words, "It is the permanent element in human
nature which.... Leaves the soul utterly restless unless it has found itself,
known its Maker and appreciated the true correspondence between the
Maker and itself. In simple words, religion means two things: First, firm
faith in God and secondly active involvement in human activity. Gandhi
himself was a staunch believer in God and had a firm belief in this
Supreme Authority over the Universe. Once he said, "God is the Creator,
the Ruler and the Lord of the Universe and not a blade of grass moves
but by his will". He would recommend everyone to put faith in God and his
goodness. Secondly, by religion he means that everyone must actively
participate in all human activities and must not turn his back against them.
Renunciation from the world is no religion. One can achieve self-
realisation which is the goal of every one's life only when working for
others and that one can do only if one vigorously indulges in human
activities. That is why he says that religion and politics cannot be
separated from each other. Since politics is one of the most important
human activities and through it one can serve one's fellow beings in an
ideal manner, the substance of religion should apply in thisdomain too.
Religion for Gandhi was not a particular sector faith. It signifies certain
universal values which are enshrined in all the religions of world. He
believed in the essential unity of all the religions, since they are one at the
core. The faiths of men to Gandhi were like rivers which eventually wend
their way to ocean, wherein all of them lose their separate identities.
3. Truth: The second moral principle whichheeulogized was 'truth'. He
described 'truth' as the pole-star of his life. To him, truth implies two
things. First, truth is God, it is, thus universal, absolute and infinite. It
transcends space and time. It pervades everything and reigns supreme. If
we want to know God, we should practice, and preach truth. This brings
 us to the second aspect of truth. Truth is also a relative concept,
something that we understand in relation to some particular set of
thoughts or circumstances Truth, conceived as such, is a means to an
end, a means to know God, to achieve lasting peace and happiness. In all
our actions, in all our pursuits of life, says Gandhi, we should be truthful. It
should be a matter of principle with us. Truth does not imply truth only in
speech. But it also implies, and perhaps in a greater degree, truth in
thought and actions. We should not only speak truth but should also be
truthful in our thoughts and actions, which means that we should not
harbour ill-will, malice or hatred against anyone nor should we have in a
manner that is not warranted by truth. That is the reason why Gandhi
commends everyone to be a satyagrahi, onewhoworships and practices,
truth. Unless one does so one cannot achieve the true end.
4. Non-violence: Truth can be realized only through non-violence. Violence
implied anger, selfishness, lust, conflicts, and clashes. To practice
violence is to employ all those mean weapons. Their use would obviously
precipitate crisis and bring about chaos. This will lead us nowhere. It will
rather distract us from our goal. These consequences apart, violence
basically conflicts with the principle of truth. As hinted in the foregoing
paragraph, truth also implies the purity of action. Violence, on the
contrary, is based on conflicts and chaos. Pursuit of truth does not,
therefore, admit of violence. There is still one more reason why violence
is denounced. This is that violence attacks not only the sin but the sinner
also, the latter perhaps in a greater measure. To harm the sinner is not
our goal. We should reform him instead of harming him. That explains
why Mahatma Gandhi used to say, "I hate the British imperialism and not
the British." You may differ with a man over his actions but not over his
personality. Based on such reasoning, Gandhi commends to everyone to
be non-violent in all his actions and deeds. Non-violence will neither
conflict with the basic tenets of truth nor will it harm the wrong doer or the
sinner. It will only strike deep at the sin and will thus try to eradicate it.
Non-violence is a positive creed. It not only implies a negative
view of avoiding the use of violence but also puts responsibility on
everyone to face injustice in a positive manner. True, 'satyagrahi' who
practices non-violence cannot tolerate any injustice. He must boldly face
it and fight against it in a non-violent manner. The positive means by
which non-violence can be practiced are fasting, peaceful picketing,
demonstrations and civil disobedience. We shall discuss them in detail at
a later stage.
Sometimes, it is argued that non-violence is the creed of a
coward. One who cannot physically or otherwise face force and violence,
resorts to non-violence. Mahatma Gandhi says such is not the case. Non-
violence is the creed of a strong and bold person. He strongly deprecates
the tendency of such persons who would adopt nonviolence should not
be practiced on utilitarian principle according to the need of the particular
situation but is to be adopted as a complete philosophy of life in all
circumstances. Otherwise it is the nonviolence of the weak or the passive
non-violence helpless. To quote him "There is no such thing as
 nonviolence of the weak. Nonviolence and weakness was a contradiction
in terms".
5. Satyagraha: 'Satyagraha' is a term associated with Gandhi and its
philosophy 'is said to be a great contribution of the Mahatma to the
political thought. This term was coined by Gandhi in his SouthAfrican
crusade. In common parlance, "Satyagraha" means direct action in a
nonviolent way.' If we take the literal meaning, then it implies, 'insistence
on truth'. To Gandhi Satyagraha means much more than what the term
implies. It is a relentlesspursuit of truth in a nonviolent manner. "It is the
vindication of truth, not by infliction of suffering on the opponent but on
one's own self. It is, thus, a penance or tapasayaforthwith. It is a soul
force with the help of which one ceaselessly strives in all walks of life to
achieve one's end, i.e. truth. It is, thus, not a weapon which may be
occasionally used to one's convenience for the achievement of those
ends which one thinks proper or expedient. It is a lifelong philosophy to
be permanently cultivated and employed at every step.
As regards methods of 'satyagraha', the most important and effective method is
that of fasting. One writer describes it as "the most potent weapon in the armoury of
satyagraha." Fasting with which we are familiar today is totally different from that of
Gandhian concept. The second method of 'satyagraha' is non-cooperation. It was
Gandhi's firm belief that no wrong could ever endure unless the wrongdoer and wronged
cooperated with each other. Government can exploit the people and can perpetuate
affictions upon them only if they cooperate with it. If they refuse to lend cooperation to
the government and voluntarily abstain from all its activities, and also refuse to avail of
the benefits that accrue from it government would be compelled to mend its ways. Final
form of 'satyagraha' which Gandhi eulogised was prayer. A true 'Satyagrahi' must also
practise prayer which is nothing but meditation. His conviction was that when one
performs a prayer, one tries to develop a communion with God and thereby tries to draw
nearer to truth which is the true end of a "Satyagrahi". That conviction made Gandhi hold
daily mass prayers where everyone was welcome. Prayer is also a method by which one
can lift his outer self to the level of the inward self and thus imbibe the qualities of a man
of morals which every 'Satyagrahi' ought to be.
9.3 GANDHIANVIEWPOINTOF THE STATE AND IDEAL STATE, ITS
CRITICISM
Gandhi is often described as a philosophical anarchist because he stands to
abolish the existing state not by means of a bloody revolution as the communists
suggest, but by means of a peaceful, disciplined technique of 'Satyagraha'. His
opposition to the state is based on certain arguments. First state, based on power wields
a compulsive and coercive character. Such a power complex makes the life of individual
suffocating and hence not worth living. To lead the life happily, an individual needs to be
left to him, to be guided by his morality and conscience. There isabsolutely no scope for
compulsion and dictation. Let him function independently and voluntarily. That way alone
he can get the maximum of happiness and satisfaction. Secondly, state is rooted in
violence. He said that even if a state is organized on a democratic principle, it cannot
shun violence. Violence implied coercion and exploitation. Generally, the hammer falls
on the poor and on the helpless. "The state represents violence in a concentrated and
organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the state is a soulless machine, it can
never be weaned away from violence to which it owes its very existence". Anything
based on coercion and violence cannot enhance the moral aspect of one’s personality.
Finally, in a society based on voluntary cooperation, there is absolutely no room
for an organization based on the concept of power and coercion. "To me, political power
is not an end but one of the means of enabling people to, better their condition in every
department of life. Political power means capacity to regulate national life through
national representations. If national life becomes so perfect as to become self-regulated,
no representation is necessary. There is then a state of enlightened anarchy. In such a
state, everyone is his own ruler. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a
hindrance to his neighbour. In the ideal state, therefore, there is no political power,
because there is no state."
Gandhi, thus, stands to abolish the state and to establish in its place a stateless
and classless society. What would be the shape of things in the society that will
ultimately emerge after the abolition of the state? Gandhi never pronounced his final
word because he would always consider his views as something in a state of flux,
always subject to change and modification. However, he did give expression here and
there about what he visualised as the finest state of society.
In brief, Gandhian viewpoint of state can be divided into following headings:
1. State is a soulless machine: Gandhi, “State represents violence in a
concentrated and organized form; the individual has soul whereas state is
soulless machine. It can never be weaned away from violence to which it
owes its very existence”.
2. State cannot claim sovereignty over individual: According to Gandhi,
State is corrupt institution. Many of the law of the state are inhuman in
nature, therefore the soul of the individual which is divine in nature,
cannot be controlled by the state.
3. The state has limited functions: According to Gandhi, the increasing
function of the state could prove dangerous to the freedom of the
individual. In the words o the Gandhi, the government is best which
governs the least. This will provide more freedom to the individual and he
will be able to make more progress in his life.
4. State is the means not the end: The state has no supreme will of its
own and its objective is to work for the fulfillment of the needs of the
individual. Gandhi, to me, political power is not an end but one of the
means of enabling people to better their conditions in every department of
life. Political power means capacity, to regulate national life through
national representative.
5. State hinders the envelopment of individual personality: Gandhi, an
individual can develop his natural qualities only ion free environment. But
the state with the use of its power tries to regulate the total life of the
individual as a result of which it becomes an obstacle in the way of the
growth of the individual.
6. Supporter of enlightened anarchical state: According to Gandhi, when
the people become eligible to run their administration on their own and
are able to regulate their own life, such a state can be known as
 enlightened state. In such a state, everybody will be his own ruler will not
become an obstacle in the life of the other.
Gandhi's Ideal State
Gandhi, in. fact, believed that the ideal society will always remain an ideal
unrealized and unrealizable in its entirety. Yet the importance of one lies in pointing the
direction in which one can move. Gandhi admitted thatfor time being, "my Swaraj is the
parliamentary government of India in the modem sense of the term." That was the only
way available to him which led to Ram Rajya and Sarvodaya.
1. Gandhi's ideal state will be based on democracy: "Democracy to be
genuine must provide adequate opportunity to the weakest and the
strongest. This cannot happen except through nonviolence." That state
will be a genuine democracy, in which exploitation and coercion will be
minimized. The state will, no doubt, continue to exist, as there will be
some individuals and groups with anti-social tendencies and the absence
of external restraint will lead to anarchy.
2. Proper adjustment between law, freedom and social restraint on the
basis of Dharma:He, in fact, believed that, government is the best which
governs the least. He said, "I look upon any increase in the power of the
state with greatest fear, because although while apparently doing good by
minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by
destroying individuality which lies at the root of all progress." But this does
not mean that he believed in the theory of individualism. His views were
far progressive than individualist. He said, "I value individual freedom, but
you must not forget that man is essentially a" social being. He had vision
to present status by learning to adjust his individualism to the
requirements of social progress. Unrestricted individualism is the law of
the jungle. We have learnt to strike the mean between individual freedom
and social restraint. Willing submission to social' restraint for the sake of
the well being of the whole society, enriches both the individual and the
society of which one is a member."
3. Decentralization of power both in political and economic spheres:
He said. "Centralization as a system is inconsistent with the non-violent
structure of society. I suggest that if India is to evolve along non-violent
lines, it will have to decentralize many things. Therefore, Gandhi
suggested a decentralized political and economic structure for
independent India. His ideal society will be a sort of federation of a
number of villages which will be more or less self sufficing. Those will be
self governing republics whose total affairs will be guided by the
"Satyagrahis". "Society based on non-violence can only consist of groups
settled in village in which voluntary co-operation is the condition of
dignified and peaceful existence." The village republic of the ideal society
will have its own Panchayat. Voluntarilyorganised by the residents of the
village. The villages will then be united in a common organization, again a
panchayat will be more "comprehensively organised and its sphere of
functioning will also be wider. The organization will gradually go up till the
whole country is brought into one fold. Elaborating this view, Gandhi,
says, "In this structure composed of innumerable villages, life will not be a
 pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic
circle whose centre will be the individual always ready to perish for the
village and the village ready to perish for the circle of villages. The
outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle but
will give strength to all within and derive its own strength from it.
4. The system of representative democracy for his ideal society: it is
essential to know the method of representation. According to him the
qualifications for franchise are neither property nor position but manual,
labour. Moreover, he advocated that his candidates would contest the
elections not in the spirit of self-interest but with the aim of service to the
community. He should not regard the office as a regard but should
believe in the concept of bread-labour.Gandhi did not believe that the
ideal state should be based on majority view. The majority has no right to
impose upon the minority their view or decision. The majority should try to
understand the point of view of the minority and to consider it respectfully
even when they are unable to accept it. An individual's opinion should
have greater weight than the opinion of many, if that opinion is sound.
5. No need either for police or military: according to Gandhi, there should
be any need either for police or military in a nonviolent state because they
are the signs of the imperfections of nonviolence. But perfect nonviolence
is impossible in this world. Therefore the police and the military would
continue in a Gandhian state as would crime and punishment. But Gandhi
wants to change the character of the police and military. They will be
servants and not masters to the people. Their police work will be confined
to robbers and dacoits. In the same way Gandhi held a very progressive
and reformatory view of crime, jails andpunishment. "Crime is disease like
any other malady and is a product of the prevalent social system."
Therefore, society is as much at fault, if not more, as the individual where
a crime is committed. Therefore, more emphasis should be as on the
prevention, than cure of crime as done in case of disease but the society
should not have the right of death sentence. He, also proposed certain
changes regarding the administration of justice. He said, "Administration
of justice should be less costly, parties to civil suits must be compelled in
the majority of cases to refer their disputes to arbitration, the decision of
panchayats should be final except in cases of corruption or obvious
misappropriation of law. Multiplicity of intermediate courts should be
avoided. Case law should be abolished and the general procedure should
be simplified." Lawyers should not consider themselves as superiors.
They must depend for their living on some form of bread-labour and serve
people free.
6. Secularism: Gandhi wanted his ideal state to be a secular state he was
of the view that there should not be any state religion and each religion
should be given equal respect. Religion is the personal affaire of the
individual, Secularism means “Sarva Dharma Samaj.”
7. Trusteeship system: He was of the view that the rich people should
have the freedom to earn wealth. But he was not in the favour of the
forcible confiscation of their property. They were not the owner of their
property rather they were the trustee of it and it should be used for the
 welfare of the general public.
Gandhi did not lay down foreign policy for his ideal state but the nonviolent state
should try to promote international relations as it is based on the principles of service
and cooperation. Thus he wanted that the nonviolent state should remain on friendly
terms with its neighbours whether they are great or small powers and will work for total
disarmament. Nonviolence and Dialogue were to be the methods to resolve not just
individual, group national and international strikes too. In international relations Gandhi
was for open diplomacy.

Criticism of the Gandian viewpoint of the state

The Gandhian viewpoint about the nature of the state can criticize on the
following headings:
1. State is the natural institution, it cannot be abolished: Anarchy and
chaos will prevail in the absence of the state. The life, liberty and property
of the individual cannot be protected with ought the existence of the state.
2. Centralization is the need of time: In the contemporary world of
international competition, the need of the hour is centralization because
only a strong central government can face the present situation.
3. Only violence cannot be the base of the state: Gandhi, the force I the
only basis of the state, is not right because a state based on violence
cannot subsist infinity. T.H Green, “Will not the force is the basis of the
state.”
4. Ideal state is impracticable: Morality and non violence are high ideal but
real national and international problems and disputes cannot be solved
with the application only of ethics and non-violence. In cotemporary world,
might is the right is more often applicable and weak states are not able to
preserve even their identity.
5. Functions cannot be limited of the state: Today, the state is
considered to be the best which undertakes more and more functions for
the welfare of the people. The functions of the state are, therefore
increasing day by day.
6. Alongwith the small-scale industries and cottage industries: The
development of the big industries is also essential: The progress of the
big industries is very essential because without their development, no
state or the society can progress.
7. Enlightened anarchical state is myth: Gandhi thinks of a state in which
everybody will be ruler of himself and the social life will be regulated by
the inner-conscience of the individual and not by the laws. But such a
state can be established only in mythical world. Such a state will be a
state of anarchy in which nobody ‘s interests will be state.
9.4 SIMILARITIES AND DISSIMILARITIES BETWEEN GANDHIAND MARX
1. Marx and Gandhi both stood as the crusaders of social redemption of an
exploited bulk of humanity, Gandhi took up the cause of the down-trodden
 peasants and that mass of humanity which is considered to be the
garbage by our social system the untouchables. Marx was also a great
protagonist of the interests of wage earners in western Europe.
2. Both Gandhi and Marx opposed vehementlythe capitalistic process of
"Social and economic exploitation and stood for social change. State to
both of them was an instrument of exploitation and tyranny at the handsof
the capitalist and it incurred their wrath. Both of them thus were
apprehensive of state playing a constructive role in the sphere of human
welfare. Their cherished goal was a stateless and classless society. But
whereas, Gandhi believed in the essential unity and cohesion of various
classes,Marxrecognizedthe gulf between haves and have nots. Their
methods were also different. Gandhi advocated non-violent methods to
be the vehicle of social change and Marx commended revolution for this
purpose.
The difference between Gandhian and Marxian approach
The difference between Gandhian and Marxian approach lies in their varying
emphasis on the place of individual in society. Individual is the focal point of
Gandhianthought whereas Marx stands for collectivism. Gandhi was a spiritual and
moral individualist. He wanted to induct the values of religion even into politics; the purity
of means to attain a worthy end was on the other hand alien to Marxian thinking. How
different sounds Gandhi from Marx when he says, "I do not want to rise on the ashes of
the blind, the deaf and. the dumb."Marxian thought does not show any accommodation
or compassion for those whose misery and anguish, cements the revolution. Alittle
misery here and there is a very small price for them for fomenting revolution. The
ultimate goals of Marx and Gandhi may be the same but Marxism lacks that human core
which is precious to a Gandhian.
9.5 SUMMARY
In the wake of Indian independence, the Gandhian critique of the state and the
program of village swarajwere quickly sidelined, leaving little imprint on the Indian
Constitution and political culture of the postcolonial state. The state freed from British
control, for both elite and subaltern groups, could assume its historic role as the
legitimate and unfettered agent of social and economic modernization. Nehruvianstatism
thus appeared as best answer to growing concerns about inequality both within India
and in the global arena. One of Gandhi’s sharpest critics, B.R. Ambedkar, argued that
the exploitation and inequality entailed by the caste system could only begin to be
seriously remedied through the active intervention of a centralized state, both through
legislation banning of the most egregious forms of exclusion and governmental
programs for social, economic, and political advancement. The superiority of truth over
false heard, continuity between ends and means, love for non violence are an old' as
hills, where Gandhi is distinctive, is he when the choice came and decision had to be
taken, gave credence to these age old beliefs. Truth non violence and priority of ends
and means were not cherished assets of books with him but calling for their adoption in
the daily living this is what gives Gandhi a venerable status.
9.6 GLOSSARY
1. Soulless – lacking character and individuality.
2. Ideal – a person or thing regarded as perfect.
 3. Restraints – something under control.
9.7 FURTHER READINGS
1. O.P Guaba (2005). An Introduction to Political Thought. Delhi: Mayur
Publications.
2. Ramashray Roy (1996). Understanding Gandhi. Delhi: Ajanta
Publications.
3. Bhikhu, Parekh (1995). Gandhi’s Political Philosophy: A Critical
Examination. Delhi: Ajanta Publications.
4. Amar Singh (2003). Religion in Politics: Gandhian Perspective in the
Present Context. Deep and Deep Publications PVT.LTD.
5. Raju, P.A (2000). Gandhi and his Religion. New Delhi: Concept Public
Company.
6. Pani, Narendar (2002). Inclusive Economics: Gandhian Method and
Contemporary Policy. Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd.
7. Weber, Thomas (2006). Gandhi, Gandhism and the Gandhians.Roli
Books Pvt. Ltd.
8. Mashelkar, Ramesh (2010). Timeless Inspiration-Reliving Gandhi.Sakal
Papers Ltd.
9. Fischer, Louis (2002). The Essential Gandhi: An Anthology of His
Writings on His Life, Work, and Ideas. Vintage: New York.
9.8 MODEL QUESTIONS
1. Discuss the various determinants of Gandhian Philosophy which provides
basis to the State Structure
2. Critically discuss the various characteristics of the Gandhian Ideal State

---00---
 Lesson-10

WELFARE STATE: A LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE

Structure
10.0 Objectives
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Meaning of Welfare State
10.3 Origin of an idea of Welfare State
10.4 Developments in the idea of Welfare State
10.5 Welfare State: A Liberal Perspective
10.6 Objectives of the Welfare State in Liberal Perspective
10.7 Functions of the Liberal Welfare State
10.8 Criticism of the Liberal Perspective of the Welfare State
10.9 Limitations in the Sphere of Welfare State
10.10 Summary
10.11 Glossary
10.12 Further Readings
10.13 Model Questions
10.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able :
 to understand the Liberal perspective in context of Welfare State.
 to explain the idea of welfare state
10.1 INTRODUCTION
What is a Welfare State and what type of functions it should perform? State and
its role in governance is a controversial issue to an extent that different scholars at
different times have expressed their different viewpoints on the State. Some says that
the State is a ‘Divine Institution’, some consider it as a ‘Power Institution’ and others take
it as ‘Natural Institution’. On the basis of different viewpoints, various Liberal, Marxian
and Gandhian perspectives have emerged. At this point MacIver has rightly said, “The
State has no finality; can have no perfect form. The State is an instrument of social
man.”
In this Chapter, we will discuss the Liberal perspective in context of the Welfare
State.
10.2 MEANING OF WELFARE STATE
 A ‘Welfare State’ is a State that provides various types of social services to its
citizens like social security (financial assistance in case of loss of job or any other source
of income, death of the bread-winner, prolonged illness or physical disability or any other
calamity), free education, public health, supply of essential goods and services and
transport to the needy at subsidized rates. It undertakes the protection of cultural
heritage including monuments, museums, libraries, art galleries, parks and gardens etc.
It also promotes higher education and scientific research, etc. to bring intellectual and
cultural development of society.
A Welfare State- Various Definitions
1) According to T.W. Kent, “A welfare state is a state that provides for its
citizens a wide range of social services.”
2) Adopting rather narrow and restricted view, Abrahamdefines the Welfare
State as “a community where State power is deliberately used to modify
the normal play of economic forcessoas to obtain a more equal
distribution of income of every citizen, a basic minimum irrespective of the
market value of his work and his property”.
3) According to Hobman, “Welfare State is a compromise between
Communism on the one side and unbridled individualism on the other.”
4) According to G.D.H. Cole, “The Welfare State is a society in which an
assured minimum standard of living and opportunity becomes
thepossession of every citizen.”
5) According to Arthur Schlesinger, “The Welfare State is a system wherein
government standard of living and opportunity becomes the possession of
every citizen.”
10.3 ORIGIN OF AN IDEA OF WELFARE STATE
Every State today would like to call itself a Welfare State almost to the end of
the19thcentury. Earlier, the objective of the State was merely to provide the law and
orderand the promotion of welfare was left to individual and groups of individuals.
Among political thinkers, Laski was the first to turn the attention of the world from the
police State idea to the Welfare State idea. The idea of Welfare State has its strong root
in England where the Trade Unions and other types of socialists played an important
part developing the ideal. During the Prime Ministership of Mr. Atlee, a series of
measures were passed resulting in the nationalization of railways, coalmines and
steel,nationalization of the Bank of England and nationalization of transport. A vast
social insurance scheme was in operation in Britain alongwith the retirement benefits,
widow’s benefits, unemployment benefits, family allowances for families with two or
more children, milk for school children and special food for expectant and nursing
mothers, free medical service, free secondary education and liberal scholarships for
higher education.
We also find the idea of Welfare State in our old scriptures- One cannot deny the
fact that Aristotle, a famous Greek philosopher, was in favour of the Welfare State but
the idea become quite dear during 19 thcentury due to the bad results of theindividualism.
According to individualism, the functions of the State was only to establish peace,
protect life and liberty of the people and to save the country from external invasions and
it should do nothing to provide education, medical facilities, economic security etc. In this
type of situation, the rich people started exploiting the poor. In other words, the poor
were left at the mercy of the rich. As a result, the people started asking for the
interference of State so that the labourers could be saved from exploitation.
Finally, Karl Marx stood against, the exploitation of the poor labourers and as a
result, Socialism became popular Further, J.S. Mill, Laski, MacIver, Green, Cole, Barker,
Lindsay etc. also supported the welfare functions of the State.
10.4 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE IDEA OF WELFARE STATE
In the 19thcentury, KarlMarxpropagated Marxism. He was of the opinion that the
State should interfere in economic field and it should fix the wages as well as the
working hours of the working labourers. He wanted the State to provide all type of
security to these people. Thus, he promoted the social interests rather than the
individual interests. As a result of Karl Marx views, Socialism became popular. Socialism
focused on the end of the exploitation of the poor and to establish economic equality
which finally gives birth to the idea of the Welfare State Now, the focus was laid down on
the welfare of the individual.
10.5 WELFARE STATE: A LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE
The word ‘Liberalism’ of English language has its origin in the Latin word
‘Liberalis’ which means ‘Free Man’. The principle of Liberalism evolved in the West in
late 16thCentury. The basic objective behind the emergence of Liberalism was to
liquidate the feudal privileges of the land-owning class and to create favourable
conditions for the new entrepreneurial class to enable them to contribute to social
principle. The principle emphasized more on ‘Liberty’ of an individual as the first and
foremost goal of public policy. In other words, it is libration from restraints which are
imposed by the authoritarian State. According to EnyclopaediaBritanica, the Liberalism
is ‘Liberty’ and in brief, Liberalism believes in the freedom of expression, freedom to
formassociations, faith in secularism, democracy, Constitutional government, pluralistic
society and internationalism etc. Focusing on these features, in 20 thcentury, the concept
of Welfare State become popular as a middle way between liberal idea of Individualism
and Marxism.
Now the focus of the Welfare State is maximum on performing a large number of
functions for the individual and always keeps trying to make his life more and more
comfortable. The objective of Welfare State is to give maximum freedom and great
respect to the liberty and dignity of an individual. At present, the countries like India,
England, USA, Canada, Italy etc. are the example of the Welfare State.
10.6 OBJECTIVES OF THE WELFARE STATE IN LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE
The views of the Liberalists regarding the objectives of the Welfare State can be
divided into the following headings-
1) State is not an End but a Means- According to Iiberalists, the State was
created by the individualfor the fulfillment of his needs. Thus, the State is
not an end rather it is a means for the over-all development and welfare
of the individual. According to Laski, the State exists to protect the rights
and liberties of the individual. The State is for the welfare of the individual,
the later is not for the former.
2) Maximum Sphere of Stale Activity- The contemporary liberalists
consider the State as a welfare institution and thus, they are in favour of
 providing more and more functions to it.Benthamsupports the State to
work for spreading education and to bring reforms in jails and
administration. J.S.Milljustifies the interference of the State in the socio-
economic field in order to better the condition of the weaker sections of
the society.Laski supports the nationalization of production and
distribution for the sake of the welfare of the people.
3) State establishes the Coordination and Reconciliation among the
Conflicting Interests- There is no doubt that each individual has different
interests. The variations in the interestsgivebirthtoconflicts in the State.
Due to the scarcity of many things in the State, each individual tries to
establish his control over the maximum numberof goods which leads to
many conflicts. So the Liberalists look upon the State as a public
institution which looks after the interests of all and tries to reconciliate
their interests.
4) State provides the Economic Security- The basic needs of an
individual is — food, cloth and shelter and the welfare State fulfill these
needs by providing sufficient eat to every individual. In case of old age,
sickness, unemployment etc. the State provides the security by offering
the old age pensions, sickness allowances and unemployment
allowances etc. It has framed many provisions to protect individual from
any type of discrimination on basis of caste, colour, creed and religion
etc.
5) State serves the Common Interests- The modern Liberalists consider
the State as a welfare institution for the fulfillment of the interests of all.
According to Charles E.Merriam, “The ends and purpose of the
Government be simply stated as follows; external security, internal order,
justice, general welfare and freedom”. Thus, the welfare State is not only
to maintain the law and order rather to do maximum functions for the
people because it is a welfare institution.
6) To provide Political Security-The Welfare State provides the rights to
people to take part in the political activities without any discrimination.
Each individual has been provided equal status before law. The provision
of independent and impartial judiciary has been made to protect the rights
and liberties of an individual and equal opportunities are provided to all in
the government services.
7) Promotes International Cooperation- A welfare State looks upon the
welfare of the people not only residing in its own country but also the
people living in all the countries of the world. It avoids conflicts and
focuses to solve issues in peaceful, harmonious and prosperous
atmosphere.
8) Provide Social Security- In order to provide the social equality without
any discrimination on basis of caste, religion, colour and creed etc; the
objective of the welfare State is to provide everybody an equal status
before law. In case of any threat from an individual, the State can take
proper legal action against him. In brief, the rights and dignity of each
individual cannot be sacrificed for the happiness of others because every
individual has right to lead a happy life.
 9) Supports the Democratic Government- The liberalistsemphasise on
the importance of the democratic form of Government. They favour the
institutions of Representative Democracy which should be elected on the
basis of Universal Adult Franchise. In case, if the elected representatives
fail to do public welfare, the electorates can elect their new
representatives in next elections. Thus, the liberalists believe in the
Constitutional and peaceful methods of the welfare State.
10) State as a Supreme Association-Liberalists considers the State as a
supreme association. According to them, the welfare Stats establishes
the cooperation among various institutions existing in the State. The State
looks for the interests of all the people and claim for allegiance from them.
11) Seeks Public Welfare- The objective of the welfare State is to seek the
welfare of all. It focuses on providing the physical, intellectual, economic,
political and social development of the individual. The State opens
theeducational institutions to provide the education and hospitals to
provide the medical aid to the people. It creates employment
opportunities, fixes wages and working hours for the labourers. It provides
the transport and communication as well as opens the post and telegraph
offices. The objective of the Welfare State is also to provide the clean
drinking water and the cleanliness and sanitation to the people.
12) Will not Force is the basis of State- According to Liberalists like
Hobbes, though the people have given the right to rule over themselves
to the ruler, yet the State was made by the people. Similarly, according to
John Locke, the people possess the right to oppose the unjustified orders
of the State. Rousseau was of the opinion that if the State failed to protect
the right of people, the peoplehave every right to raise their voice against
such State.
10.7 FUNCTIONS OF THE LIBERAL WELFARE STATE
On the basis of the above said objectives Prof. Willoughby and Prof. Gettel have
divided the functions of the liberal welfare State as follows; however, the Positive
Liberalists make distinction between these two categories of functions.
a) Compulsory Functions
b) Optional Functions
A) Compulsory Functions of the Liberal Welfare State- These are those
functions which the State has to perform. These functions include the
maintenance of law and order, protection from foreign invasions, building
the diplomatic relations, establish thesocial equality and provide justice to
the people.
B) Optional Functions- All the functions which are not mentioned in the
Compulsory functions of the State, are included in the list of Optional
functions. According to T.H. Green,“The business of the State is not
merely the business of policeman arrestingwrong doers or of ruthlessly
enforcing contracts but of providing for men an equal chance, as far as
possible, or realizing what is best in their intellectual moral nature.”
 According to the Positive Liberal State, the modern Welfare State has to perform
the following functions.
1) To establish a Healthy Society- In order to set-up the healthy society,
the Welfare State makes provisions to eradicate the social evils like
dowry, sati, untouchability, misbehavior with women and caste system. It
is the responsibility of the State to check discriminations on the basis of
caste, colour, creed, religion and race and to frame provisions against it.
The State also creates awareness among the people through spreading
of education and relays of radio and television programmes against
superstitions.
2) Protection to the Life and Property- Aristotle was of the opinion that the
State has come into existence for the protection of life In case, the life
and property of an individual is not secured then he will be worried about
security throughout his life. Thus, the protection of life and property
should be the prior concern of the welfare State.
3) Maintenance of Law and Order- It is the duty of the State to maintain
law and order within its territory. The State makes adequate
arrangements for curtailing crimes and punishing the criminals.
4) Protection from external invasions- The State has to maintain a strong
standing army in order to protect its identity and external sovereignty. In
case, it is unable to do so then the State shall not be able to protect the
liberty and property of its citizen Therefore, protection of the country from
the internal and external threats is important.
5) Building the diplomatic relations with other Countries- No State can
live in isolation in the world of globalization. Therefore, it is important for
each State to establish the diplomatic relations with other States.In order
to set-up the export and import with the foreign States, the diplomatic
relations among various States are essential.
6) To establish appropriate Judicial System- In order to provide free and
impartial justice to its citizens whether high or low, rich or poor, the State
establishes the appropriate Judicial System. An independent and
impartialjudiciary is a requisite of a modern Welfare State.
7) Spread of Education- Earlier, the deliverance of education was not
included in the functions of the State and later, the education was started
spreading by the autonomous religious bodies. At present it is the duty of
the State to spread education among its citizens in order to raise the
efficiency of the State administration. To fulfill this objective, the State has
established many schools, colleges universities and technical institutions.
It provides training to the capable teachers. To provide education to the
poor, the State has framed provisions of Free and Compulsory Education.
8) Eradicate Poverty- It is the responsibility of the State to eradicate
poverty and to provide free food to the persons living below the poverty
line. Poverty is a curse becauseno State can progress if its citizens are
poor and are not able to meet the bare necessities of their lives.
9) Frame Provisions regarding the Social and Economic Security-The
modern state had made many arrangements for economic and social
security of its citizens. The provisions like old age pensions, allowance to
the crippledand unemployed and pensions after retirement of service are
granted by the State.
10) Protection of the Environment- It is a function of the State to provide
congenial environment for the living of the people. It frames policies
regarding the protection of the environment from its degradation. With the
overuse of pesticides, day by day increase of the poisonous gases in the
air, not only the land has become poisonous and vegetables and
foodgrain also become unfit for human consumption The diseases like
cancer are spreading fast due the impure drinking water in the state like
Punjab. Therefore, the welfare State is making all efforts to deal with such
problems and it has become an essential function of the State.
11) To provide the Utility Services-The State makes arrangements of
railways, post offices, television, production and supply of electricity and
radio etc. for the public. The other arrangements like road transport, air
transport, water transport and railway transport etc. are also made by
State because an individual alone is not competent to do all this by his
own.
12) To set up the Political Equality in the State- In order to establish the
political equality in the State, the welfare State provides equal political
rights to all. All the citizens have right to vote, right to contest election,
right to hold public office, right to criticize the government, right to petition;
right to information etc. without any discrimination.
13) Impose and Collect Taxes-It is the duty of the Welfare Stateto undertake
various welfare projects to stabilize the monetary position and control the
inflation. The State regulates the banking system, fixes interest rates for
borrowing and lending and prints currency according the needs.
14) Provides Recreational Facilities- In order to provide the recreational
facilities to its citizens, the State makes arrangements of cinema houses,
theatres, play- grounds, parks and gardens, art galleries, radios and
television etc.. The State educates the people regarding its new policies
and laws through the use of mass-media in the form of arranging dramas
and shows for the recreation of the people.
15) Develop and Preserves the Natural Resources- Due to the high
consumption of the natural resources due to the increase in the
population, it becomes the essential function of the State to develop and
preserves the forests as well as the water resources of the land for the
benefit of people. The State explores the venue and makes arrangements
for the extraction of gold, silver, mica, oil and coal etc.
16) Regulate the Industries and Trade- It is the prime duty of the State to
set-up trade as well as industries for the development of the Nation. The
workinghours of employees are fixed in order to encourage the small
 cottage industries, the government provides loans through various banks
and corporations.
17) Protect the Interests of the Labourers- in order to protect the labourers
from their exploitation, the State fixes the working hours and wages. The
State also provides them the facilities of rest, insurance and health. It is
the duty of the State to provide an appropriate environment to its
employees and the facility of free medical aid has been also incorporated.
18) To Promote Progressive Agriculture-The State sets-up various
Agricultural Universities to promote the research in the field of agriculture.
Better seeds, chemical manure, better implements and proper electric
and water facilities are provided to the farmers by the State. The State
also sends groups of farmers and scientists to foreign countries to
personally assess the progress of agriculture in other States and to
promote the same in their own land. The provisions like establishing the
ideal farm houses provide loans on easy terms as well as setting up of
the Minimum Selling Prices (MSP) are the steps essential for a modern
Welfare State to undertake.
19) Framing Laws for the over-alldevelopmentof the Individual-
According to Classical Liberalists, the laws limit the freedom of an
individual but the contemporary Liberalists takes the laws as a medium to
create the proper environment for the enjoyment of freedom. According to
them, the laws are the guardian of the freedom and every individual living
in the State is bound to respect the laws. In case, if an individual violates
the law and freedom providedto him, he gets punishment.

Self Assessment Questions

1. Give any two definitions of Welfare State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Mentions any two functions of Welfare State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.8 CRITICISM OF THE LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE WELFARE

STATE
No doubt, the liberal perspective of the welfare State has achieved popularity
inthe modern world but one cannot deny the fact that it has also been criticized at
various points. The points of criticism have been given below.
1) Lack of Consistency- Some critics calls the liberalists the opportunists
who changes with the time.Earlier, these liberalists consider the State as
a ‘Necessary Evil’ but the contemporary liberalists calls it an essential
institution of public welfare. Similarly, some consider the State as a
natural and ethical institution whereas others consider it as an artificial
 institution. This shows that there is no consistency in the views of liberals
regarding the State.
2) Criticism by Marxists-The Marxists consider the State as an instrument
in the hands of dominated people. For them, the State cannot play a role
of welfarism. For them a State is an institution which comes into existence
for the ruling class. The rich class controls the production and its means.
They utilize the supreme power of State to protect and promote their own
interests. According to them, the force and violence is the essential
means for bringingabout the change in society.
3) State is burdened with Infinite number of Functions- With the
increase in the needs of people the responsibilities of State have also
increased. This has adversely affects the efficiency of the State.
4) Man is not able to become self-dependent- The State does not enable
the individual to become self-dependent because the individual expect
each andevery work to be done by the State. As a result, he is not able to
stand on his own feet.
5) Costly Administration- The welfare State has to perform large number
of functions, therefore, the more expenditure it will have to incur. Also,
with theincrease in the population and raise in the needs of people, the
State has to impose higher rates of taxation in order to meet the
increased expenditure.This also increases the burden on the people
under heavy taxes.
6) Influence of Bureaucracy Increases- In order to tackle the increased
needs of the people and to cope with the increased work of the
government, theinfluence of trained bureaucracy has also increased. This
can make the bureaucracy, dictatorial and act against the public interest.
7) Curtailment of Liberties of the citizens on the name of welfare- The
liberties of the citizens in a welfare State are curtailed because
whileperforming a large number of functions, the State interferes in the
liberties of the individual. As a result, anindividual has become deprived
from his liberties.
10.9 Limitations in the Sphere of Welfare State
Though, MacIver, Green and Barker were in favour of assigning a large number
of functions to the State but they were also against the absolutism of the State.
According to MacIver, the welfare State should not undertake certain function. These
functions are described as under.
1) Interference in Religion- Religion is the personal matter of an individual
and to believe or not to believe in it depends on the personal wish of an
individual.The State should not interfere or impose any religion on the
individual. All the religions should be equal in the eyes of the State.
2) Interference in Culture- Every society has its own culture and the State
should not interfere in the freedom of individual in promotion of his
culture. The people should give freedom in its protection and promotion.
 3) Suppress the Public Opinion- The public opinion holds a great
significance in the democratic country and the State should not suppress
its citizens to build and express public opinion. It is the duty of the State to
promote maximumopportunities to individual to express himself.
4) Avoid hindrances in Moral Values- Moral values are part and parcel of
the life of the people. The moral values teach the people how to be
civilized and cooperative with each other. Therefore, the State should
neither to interfere nor should try to destroy the values of society rather it
should try to remove the hindrances in the way of moral values.
5) Interference in the personal life of an individual- The State should not
interfere in the personal life of an individual besides the State should try
to regulate his life in an effective manner. At the same time, the non-
interference of the State does not mean that an individual has been given
unusual freedom to act against the society and State
6) Obstacle in the Art and Literature- Art and literature signifies the social,
economic and political conditions of a country, therefore, it is a prime duty
of the State to create the proper conditions for the promotion of art and
literature. The State should not create obstacles in the way of their
development
7) Right of the State only to change orthodox and backward customs-
Customs enjoy the social recognition and regulate the social life of the
people. People follow these customs during birth, death, marriages etc. In
order to follow the customs, people even violate the laws of the State.
Therefore, it is the duty of the State not to interfere in these customs
irrelevantly rather the State has the right to change the orthodox and
backward customs.
8) Regulate the Vulgarity promoted through Fashion- According to
MacIver, fashion is a personal matter of an individual and the State
should not interfere in it. But the welfare State has right to laid down
restrictions on the fashion which creates vulgarity. An individual should
also adopt fashion which is according to the social and moral values of
the society.
10.10 SUMMARY
In brief, we can say that the modem liberal perspective of the welfare State got
more popularity in the 19 thcentury against the bad results of classical liberal perspective
propagating - ‘Individualism’, ‘Laissez Faire’ and Negative Freedom. At present, a large
number of countries are adopting the democratic liberal perspective in its
governingsystem. Though the modern liberal ideology assigns a large number of
functions to the State for the welfare of individual and also has a great respect to the
freedom and dignity of an individual but it is also the prime duty of the State not to
interfere in the social and personal freedom of an individual irrelevantly.
10.11 GLOSSARY
1. Laissez Faire – the policy of leaving things to take their own course,
without interfering.
 2. Bureaucracy- A system of government in which most of important
decision are taken by state officials rather than by elected
representatives.
10.12 FURTHER READINGS
1) Bhagat, R.M. (2009). Political Thought: Plato. To Marx New
AcademicPublishing Co.
2) Guaba, O.P. (2009), An Introduction to Political Theory, Magic
International Pvt. Ltd.
3) Heywood, Andrew (1997), Politics, Machmillan Press Ltd., London.
4) Jain, M.P.(1979), Political Theory,Mahajan Printers, Maujpur, Delhi.
5) Johari, J.C. (2002), Comparative Politics, Sterling Publishers Pvt.Ltd.
New Delhi.
6) Nath, A.V. Prem, Sudhir Kumar Mishra, N.NabigarabandKranthi J.
Sebastian (2009), Political Science - Spectrum’s Rapid Revision Study
Pack, Spectrum Books (P)Ltd., New Delhi.
10.13 MODEL QUESTIONS
1. Define the liberal perspective of Welfare State and write down its
functions.
2. What do you mean by the Welfare State? Discuss its important functions.
3. Make a critical evaluation of the modern liberal perspective of the Welfare
State.
4. “Welfare State is a middle way between Individualism and Marxism.” In
the light of this statement discuss the emergence, of the idea of Welfare
State and its functions.
5. Define the Welfare State in context of liberal perspective? Explain the
Compulsory and Optional functions of this State.
6. What functions a Modern Positive State-performs these days?
---00---
 Lesson-11

WELFARE STATE: ASOCIALIST PERSPECTIVE

Structure
11.0 Objectives
11.1 Introduction
11.2 State in two Forms
11.2.1 The State in Capitalist Society
11.2.2 The State in Socialist Society
11.3 Origin of State in Socialist Society
11.4 Meaning of Socialism
11.5 Definitions of Socialism
11.6 Features of a State in Socialist Perspective
11.7 Functions of Welfare State in Socialist Perspective
11.8 A Critical Estimate of Marxian Theory related to the State
11.9 Summary
11.10 Glossary
11.11 Further Readings
11.12 Model Questions
11.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able
 to learn about the Welfare State in a Socialist perspective.
 to evaluate the perspective andanalyze the importance of Socialist State
in the present scenario.
11.1 INTRODUCTION
By the end of19th and beginning of the 20 thcentury, there had been a general
reaction against attempts to maintain self-regulating systems of markets. This reaction
has been described as the “doctrine of liberalism”which led to the advent of Collectivism
and Socialism. In 19th century as a reaction against the bad results of ‘doctrine of
liberalism’,the Marxian ideology became popular. The ideology was propounded by Karl
Marx. In his two world famous books- Das Capital and Manifesto of the Communist Party
and after him, his friend Fredric Angels, and other scholars like Lenin, Stalin, Plakhnov,
Gramsci, G. Lucas, Mao-Tse-Tung and Deng Xiaopingetc.analysedthe Marxian identity
according to the changed situations of the society. Marxism does not consider the State
as natural institution. It firmly believes that State cannot perform any welfare role in the
capitalist society until unless the classless and Stateless society emerges. According to
Karl Marx, the welfare State has its roots only in Socialism.
11.2.1 State in two Forms
 Before reaching direct to the concept of Socialist perspective of the welfare State
we must know that Marxism has divided the State in two forms.
1) The State in Capitalist Society.
2) The State in Socialist Society.
1. The State in Capitalist Society :
Marx believes that the civil society represents the State itself. It recognizes
individual as a citizen and conceded equality of all individuals in the eyeS of law. But,
since the economic power in the contemporary civil society is in hand of capitalists class,
the State has to serve the interest of this class.
Features of Capitalist State
a) Focus on industrial set up : The industrial production is carried on a wide
scale in big factories through machines set up with the help of capital.
b) Cut-throat Competition : There is cut-throat competition among capitalists
which leads to more production in context of gaining profit and the
exploitation of the poor workers.
c) Dependence on Capitalism : In the capitalist State, the resources are in
hands of capitalists, therefore, the production is entirely based on their
system.
d) Inequality : Very few section of capitalist society has control on wealth
and a arge section is devoid from it. It leads to a great gap between the
rich and poor.
e) Profit oriented Production : Instead of utility of resources according to the
demands, the resources are used as the means of achieving profit.
f) Existence of two hostile classes : Every system of production within
capitalist society has given rise to two principle mutually hostile classes
for example- freemen and slaves, feudal lords and serfs, capitalists and
labourers.
g) Class Struggle : The existence of hostile classes lead to the class
struggle. According to Marx, the class antagonism centered round the
prevailing mode of production with its economic system.
h) Mode of Production involves a Base and Superstructure : The mode of
production i.e. the economic structure of society constitute the base, while
legal and political structure, religion, morals and other forms of social
consciousness constitute the superstructure. Together “they form
“Structure of Dominance”.
Functions of State in Capitalist Society:
1) Economic Functions : The focus of the State within capitalist society was
on free trade and open competition. But the role of State in this society is
changing now. It is adopting the ‘mixed economy’ and the private sector is
also regulated by the state laws. The provisions are made for the
regulated working hours of workers and their salaries are fixed.
 2) Focus on National Interest in International Sphere : The Capitalist State is
imperialist in nature. In order to promote its national interest, the State
builds treaties with other countries and sell their goods on profitable
terms.
3) Protection of Capitalist Interests : The priority of the State in capitalist
society is to protect the interest of the capitalists. The State provides
assistance to them to produce surplus values and provide them the
protection through agencies of police, army, judiciary etc.
4) Welfare Functions : In present scenario, the State is providing allowances
to old age, umemployed, diseased and dis-abled people. The supply of
clean drinking water, education, health and sanitation is the objective of
the State.
5) Boost the Capitalists : There is complete freedom in production and
utilization of resources in capitalist society. The State has initiated various
schemes and plans which boosts the interests of capitalists.
6) To Maintain Law and Order : The primary duty of the State is to maintain
law and order and to protect the Right to Life, Liberty and Property of the
citizens.
Criticism of Marxists to the Capitalist State:
1) State in favour of Capitalists : Marxists argue that the Capitalist State
helps the rich section of society. The State gives them the protection
through agencies of police, army and judiciary.
2) Oppression of Proletariat : The State on one hand protects the interests
of the capitalists but on the other hand, it overlooks the interests of the
working class. With the increase in the power of State, the cruelty and
exploitation of the working class also increases.
3) On the consent of subordinate classes, State secures the interests of
Capitalists : The State is undertaking its welfare role with an objective to
secure the consent of subordinate classes whereas the reality is that it is
an attempt to save the capitalist society from dis-integration.
4) State in the Economic Sphere : According to Marx, the State enters the
economic sphere for protecting the interests of capitalists. It boosts their
monopoly and increases the exploitation of subordinates.
5) Imperialist Tendency : According to Marx, the capitalist State captures the
foreign market to channelize their goods or capital . It strengthens their
imperialistic tendency.
6) Suppression of Rights and Liberties of Subordinate Classes : The State
protects the rights and liberties of the capitalists. It suppresses the
freedom of speech and expression of weak and keeps them away from
the opportunities.
7) State not maintaining Law and Order : Marxists believe that State is not
maintaining Law and Order of the state properly. The capitalist state
always tries to promote the interest of rich and suppresses the
movements launched by the poor section of society.
11.2.2The State in Socialist Society
According to Karl Marx, in Socialist State the ruling power will be in hands of
proletariat and they use the State to suppress the capitalists. All the means of production will
be under the control of State. The resources will be used according to the needs of society.
11.3 ORIGIN OF STATE IN SOCIALIST PERSPECTIVE
The State in Socialist perspective came into being as a result of conflict between
feudalists and capitalists. It came into existence when the proletariat class established
its dominance on the capitalists. The proletariat section of society then holds the State in
their own hand and uses it to destroy the order of capitalists. All this will be done through
Revolution.
11.4 MEANING OF SOCIALISM
The term ‘socialism’ is understood and defined by various thinkers and schools of
thoughts. ‘Socialism’ stands for an economic system under which the major instruments
of social production (that is the instruments by which production is carried out for
consumption by the larger society) are placed the ownership and control of public
authority in order to ensure that they are properly utilized to secure the public interest. In
this society, all the privileges are put to an end and to get a work in the socialist society
is not a matter of right, but a sacred duty. Therefore, the Socialist State is based on the
dictum “One who does not work, neither shall he eat”.
11.5 DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM
1) According toJoseph Schumpeter, “Socialism is that organization of
society in which the means of production are controlled, and the decisions
on how and what to produce and on who is to get what, are made by
public authority instead of by privately- owned and privately-managed
firms.”
2) According to Oxford English Dictionary, “It is a theory or policy that aims
at or advocates the ownership or control of the means of production-
capital, land, property, etc.- by the community as a whole and their
administration in the interests of all”.
11.6 FEATURES OF A STATE IN SOCIALIST PERSPECTIVE
1) Dominance of Proletariat :The power of the government is in the hands of
the proletariat section of society.
2) State use to crush Capitalism :The proletariats use supreme power of the
State to crush the capitalists.
3) State control on all Means of Production:In socialist society, the State
regulates all the means of production.
4) Utility based Production : The State does not produce to gain profit. The
production is made according to the needs of the society.
5) Re-distribution of Wealth by State :The wealth resulted from the
production is re-distributed among its citizens on equitable basis by the
State.
 6) Equal Wages for Equal Work: The workers in this State get equal wages
for equal work without any exploitation.
7) Existence of Mutual Cooperation : The open competition is ended and a
sense of mutual cooperation is encouraged among its citizens.
Marxists are of the view that the capitalists will die one day and the Welfare State
in Socialist State will be set up. When the working class establishes its dominance upon
the State, it will destroy the capitalist order through Revolution. Thereafter, the Socialist
Statewill also be abolished and a stateless and classless society will be established. In
this society, each individual will work according to his capacity and will be paid according
to his needs.

Self Assessment Questions

1. What do mean by Capitalist State ?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Define Socialism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Give any two features of State in Socialist Perspectives.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11.7 FUNCTIONS OF WELFARE STATE IN SOCIALIST PERSPECTIVE

According to Marxist Theory, the functions of the State in Socialist Perspective
are as under.
1) Abolition of Class based Society :There should be abolition of classes in
Socialist State. To achieve this objective it is very much necessary to
abolish the control of capitalists on the resources, private property, socio-
economic and cultural institutions. According to Karl Marx, the Socialist
State has not to set up the harmony between the opposite classes. The
objective of the State is to destroy the dominant class and to establish a
classless society.
2) Socialist State in International Sphere :Karl Marx wants to establish the
communism not only at the national level. He wants to spread it in the
whole world. That is why, all the Communist countries promote
cooperation with each other. In this perspective,Karl Marx also raised the
slogan “Workers of all lands unite”. With this slogan he wanted to set up
cooperation between the workers of all countries and thus established
Communism in all over the world.
3) Welfare Functions : The objective of State is to provide the Right to Work
with fixed working hours. The State ensures the economic security,
houses for living, free medical aid, equal wages for men and women and
the upbringing of the children etc.
4) Ensures Social Equality : The State ensures the social equality in the
Socialist society. Opportunities are provided to citizens to develop
themselves. No special privilege should be provided and discrimination
and exploitation is completely abolished.
5) Maintenance of Socialist Discipline : To strengthen the Socialism in State,
it is the duty of State to maintain the socialist discipline. The citizens of
the State are being told not to harm the government property and to
maintain the peace and harmony within the State.
6) Economic Functions : The objective of the State in Socialist Society is to
set-up the exploitation free classless society. It, therefore, ensures the
common ownership on the means of production. It is the prior duty of the
State to abolish the private property and to regulate the means of
production. In order to achieve progress, systematic planning should be
done to increase production, bring land reforms and use of scientific
techniques.
7) Educational Functions : In order to spread Communism among the
citizens and in whole world, the State has made compulsory education for
each child. The religious education in schools and colleges is prohibited.
The purpose behind is to prepare a class of people dedicated to Socialist
State.
8) Cultural Functions : The duty of Socialist State is to end the discrimination
based on race, religion, colour and creed. People are not free to
propogate their religion and the citizens are taught to prefer the public
interest over the individualistic interests.
9) Judicial Functions : In Socialist States, the people’s Courts are
constituted which listen to the cases related to the conflicts, theft of public
property, attacks on the dignity of citizens etc. In socialist State, no place
is given to the high ideals like independent judiciary etc..
10) To Maintain Law and Order : In order to obtain the law and order in
Socialist society, the Marxists are of opinion that the State should adopt
the policy of suppression and terror and give severe punishments. In both
Russia and China a person working against the socialist system are
severely punished by the State.
11) Religion : In principle, the citizens in Socialist States are given religious
freedom but in practice these States are against religion. In these States,
religious education in schools and colleges is prohibited and people are
not given freedom to propagate their religion.
12) To prepare conditions for the withering away of the State – The ultimate
goal of Marxists is to establish classless and Stateless society. In order to
achieve this goal, the State should prepare the conditions in which the
State becomes an unnecessary institution and withers away
 automatically. Everybody will work according to his capacity and will get
according to his needs. Then, the State will be replaced by the voluntary
associations of the people.
11.8 A CRITICAL ESTIMATE OF MARXIST THEORY RELATED TO THE
STATE
1) One-Sided Interpretation :Marxism materialistic interpretation of history is
one sided. Marx ignored the fact that spiritual and other elements also
play an important role in the historical development of society.
2) State is not an Evil : The Marxists regards the State as an instrument in
the hands of capitalists. Therefore, they want to destroy it. After its
destruction, they favour the Stateless Society without any class.
3) Marx Proves to be False :According to Karl Marx, the classes
willdisappear when the Socialist society establishes. But this prophecy of
Marx has not come out to be true. Rather, a new middle class is emerging
now. Neither the class struggle leads to organise the Socialism nor the
capitalism weakens itself and changed into the classless state.
4) Ignore the interests of other classes : The whole attention of Marxism is in
advocating the interests of the working class. They forget the Middle
Class, the Lower Middle Class, the Upper Middle Class. Marxism ignores
the interests of these classes.
5) No place for the Individual Freedom : Although, the Constitution of
Socialist States has granted many freedoms to the citizens but in practical
all these freedoms are nominal. The individual should always ready to
sacrifice the interest for the betterment of Socialism.
6) Invalid dichotomy between Sub-Structure and Super-Structure :Marxism
regards economic sub-structure- the mode of production- as the basis of
socio-political, cultural, ethical and ideological superstructure. This has
been criticized on the ground that the dichotomy between sub-structure
and super-structure is invalid and both influence each other.
7) Criticism of RevolutionaryMethod:For qualitative change, Marxism
maintains that revolution is essential. This view has been criticized by
revisionists and liberals alike. They maintain that reforms and
evolutionary methods are better methods of change.
8) Dominance of Bureaucracy : No doubt, Marxism is against the dominance
of bureaucracy but yet we find that bureaucracy has gained dominance in
Socialist State. The specialists have their control over the administration
and industries of the state and in this manner they have grabbed the
surplus value of this system. One cannot deny the fact that in Socialist
State the bureaucratization in place of nationalization takes place.
9) Rise of Elite Class : Instead of the governance in hands of the working
class, an elite class has emerged in the Socialist States. The elite class is
ruling in the State in the form of Communist Party and the participation of
workers in the political activities is nominal.
 10) Private Property encourages Individual : The Marxists are of opinion that
private property is bad and therefore, they intend to destroy this
institution. But it is also true that private property develops good qualities
in the individual. It encourages him to work hard and it results in the
emergence of feelings regarding spirit of patriotism.
11.9 SUMMARY
No doubt, the Marxist ideology has many shortcomings in itself but one cannot
ignore its contribution also. In 1917, the Soviet Union and in 1949 China has accepted
this ideology and even the capitalists states cannot ignore its impression over the minds
of common people. Whatever be the means of this ideology are, its objectives cannot be
under-estimated and this ideology has given birth to new Socialist State.
11.10 GLOSSARY
1) Elite – The richest most powerful, best educated or best trained group in
the society.
2) Withering away – to slowly disappear, lose importance, or become
weaker.
11.11 FURTHER READINGS
1) Badyal, J.S. (2012), Political Theory, Raj Publishers, Jalandhar.
2) Bhagat, R.M. (2009), Political Thought: Plato To Marx, New Academic
Publishing Co.
3) Dduggal, R.N. (2014), Political Theory, Duggal Publishing House,
Jallandhar.
4) Guaba, O.P. (2009), An Introduction to Political Theory, Magic
International Pvt. Ltd.
5) Heywood, Andrew (1997), Politics, Machmillan Press Ltd., London.
6) Jain, M.P.(1979), Political Theory, Mahajan Printers, Maujpur, Delhi.
7) Johari, J.C. (2002), Comparative Politics, Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi.
8) Nath, A.V. Prem, Sudhir Kumar Mishra, N.Nabigarab and Kranthi J.
Sebastian (2009), Political Science- Spectrum’s Rapid Revision Study
Pack, Spectrum Books (P) Ltd., New Delhi.
11.12 MODEL QUESTIONS
1) What do you mean by the Socialist State? Discuss the functions of a
SocialistState.
2) “The purpose of Socialist State is to establish classless and
statelesssociety.” In the light of this statement discuss the functions of
State with Socialist perspective.
3) “Socialist State is a Totalitarian State? Discuss.
4) Make a critical evaluation of the functions of Socialist State according
toMarxist Theory.
---00---
 Lesson-12

SOVEREIGNTY DEFINITION ATTRIBUTES

AND TYPES

Structure
12.0 Objectives
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Definitions of Sovereignty
12.3 Attributes of Sovereignty
12.4 Different Kinds of Sovereignty
12.4.1 Legal Sovereignty
12.4.2 Political Sovereignty
12.4.3 De-Jure and De-facto Sovereignty
12.4.4 Theory of Popular Sovereignty
12.4.5 Dustin’s Theory & Sovereignty
12.5 Summary
12.6 Glossary
12. 7 Further Readings
12.8 Model Questions
12.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able :
 to understand the attributes of sovereignty
 to locate different kinds & sovereignty
 to understand the theory of popular sovereignty
 to understand Austin's Theory of Sovereignty
 to understand the Pluralist theory of sovereignty.
 to understand the concept of legitimacy and its relationship with
sovereignty in the context of modern state.

12.1 INTRODUCTION
You would recollect that in our discussion of the concept of the state, we pointed
out that if state is different from other associations it is all due to the fact that it
possesses sovereignty, while others do not possess this unique feature. Sovereignty is
that power by virtue of which state exercises absolute authority overall the individuals
who reside within its bounds, over all their associations and over their entire property. It
is thus the most essential element of the state. The term sovereignty is derived from the
Latin word "Superanus" which means supreme. Sovereignty is that quality of the state
which differentiates it from other associations and subordinates them to it. Let us now try
to define to concept of sovereignty.
12.2 DEFINITIONS OF SOVEREIGNTY
The word 'sovereignty’ has been derived from the Latin word 'Superanus' which
means supreme.
This, sovereignty means supreme power or the state against which neither an
appeal can be made, nor an argument can be made nor a lawyer can be engaged. With
the use of this power, the stage gives order to everybody who comes under its control
and all of them are bound to obey these orders. In this connection Prof. Laski says, "It
(state) issues orders to all men and all associations within that area it receives orders
from none of them. Its will is subject to no legal limitation of any kind. What it proposes
is right by mere announcement of intention." Laski further says, "It is by possession of
sovereignty that the state is distinguished from all other forms of human associations."
Sovereignty has been defined by different writers. Aristotle refers to "Supreme
Power" which nearly means the same thing as sovereignty. Romans have called it as
'fullness of the power of state. Bodin defines it as "the supreme power over citizens and
subjects, understand by law." Giotius defines it as "supreme political power vested in
him whose acts are not subject to any other, and whose will cannot be over ridden."
Blackstone, an English jurist, defines it as supreme, inesistible, absolute, uncontrolled
authority in the authority in the state. Jellinech defines it as "that characteristic of the
state is virtue of which it cannot be legally bound except by its own will, or limited by any
power than itself." Burgess defines sovereignty as "original, absolute, unlimited power
over individual subjects and over all associations of subject" Pollock regards it as 'that
power, which is neither temporary nor delegated, nor subject to particular, rules which it
cannot atter.' Willoughby calls it" the supreme, will of the state. "Duguit regards it is
"commanding power of the state." Austin's definition is widely accepted and defines it in
this way. "If a determine human superior not in the habit of obedience to a like superior
receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society that determine superior is
sovereign in that society, and the society including that human superior is independent
and political."
The definitions given in the foregoing paragraphs throw light on the meaning of
the terms 'sovereignty' and all imply that the state has the final and absolute power to
make laws, and also to compel obedience of the nationals of that state to those laws.
This power is unlimited and unrestricted. The only limitation can be self-imposed
limitation.
12.3 ATTRIBUTES OF SOVEREIGNTY
After defining sovereignty, now we proceed to discuss the various attributes of
sovereignty which are given below :
(i) Permanence : Sovereignty is permanent because state is also permanent
and the death of the one leads to the death of the other. If a ruler dies or
a government is dissolved, even in that case, sovereignty does not
disappear. In Britain it is said, "The King is dead; long live the king". It
 means that the king as a man has died but kingship as an institution
continues. Interpreted in terms of sovereignty, it implies that sovereignty
is Permanent and does not die with the death of a king.
(ii) Universality : When we say that sovereignty is universal, we mean that the
authority of state is comprehensive and extends without exception to all
individuals, to all groups and associations that exist within the territorial
limits of the state. However, one exception may be considered and that is:
the concessions and immunities enjoyed by the foreign diplomats in a
state. All the foreign embassies in a country enjoy certain concessions
are reciprocal and are based on international courtesy. But these
concessions can be abrogated by the sovereign with one stroke of the
pen and the foreign diplomats can be expelled from the country.
Therefore, even this exception does not cut across the limits of
sovereignty and it remains universal.
(iii) Inalienability :The state cannot allenate or give away its sovereignty just
as a free can not give up its rights to sprout or just as a man cannot
transfer his life or personality without self destruction. No state can give
up its sovereignty and even then remain a state. In case a state loses a
portion of its territory still retaining sovereignty over the remaining portion
of its territory.
(iv) Indivisibility :Sovereignty is one and it cannot be divided. To divide
sovereignty is to destroy it. The powers relating to the exercise of
sovereignty can be divided among different organs of government but this
does not mean that sovereignty has been divided. Pluralists oppose the
idea of indivisibility and the idea of oneness of sovereignty. According to
them a state is no more sovereign than association. A state cannot
command full obedience from a man because he is obedient to many
associations which contribute to the development of his multifaceted
personality. A worker is more loyal to his trade union than to the state. In
the days of strike, he obeys the orders of his union and defies the orders
of the state. Again, in case of a federation, both the federation and its
units are sovereign in their own spheres, as demarcated by the
constitution of the federation. In this case, therefore, it seems that two
sovereign make laws for the same people on different subjects. The other
view is that even in the above illustration, it is not the sovereignty that is
divided but is the exercise of powers that is divided or that certain organs
government exercise sovereignty on behalf of the state.
(v) Absoluteness :Sovereignty is regarded as absolute and unlimited. The
sovereign power can impose restrictions on itself but no other power
internally or externally can impose any restrictions on sovereignty of the
state. In reality, sovereignty cannot be absolute either internally or
externally. Nature, customs, religion and constitutions are some of the
limitations over the internal aspect of the sovereignty of a state. Externally
also, international law, international behaviour of other states, treaties and
the decisions of the U.N.O. are some of the limitations on the sovereignty
of the state. If a state tries to cross these limitations the state has to face
its own destruction and hence the destructions of its sovereignty. Let us
examine the internal limitations as mentioned above. If a state interferes
 in the customs of the people or their religion or morality. It invites a crists,
a chaos and a possible revolution of the people against itself which might
lead to its own destruction.
Similarly, if a state in relation to other states does not observe international code
of morality and does not obey international law, it might lead to international anarchy
which ultimately might lead, to the total destruction of the world. The modern science
and technology and the invention of atom bombs and the intercontinental rockets have
created such a situation in the world that the states must live in harmony and must
maintain everlasting international peace if they want to exist. Thus, national and
international harmony is most essential for the existence of a state and such a harmony
is possible only if they sovereignty is regarded in a limited sense. Modern states cannot
exist if the conventional concept of the absolute nature of sovereignty is relied upon.
12.4 DIFFERENT KINDS OF SOVEREIGNTY
It is a wrong notion that there are different kinds of sovereignty. The truth is that
when the sovereignty is used in different contexts, its different aspects come to light. To
these different aspects we describe as different kinds of sovereignty. They are internal
sovereignty, external sovereignty legal sovereignty, political sovereignty,dejure
sovereignty and de-facto sovereignty, popular sovereignty. Let us now consider each
aspect of sovereignty in detail.
12.4.1 Legal Sovereignty : In every state there is supreme law-making authority which
is called the legal sovereign. This authority is definite, determinate and organized and is
vested in an individual or a set of individuals. It alone has the power to issue final
commands in the form of laws. This authority is not limited by divine laws, moral
principles public opinion, ancient customs or even international agreements. The courts
recognize only the legal sovereign and the laws made by it. Disobedience to the legal
sovereign involves punishment. In Britain, the legal sovereignty belongs to the 'King in
Parliament' which is the supreme law-making authority. According to Dicey, the British
parliament is so omnipotent that it can adjudge an infant as of full age and it may declare
an illegitimate child and legitimate child. The only thing it cannot do is that it cannot
make man a woman or woman a man.
12.4.2 Political Sovereignty :The modern age is that age of democracy in which
people are sovereign. They elect the parliament and vest authority in it. They constitute
the political sovereign. The legal sovereign is born out of it and carries out its will.
Woodrow Wilson has rightly said that the legal sovereign i.e. electorate. Dicey also
supports the idea of Wilson. He says, "Behind the sovereign which the lawyer
recognizes, there is another sovereign to whom the legal sovereign must bow. This is
the political sovereign.
It is not easy to define or to find out the political sovereign. The political sovereign
means the sum total or influences in state which lie behind the law. Some people identify
political sovereign with the community at large, some with the mass of people, some with
the general will and some with public opinion. Some people think that the electorate
constitutes the political sovereign but others who did not have the right to vote also
contribute a lot in the formation of public opinion which ultimately affects the opinion of
the electorate. Crores of people in India, who are under 18 years of age and who cannot
vote, play a vital role in influencing the opinion of the voters. Again it is difficult to say
which factor is more supreme in influencing the voting behaviour of the voters. In
dictatorship there is no electorate and if at all it is there then it has no power to influence
the dictator such as in Pakistan. The will of the electorate as expressed in the general
elections could not influence the military dictator. Yahya Khan. In direct democracy, the
legal sovereign and the political sovereign coincede but in an indirect democracy or in a
representative democracy, it is difficult to locate the political sovereign. Some writers,
therefore perefer to abandon it. The political sovereign is, therefore, not as determinate
and organized as the legal sovereign is, but it is none the less real because after at
public opinion, general will and the various wishes of the electorate do affect the
decisions of the legal sovereign and also political sovereignty leads to legal sovereignty.
Gilchrist observes, "the two are two aspects of one sovereignty of the stat. The
constantly react on each other."
In fact the legal sovereignty belongs to the legislature, whereas the political
sovereignty belongs to the electorate. The problem of democracy is, therefore, to
establish proper relationship between the two. While making laws the legal sovereign
must take into consideration the opinion of the political sovereign and the political
sovereign cannot make its will prevail, except through the legal sovereign. The political
sovereign cannot make laws the courts do not recognize such laws. The political
sovereign must act through the legal sovereign and the sovereign must consider the
opinion of the political sovereign.
12.4.3 De-Jure and De-Facto Sovereign :Sometimes a distinction is made between
the de-jure (legal) and the de-fact (actual) sovereign. The basis of de-jure sovereignty is
law. The de-jure sovereign is competent to make laws and compel obedience to such
laws. It is the legal authority to rule. The de-facto sovereign is the real sovereign which
the people obey. Such a distinction becomes clear at the time of revolution or foreign
aggression when a new authority challenges the authority of the legal sovereign. If this
new authority is able to secure the obedience of the bulk of the people and is able to
actually exercise power. It becomes the de-facto sovereign. The de-facto sovereignty
rests on force rather than on law. This force may be physical, or spiritual and the
sovereign may be a usurping king, a self constituted assembly, or military dictator or
even a priest or a prophet. There are many examples of de-facto sovereigns. To quote
one example, Sheikh MujiburRehman's followers 'MuktiBahini' declared the secession of
their part of the county from the Pakistan and embarked upon a war of liberation.
Legally, East Bengal was a part of Pakistan and hence the latter was the de-jure
sovereign and the MuktiBahini became the de-facto sovereign because the bulk of the
population assured allegiance to it. When Pakistan was defeated in the war, it ceased to
be a de-jure sovereign also. A free country, called Bangla Desh, took birth.
Writers, like Austin, who believe in the legal Concept sovereignty refuse to
accept the distinction between di-facto and de-jure sovereignty. He says government
may be de-facto or de-jure, but these terms do not apply to sovereignty.

Self Assessment Questions

1. Define Sovereignty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What do you mean by Popular Sovereignty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.4.4 THEORY OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY
According to the theory of popular sovereignty the ultimate authority be in the
modern-democratic state belongs to the people whereas the theory of the political
sovereignty believes that it belongs to the, electorate. In ancient democracies popular
sovereignty was identified with the direct democracy in which people participated directly
in law-making.
Writers like Mariglio, William of Ockkam, Althusius and Rousseau who were
against monarchy put forward this theory. Rousseau clearly said that the sovereignty
belongs to the people and that the general will of the people is the supreme power in the
state and constitutes the sovereign authority. With the growth of democracy the idea of
popular sovereignty also gained ground. Accordingly, the people are superior and can
over throw the legal sovereign. The laws of the legal sovereign are valid only if these are
obeyed by the people and have the consent of the people. In modern states where every
adult has the right to vote, it is difficult to distinguish between political and popular
sovereignty. The only point of difference is that the political sovereign in a state may be
a class, the landlord, the capitalists, the army or the church but popular sovereignty
vests ultimate powers in the hands of the masses or the majority of the people. Popular
sovereignty, therefore, refers to the powers of the masses as against the power of an
individual ruler or a class.
Criticism of Theory
1. The people obey the legal sovereign : The masses are ill-organised and ill
equipped and can be suppressed by and be made to obey the legal
sovereign.
2. All people do not have the right to vote :How can people be sovereign ?
Nearly half of the people do not have, the right to vote. They there is quite
a large number of them who do not care to vote. Then they vote
according to Party dictates. Besides, elections take place after along
intervals.
3. Sovereignty of People is nothing more than a public opinion :People
cannot make laws except through the legal sovereign. They can only
assert through revolutions and revolutions usually destroy, both state and
sovereignty.
12.4.5 AUSTIN'S THEORY OF SOVEREIGNTY
John Austin (1790-1859) in his bock 'Lectures on Jurisprudence' published in
1832 gave an exposition of the legal theory of sovereignty. His theory is based on his
conception of law in general decline as a "command given by a superior to an inferior."
He defines sovereignty in the, following words."
"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, the determinate superior is
sovereign in that society, and the society (including the superior) is a society political and
independent."
Let us try to analyse the above definition and find out its implications :
i. The Sovereign is a determinate human superior :The sovereign is either
a person or a body of persons, who can be determined. An abstract thing
 like the general will of Rousseau, can never be sovereign. The type of
government in the mind of Austin was either monarchy or aristocracy.
ii. The determinate human superior does not obey a like superior :The
sovereign is absolute and unlimited. The sovereign receives obedience
to his commands from the bulk of the people but himself is not subject to
any authority. It means also that a sovereign, while dealing with another
sovereign, is not to obey him and he is absolutely free to act in the sphere
of inter state relations.
iii. The sovereign receives habitual obedience from the people :It means
authority of the sovereign within the limits of the territory of the state, is
unlimited and absolute and extends overall individuals, all their groups
and associations. All the commands of the sovereign are obeyed by the
people, as a matter of habit not by compulsion. This obedience is not
accidental or occasional but regular and continuous.
iv. The Sovereign power cannot be divided : Sovereignty is a unity and it
cannot be divided. There is no other power equal to the sovereign
because he is superior or supreme and that can be only one. Thus, in
one state there can be only one sovereign who is indivisible.
v. Law is the command of the sovereign.
vi. Every independent and politically organized society has a sovereign. In
other words sovereignty is an essential attribute of independent and
political society i.e. the state.
Critical examination at the theory
1. Contradictory to modern concept at legitimacy : Austin theory of
sovereignty does not fit into the modern concept of legitimacy. Austin justifies sovereign
as an absolute in all respects. The ruler is not subject to any limitation and is obeyed
because of fear and coercion. But this view cannot be accepted in the modern times.
Now, under the present political system leaders or rulers try to ensure that whenever
governmental authority is used to deal with conflict, the decisions arrived at are widely
accepted in because of fear or coercion but from a belief that they are morally right and
proper. According to the modern opinions, the government or the ruler is said to be
legitimate if the people to whom its orders are directed, believe that the structure,
procedures, acts, decisions policies, officials or leaders of the government possess the
quality of rightness', property or moral goodness which is the sanctity to make rules
binding on the people. Therefore, in the modern age leaders in a political systems try to
endow their actions with legitimacy which cannot be reconciled with Austin's theory of
sovereignty. To make the point clear, it may be added, as Max Weber puts it, that the
leaders of a political system might claim legitimacy for their rule, and members might
accept their claim on either of the following grounds :
a) Tradition : Legitimacy rests on an established belief in the sanctity of
immemorial traditions and on the need to obey leaders who exercise the
authority according to the traditions, Max Weber held that this was "the
most universal primitive" case of authority.
b) Exceptional personal qualities :Legitimacy is based on "devotion to the
specific and exceptional" sanctity, charismatic personality, heroism or
 exemplary character of an individual person and the moral or political
order he has revealed or ordained.
c) Legality : Legitimacy rests on the belief that power is wielded in away that
is legal e.g. the constitutional rules the laws and the powers of the
officials are accepted as binding because they are legal. What is done
legally is regarded as 'legitimate'. Generally speaking, in the present
context we can say that Austin's views on sovereignty do not fit in the
concept of legitimacy.
2. It is opposed to the idea of popular sovereignty :Austin's theory has
become obsolete in view of the fact that the modern states are democratic in which
sovereignty vests with the people Austin does not take into consideration public opinion
or general will. If the determinate human superior does not represent the general will,
how people can obey him habitually. Austin's superior enjoys the support of force alone
and not of the will of the people. In the modern age people, are not satisfied even with
representative democracy and the tools of direct democracy such as initiative
referendum, plebiscite and recall are being extensively used by the people to assert their
will. But this objection can be answered by saying that even if the people are sovereign.
They act through the legal sovereign only and the courts recognize only those laws
which are passed by a legal sovereign and ignore public opinion or general will.
Sovereignty legally belongs to a definite number of persons and not to the common
mass of people.
3. The theory is unhistorical :Henry Maine attacks Austin's theory from the
historical point of view. History does not support Austin, because in the earlier ages,
sovereignty has been lodge in the hands of such persons who were not determinate. He
refers to customs in India, which controlled the people and the rulers alike. A customs is
the outcome of ages and not the command of a determinate superior. Maharaja Ranjit
Singh of Punjab though a despot, never disregarded the customs of the people of
Punjab. Moreover, it is difficult to spot out 'determinate human superior's of Austin's
conception in modern federal states like the U.S.A. Therefore, we cannot believe that the
sovereign has always been and is always determinate.
4. The theory is not applicable to the modern states :The days of
monarchy or aristocracy are over. It is the age of democracy and the large federal
states stand out of Austin's conception of sovereignty. Austin's theory was applicable to
monarchical England only and not to the England of today where sovereignty does not
belong to the king alone but to King in Parliament. Infact neither the king is sovereign not
the Parliament is sovereign. People are sovereign only on the eve of elections. After
elections parliament becomes sovereign and this sovereign parliament is nor permanent,
it can be dissolved any time. Hence sovereignty in England is neither permanent not
determinate or indivisible.
Similarly in America, one cannot witness sovereignty according to Austin's
conception. Neither the American Constitution is sovereign as it can be amended, nor
the President is sovereign as he can be impeached, nor the American Congress is
sovereign as it cannot along pass laws; nor the people are sovereign as after elections
their sovereignty is suspended till the next elections. Moreover, sovereignty is not a unity
as it is divided between the center and the component units (states). Thus, it impossible
to locate sovereignty in the modern states if we remain confined to Austin's conception
of sovereignty.
 5. Backward states also remain outside Austin's sovereignty :In the
theocratic states of the Muslims, the sovereign is subjected to the preachings of Koran,
in all the backward communities customs and usages are superior to the sovereign.
6. Theory does not properly represent nature of law :According to Austin,
law is the command of the sovereign but is reality courts follow not only the laws made
by the legislatures but also the customary law. Austin was conscious of his weakness,
therefore, he said. "What the sovereign permits, he commands." So according to this
statement customary law is law because it has been permitted by the sovereign. Duguit
says that the sovereign does not create law but is itself created by law. Austin lays more
stress on force when he calls law as command and thus ignores the utility of law and the
consent and willingness of the people to obey.
7. Sovereignty cannot be absolute :Austin's theory of absolute sovereignty is
absolute. There are both external and internal limitation on sovereignty. Sovereignty
suffers from serious limitations within the state itself.
For instance no sovereign can go against the laws of nature, the ways of nature
and the force of nature. The whole culture of man including customs, usages and
fashions, religion and morals lie outside the sphere of the state activity and no sovereign
can afford to have a clash with it. Similarly, a written constitution it also a big limitation on
sovereignty of state. In case the sovereign power tries to cross these limits, the only
logical conclusion is that it might lead to chaos or a revolution which may destroy the
state and its sovereignty. Therefore, a rigidly legal concept of Austin's sovereignty is not
practicable in modern world and no modern state can exit within the frame work of
Austin's theory of sovereignty.
The modern age is the age of international co-operation and co-existence. No
state can live in isolation. Every state has to deal with every other state and while doing
so it has to observe a certain code of behaviour or some code of conduct or say
international law and has to observe bilateral or multi-lateral treaties and has to obey the
decisions of the U.N.O. or its various Agencies. Every sovereign power has, therefore, to
adopt an attitude to give and take or of compromises. Austin rules out the possibility of
any such policy of mutual co-operation. He expects his sovereign not to obey like a
sovereign. If this absolute and rigid attitude is adopted by all the sovereign states then
the only logical conclusion is that of a world war which today means the total death and
destruction of the whole of mankind.
We find that the external limitations on state sovereignty protect sovereignty
rather than destroy it as Austin thinks. Thus, we conclude that the strict application of
Austin's conception of sovereignty would bring an end not to the state but to the world at
large.
8. Austin ignores the right of associations to exercise sovereignty :The
modern society is increasingly being considered as federal in structure in which groups
and associations. Play a very important part in the development of human personality
and in serving the human interests. Man is loyal to such groups and associations and
obeys them. All occasions when these occurs a clash between an association and the
state, man shows more loyalty to the association than to the state. A worker during the
days at strike is more loyal to his trade union that to the state. Such a modern man and
such a modern society is not possible within the four-walls concept of sovereignty where
association have to obey the state.
12.5 SUMMARY
Austin has only depicted on aspect of sovereignty namely, its legal aspect. He
has made it too abstract to be real in the least no sovereignty can enjoy unlimited
powers and its all he still tries to do so, the result is either a revolution or the
establishment safeguards against absolutism. Austin ignores the social and political
force, behind the legal sovereign and also the fact that the purpose of law is not merely
to command but also to act as an instrument of social welfare. But one must-admit that
Austin's theory is a clear and logical exposition of the legal nature of sovereignty.
12.6 GLOSSARY
1. Legitimacy – conformity to the law or to rules.
2. Sovereign – A supreme ruler.
12.7 FURTHER READINGS
1. M.P. Joan (1990.) Political Theory, Authors Guild Publications, Delhi.
2. A.C. Kapoor (2009) Principles of Political Science, S. Chand & Company,
New Delhi.
12.8 MODEL QUESTIONS
1. Explain the different kinds of Sovereignty.
2. Critical Examine the Austin’s Theory of Sovereignty.

---00---
 Lesson-13

SOVEREIGNTY :MONISTIC AND PLURALIST

Structure
13.0 Objectives
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Factors Responsible for the rise of Pluralism
13.3 Pluralism
13.4 Criticism of Pluralism
13.5 Value of the Theory
13.6 Summary
13.7 Glossary
13.8 Further Readings
13.9 Model Questions
13.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able to understand :
 pluralist conception of sovereignty.
 factors responsible for the rise of Pluralism
 value of the Theory
13.1 INTRODUCTION
The pluralistic theory of state is opposed to the monistic theory. Mabbot
distinguishes between two types of monism - absolute monism and concrete
monism.AbsoluteMonismrefers to the theory according to which, state is the only
legitimate association and all others are suppressed by the state if necessary. This
theory does not have many supporters.Concrete Monism, on the other hand,
recognizes the need of functional association, but wants to subordinate them to the
state. This theory of state sovereignty has many followers.Pluralism, in a strict sense,
argues that state and other associations are on a par with each other and that the state
does not have a superior status in comparison to other association. Expressive
pluralists world go a step further. According to them, the state should be abolished
alltogether and all of its functions should be transferred to other associations. In this
respect, pluralists are similar to anarchists. Hence from above one can say that monist
state is one 'which possesses, or should possess, a single source of authority that is
theoretically comprehensive and unlimited in its exercise.' This is in accordance with
Blackstone's description of Parliamentary sovereignty. According to him, 'What
parliament doth, no authority on earth can undo'.In contrast, pluralistic state is one is
which there exists no single authority which is all competent and comprehensive, no
unified system of law, no centralized organ of administration and no generation of
political will.Several factors gave rise to the theory of pluralism as apposed to monism.
Some are discussed below.
13.2 FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RISE OF PLURALISM
1. It is generally believed that pluralism grew as a reaction to the absolute
conception of state as held by Hegal in the nineteenth century and as it
influenced the Marxists and fascists. According to legel the state is 'march
of God on earth' and therefore it is not only supreme and legel but also it
has supreme moral authority.
2. The legal view of sovereignty is often regarded by pluralists as the
principal factor responsible for the rise of pluralism.
3. Besides the legal approach to sovereignty is the conception of law as laid
down by analytical jurists. Pluralists such as Duguit and Krakke object to
the legal approach of sovereignty and held that law as such (or spirit of
law) is both superior and prior to the law laid down by the state.
However, it may be pointed out that Austin's view of sovereignty is
concerned only with positive law or legal and not directly concerned with
the concept of moral law or natural law.
4. The fourth factor responsible for the rise of pluralism is the spread of
federalismin the field of constitution. Federalism which resulted from
either centripetal forces or centrifuged forces in the state gave rise to the
concept of plural state thereby giving impetus to pluralism.
In states which have multiplicity of ethnic identities, castes, religion and
language, pluralism is an ideal method for smooth administration.
13.3 PLURALISM
The traditional theory at sovereignty which vests in the state absolute and
unlinked power. Putting all individuals and all organizations, located within the territorial
boundaries of the state under its complete subjection, as in recent years became a
target of severe criticism. One of the school of thought that has been very vocal in its
attack on sovereignty is that of the pluralists. They want to snatch away from the state its
traditional, absolute authority and vest in number of other socio-economic organizations
a large number of which exist in all states. Since these people want to distribute
sovereignty or authority, presently held by the state, among a number of groups. Their
theory is called the pluralist theory. The most important among them are Laski, G.D.H.
Cole, Macliver, Lindsay etc.
The pluralists say that man is a social animal. Living in society with his fellow
beings, man is confronted by a variety of wants-social, economic cultural, political and
the like. To meet all these wants man sets up associations with the result that multitude
of them come into existence. State is one of the many associations. Since each want is
as much important and pressing any other, man cannot single out any associations more
useful than the rest. Working on this analogy, the pluralists question the authority of the
state. They argue that if state serves only one single want of the individual, namely,
political want; and is thus limited in its utility, why should it manopolise the entire
authority of the society? Why should not other associations which equally solve the
needs of man, be also given authority commensurate to their service to him? They
therefore, wish to pull down the state from its high throne of power and then to merge it
with the rest of the associatiors. The rise of industrialism has made the pluralists all the
more vocal in their criticism of the state. They want to see an end to the state's
monopoly of power with the added reason of saving the individual from its too impinging
a character and to grant him a greater degree of autonomy.
Garner explains the concept of pluralism in the following words: "in consequence
of the enormous multiplication of voluntary associations and groups for the promotion
and care of industrial, political and other interests, society has become more and more
an aggregation of groups and less an association of individuals. These groups should be
recognized as possessing distinct natural corporate personalities independent of any
creative act on the part of the state."
A word of caution may be added that the pluralists, however opposed they might
be, to the overloading impact of state's authority, do not stand to abolish it and substitute
in its place the authority of other groups. They are as much loyal to the state as any one
else is. They simply want to curb its too much domineering authority. They would allow it
to retain the role of an umpire only, which may settle the inter association disputes, and
would certainly not like it to have an absolute command over their destinies. The pluralist
philosophy must, therefore, be properly distinguished from that of the anarchists who
stand not only to snatch away the authority from the state but also to abolish it
altogether.
The pluralist point of View has been best presented by Harold Laski who says
that groups, classes and associations, have definite purposes and ends just as state has
purpose and an end. State does not develop the whole personality of man, then how can
it claim the whole obedience from men who are loyal and obedient to all these groups
and associations at the same time. If state has the monopoly of sovereignty then it might
not allow all these groups to grow and without these groups human personality might
remain dwarf. The state itself has a class character and when we say that the state
alone is sovereign it almost amounts to this that a particular class is sovereign, so
sovereignty is nothing but a mere struggle for supremacy between the classes. If the rich
have the power of the state it means that the rich are sovereign, naturally, the poor who
are also organized in their groups and associations, constantly struggle to break the
monopoly of the rich and to capture the power of the state and if they succeed then the
working class becomes sovereign over the class of the rich. Thus the Monistic
conception of sovereignty is nothing but an instrument with which the ruling class can
perpetuate its domination over other groups and classes and associations. They regard
state as a mere association so that other groups and associations like the state may
share sovereignty with it and thus may be able to serve the purpose for which they exist.
Pluralists also attack Austin's conception of law. They say law is not a mere
command and is not created by the state alone. Krabbe is of the opinion that law is an
ethical rule of conduct which men have observed ever since the state was born. Needs
and demands of the society not the fear of punishment by the state compel us to obey
laws. If state passes immoral laws, we do not obey these, no matter what the
punishment is.
In the sphere of inter-state relations also pluralists believe that the state is not
sovereign in Austin sense. It is subject to international law and the various treaties and
the decisions of the U.N.O. Externally, therefore, sovereignty is limited and not absolute.
They say, today is the age of limited sovereignty and not absolute sovereignty both in
the national as well as in the international sphere.
 Self Assessment Questions
1. What is Pluralism ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Explain the Characteristics of Pluralism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13.4 CRITICISM OF PLURALISM

1. Association exist owning to the state : Associations are a part of the state.
These constitute the state and function within the state but that does not
mean that these should share sovereignty with the state. Divided
sovereignty is weak and a weak sovereignty cannot protect these
associations.
2. State must be supreme to settle inter-associational disputes : If we
presume that each and every group and association is sovereign like the
state then who will settle the Inter-group and inter-associational disputes
and conflicts. It might lead to social anarchy. The pluralists say that the
state should not be given supreme status but it may be regarded as a co-
ordinator. The monists reply to this argument that co-ordination and
conciliation is the same thing as sovereignty because only a superior
authority can perform this job.
3. Group rivalry will lead to chaos : Just like inter state rivalry there is inter
group or inter-associational rivalry which might lead to chaos and
destruction of the state it self. Thus this theory is full of dangers.
4. It weakens sovereignty : Pluralists are against unity of sovereignty and
the unlimited sovereignty. As a reaction, they shift their emphasis on the
groups and the associations which no doubt enhance the importance of
groups but at the cost of sovereignty.
13.5 VALUE OF THE THEORY
There is no denying the fact that pluralism has rightly recognised and
emphasized the importance of the various associations in the modern society. They
serve useful purpose in the development of human personality and in the fulfillment of
human interests. So these must be allowed a large amount of autonomy. They should
have paternal control over them. Pluralists do regard that state is superior to other
associations but they do not accept that state sovereignty is absolute. In international
relations also pluralists very rightly point out that international law has become more
binding upon the modern state for maintaining international peace and harmony among
states. According to Garner to talk of the absolute sovereignty of a state in international
relations is only a legal fiction. It is a dangerous dogma, and the sooner it is given up the
better it would be. No modern state can live in isolation because of the increasing inter-
dependence among states and victory over time and space by means of science and
technology which has brought the states very close to each other. International behavour
of state is possible only on the basis of pluralism.
Prof. Duguit is critical of Austinian conception of law. He says neither law is
command nor it has the backing of force nor it is created by the state. According to him
laws are the rules of conduct which men obey forgetting benefits from societies.
Obedience to laws is not because of the state but because of special needs and social
necessities. The sanction behind laws is the social approval or disapproval and not the
fear of the state. Law limits the state. The State does not limit law. Law serves a social
purpose, therefore it is obeyed. Thus Prof. Duguit argues in favour of pluralism and
condemns Austinism.
4. LEGITIMACY ARGUMENT WHY PEOPLE SHOULD OBEY THE STATE
In one of the proceeding paragraphs we pointed out of the characteristic features
of authority is that it evokes a willing obedience from those towards whom it is directed.
Question arises why should people show obedience to authority? The traditional
thinking, as rooted in law was that state possesses sovereign power and as such we
must obey its command and those who refuse to do so, can be compelled to show
obedience to it. That power theory is still valid even today in the sense that state does
extract obedience from its citizens. But modern political theories point out that state
which put its main reliance on the barrel of the gun, is a structure standing on sand and
is bound to collapse any time, to ensure stability and strength to a political order, it is
highly imperative that it should be based on legitimacy rather than on power.
13.6 SUMMARY
We have examined both concepts of sovereignty and we find that both of them
have merits and demerits. None of these is flawless, sovereignty of Austin suffocates
sovereignty both internally within the state. And externally-outside the state. On the other
hand, rigid pluralism reduces the influence of sovereignty, weakens it and encourage
group life and social life but at the same time increase chances of social contradiction
between various groups and associations which might lead to anarchy or revolution,
endangering the sovereignty of the state. A correct view about sovereignty is, therefore,
a healthy synthesis of pluralism and Austinism. It is a question of adjustment or of co-
ordination between the sovereignty of the state and the autonomy of various groups and
associations within the state. Earnest Barker maintains that, whatever rights, the groups
may claim or gain, "the state will still remain a necessary adjusting force."
13.7 GLOSSARY
1. Federalism – A system of government in which the same territory in
controlled by two levels of government.
2. Moral law – Moral law is a system of guidelines for behavior.
13.8 FURTHER READINGS
 Easton, David (1953). The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of
Political Science,AlfredA.Knopf, New York.
 Dahl A.Robert (1963). Modern Political Analysis,PrenticeHall,USA.
13.9 MODEL QUESTIONS
1. Critically evaluate Pluralist theory of Sovereignty?
2. Explain the fields responsible for the rise of Pluralism.

---00---
 Lesson-14

THE POLITICAL SYSTEM: MEANING AND

CHARACTERISTICS
Structure
14.0 Objectives
14.1 Introduction
14.2 Meaning of Political System
14.3 Definitions of Political System
14.4 Main Characteristics of Political System according to David Easton, Almond &
Robert A. Dahl
14.5 Main Structures of Political System according to David Easton
14.6 Political System as Input & Output process with feed-back Mechanism according
to David Easton
14.7 Summary
14.8 Glossary
14.9 Further Readings
14.10 Model Questions
14.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson you will be able to :
 understand the meaning of political system.
 understand characterstics of political system.
14.1 INTRODUCTION
The Concept of political system is central to the modern Political Science. The
concept was propounded for the first time by David Easton in his book, ‘The Political
System,’ published in 1953. Later, the Americanpolitical scientists which
includedLasswell, Kaplan, Almond, Powell and Robert A. Dahl used the concept as
an analytical tool for the study of ‘Comparative Politics’.
The political system is a comprehensive concept. In the traditional political
terminology terms as ‘State’, ‘government’, ‘legislature’ etc. were commonly used. But,
the modern political thinkers prefer to use the word ‘Political System’ in place of ‘State’
and ‘government’. The term political system is a more comprehensive concept. It
includes not only the government structures and legal institutions but all those informal
and formal groups which in one way or another participate in political process and
influence the political authority. In the political system, we include not only formal legal
institutions like electorate, legislature, executive, bureaucracy, courts etc, but also
various kinds of political parties, pressure groups, caste groups, religious groups, tribal
groups and their institutions and also anomic phenomenon like violent riots and
demonstrations. The concept of political system takes into its purview entire gamut of
political activities, no matter the activities may be happening anywhere in the society.
14.2 MEANING OF POLITICAL SYSTEM
The term political system consists of (a) Political and (b) System.
1. Political: The word ‘Political’ connotes ‘power’ and ‘authority’. Since Aristotle’s
time the idea that political relations are to a great extent based on rule and
authority has been largely accepted. According to the German political scholars
Max Weber, a group should be called political “if and in so far as the
enforcement of its order is carried out continually within a given territorial area by
the application and threat of physical force on the part of administrative staff.”
1. The American Political Scientist David Easton has defined political life
“as a set or system of interactions defined by the fact that they are more
or less directly related to the authoritative allocation of values for a
society.”
2. Both Lasswell and Kaplan speak of ‘severe deprivations’ while talking
about the word ‘political’.
3. Robert A. Dahl talks of ‘Power, Rule and Authority’ in its context.
4. Almond and Powell associate the political system with the use
‘Legitimate physical coercion’.
2. System: Theconcept of system has been borrowed from the natural sciences.
The word system is used for a set of clear interactions which have definite
boundaries.
1. According to Collin Cherry, “System is a whole which is compounded of
many parts.”
2. According to Almond and Powell, “A system implies interdependence of
parts and boundary of some kind between it and its environment.”
From the definitions given above, it is clear that system is such a unit which is
composed of several parts or elements put together. These parts or elements are
interdependence and influence each other. If one part of the system changes, all
other parts will get affected. Besides, each system has its own boundaries which
differentiate it from the other systems. The social, economic, political and cultural
systems have their own individual boundaries which differentiate one from the
other.
According to David and Lewis, the chief characteristics of social system are a)
integration, b) regularly, c) wholeness, d) organization, e) coherence, f)
connectedness or what is calledinterdependence of parts. It is also essential that
each part must maintain its identity for sometime at least.
14.3 DEFINITION OF POLITICAL SYSTEM
1. According to David Easton, “Political system is a set of interactions
abstracted from the totality of social behaviour through which authoritative
values are allocated for a society.”
2. According to Almond and Powel, “When we speak of political system we
include all interactions which affect the use of threat of legitimate
coercion.”
 3. According to Lasswell and Kaplan, “Political system is a process of
effecting policies with the help of (actual or the threatened) severe
deprivations”.
14.4 MAINCHARACTERISTICS OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM
Upon a study of different definitions given above we derive the following
characteristics of the political system:-
1. Persistent pattern of human relationships: Political system is
composed not of men but of human relationships. It is the gross total of
their roles in the political process. The roles of men in difference systems
differ, but the political system definite pattern of their roles. This pattern of
human relationship is based on power, rule or authority.
2. Use of legitimate force: Every political system is related to the use of
legitimate physical coercion. In every social set up, force is used to
maintain peace and order and to punish the law-breakers. But the use of
force must be just and legitimate.
3. Comprehensiveness: The political does not include only the
governmental structures, but also those formal and informal
organizations, which take part in one way or other in political process and
influence the political authority.
4. Interaction: There is a regular interactions going on among the member
or units of the political system. Their interaction is constant and multi-
faced. All the members of the political system are in contact with each
other on individual or group level and try to influence each other’s actions.
5. Interdependence: It mean that the sub-system within the political system
depend upon the each other. Any change in any sub system is bound to
affect the functioning of other sub-system.
6. Existence of boundaries: Each political system has boundaries which
separates it from economic, social and cultural systems. It means that in
a society there are several such points where political system come to
anend and from where other systems begin. The boundaries of the
political system are not territorial boundaries; these boundaries relate to
human relationships and their activities.
7. Open system: The political system is an open system. Being so, it can
absorb effects on changes in environment and circumstances and adept
itself accordingly.
8. Environment:David Easton is of the view that political system is
surrounded by various kinds of environment and it works within the circle
circumscribing it. The economic, cultural national character, circumstantial
and demographic environments particularly influence the political system.
The inputs in a political system are drawn from the environment and then
by converting them into outputs go back into the environment.
Besides the characteristics mentioned above, Almond has mentioned five more
characteristics in addition.They are:-
 9. Universality of the political system: It means that political exits in all
types of societies. Any society, whether developed or under developed,
whether conventional or modern must have the political system.
10. Universality of political structures: Every political system must have
political structures. The different political structures fulfill the different
functions of political system. Conventionally, the legislature, executive,
bureaucracy, judicially were taken as the main political structures. But
according to the modern view the political system also included all
informal groups which take part in the political process and influences the
political authority e.g. (a) the political parties, (b) pressure groups, (c)
religious organizations etc.
11. Universality of political functions: According to Almond every political
system has to perform certain functions. These are of two kinds:
(1) Input functions and(2) Outputs functions
1. The input functions included political socialisation and recruitment,
interest, articulation, interest aggregation and political
communication.
2. The output functions are rule making, rule application, rule
adjudication.
12. Multi-functionality of political structures: It means that each political
structure is multifunctional, that is it performs more than one type of
function. Legislature, for example does not merely formulate laws, it also
exercises control on the executive and national exchequer.
13. Culturally mixed character of political system: According to Almond,
still another characteristicsof political system is their mixed cultural
character. Culturally, no political system is totally modern, nor totally
conventional. The political system often include modern as well as
conventional structures.

General Characteristics of a Political System according to Robert A. Dahl.

The characteristics of modern political system mention by Robert A. Dahl are
empirical regularities which are always present in all large political systems. There
characteristics are commonly seen in most of the political system. They are:-
1. Uneven control of political resources:Political resources are such
resources by which an individual exercises influence on the behavior of
other individuals. Such resources include items as money, power,
educational standard, social background, friendships, services and
several kinds of commodities. It is Dahl’s views that the uneven control of
political resources among people is due to four chief reasons.
(1) differences due to functions
(2) basic differences among people inherited by birth
(3) difference in their aims and objectives and
 (4) difference in spirit of enterprise and initiative among people.
2. Quest for political Influence: Some members in a political system seek
to gain an influence over governmental policies, rules and decisions. In
other words, they seek political influence because control over the
government helps them to achieve their goals. Influence can be
instrumental in fulfilling their interests. The members of political system
tried to gain political influence-depending upon their own resources,
circumstances and opportunities.
3. Uneven distribution of political influence: The political influence is
unevenly distributed among the members of political system. Those who
have access to large political resources can exert more influence over the
government and those who have more influence over the government can
in turn use their influence to gain control over more political resources. In
a democratic political system there can be equality in rights, but not in
political influence. Assome have more political influence than others,
there are two classes consequently, the rulers and the ruled.
4. Resolution of conflicting aims: In a political system, people with
different interests and objectives live together. Conflicts and consensus
are two important aspects of a political system. The conflicting interests
and objectives can be often resolved through non-political means like
negotiations, adjudication and mediation. But when conflicts are sharp
and cannot be resolved through non-political means, the government of
the political system has to intervene.The government has got the power
of taking binding decisions. By using this power the government can
resolve conflicting aims and interests.
5. Acquisition of legitimacy: Accordingly to Robert Dahl, a government is
legitimate only when the people to whom its orders are directed, believe
that the government’s structures, procedures, acts, decisions, policies,
officials or leaders of the government possess the quality of rightness,
propriety or moral goodness, the right in short to make binding rules. In
order to rule over others through authority less political resources are
used. That is why in a political system the leaders attempt to convert their
influences into authority.
6. Development of an ideology: Dahl is of the opinion that in a political
system the leaders often develop some kind of ideology in order to
acquire legitimacy of their leadership. An ideology is a set of more or less
persistent integrated doctrines. Some popular leaders, highest
governmental officials and their allies often espouse and ideology that
justifies not only their own leadership, but also the political system to
which they belong. Such an ideology then becomes the official or reigning
ideology.
7. Impact of other political system: Dahl says that other political systems
essentially influence the behavior of a particular political system. In the
modern age, no political system can exist in isolation. Due to the
technological and scientific progress, it is natural that one political system
comes in contact with the other political systems no single political system
can perform its functions all by itself. Every political system conducts its
 foreign relations and an interactions between various political systems is
constantly going on.
8. Inevitability of change: According to Dahl, the last important
characterizes of political system is their changeability. It is essential for all
political systems to undergo change. No single political system can
remain unchanged for ever. The social and economic circumstances go
changing and the political system has to fall in line with the changes.
Similarly, old roles wrap up and up and new ones take their place. A
political system has to keep itself alert to all these changes. It has to
acquire the virtue of adaptability. Without adaptability there is likelihood of
the political system of breaking under stress.

Self Assessment Questions

1. What is the meaning of Political System ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What are the characteristics of Political System ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14.5 MAIN STRUCTURES OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM

Accordingly to David Easton, the main structures of political system are:-
(1) The Political Community
(2) The Regime
(3) The Authorities

POLITICAL COMMUNITY
REGIME

AUTHORITIES

1. The Political Community:Whenever a group of people gather and exhibit some

measure of will to resolve problems of a political system, we call it a political
community. The community is organized on the principle of political division of
labour in order to make the system workable. The political community is an
 important part of the system. Because whenever there is a decline in the support
given by political community, the probability of a tension into the political system
also increases.
2. Regime: Regime is the second structure of the political system. The regime can
also be called constitutional order, It is a set of those (a) ideas, (b) laws, (c)
conventions and (d) aspirations which indicates that there exists a regular way to
resolve political problems. In Eastons’s view, regime is not a mere structure, It is
a body of (a) certain values, (b) norms, and (c) several structures put together.
3. The Authorities:TheAuthorities is that group of people who take up the
responsibility of taking an official decision at any particular time. It is this class
which has to convert inputs from internal and external environment into outputs
(decisions and policies) in a political system. They have to face thoseinformation
(by way of new demands or supports) which may result from the original outputs.
14.6 POLITICAL SYSTEM AS INPUT AND OUTPUT PROCESS
1. According to David Easton, the political system is chiefly an input out
mechanism related to activities concerning political decisions. Primarily
the political system is only a means by which some inputs are
transformed into outputs.
2. Almond is also of the view that political system is a structure into which
inputs enter from environment or from within the political system and then
they get converted into outputs and go back to environment. As outputs
they again influence the political system.
Inputs:Easton mentions two kinds of inputs in the political system. They are:
1. Demands
2. Supports
1. Demands: According to Almond, the demands arise from three main
sources (a) from the elites in the political system (b) from social groups in
the environment (c) from other political systems. The demands can be as
follows:
(i) Demands for allocation of goods and services:(a) These
include demands for laws for fixed working hours and (b) for
fixation of minimum wages, (c) educational facilities, (d) provision
of recreational facilities, (e) facilities for roads and
communications etc..
(ii) Demands for regulation of behavior:These demands include (a)
public security, (b) control over markets, (c) rules convening
marriages, (d) health and sanitation.
(iii) Demands for participation in the political system: These
demands include (a) the right to vote, (b) to hold public offices,(c)
to send petitions to the government bodies and (d) officials to
organize political associations etc.
(iv) Demands for communications and information: These
demands included (a) affirmation of values, (b) the
communications of policy intent from policy elites or (c) the display
 of the State Authority in times of threats or (d) on ceremonial
occasions.
2. Supports: Accordingly to Easton, supports are those processes or
structures which lend a capability to the political system to face demands
the support can be classified as follows:
(i) Material support:These include (a) payment of taxes or (b) other
levies participations in public functions and (c) recruitment in army
or military services.
(ii) Law Obedience support: These include (a) obedience to laws
and (b) other rules and regulations
(iii) Participatory support: These includeactivities like
participations(a) in voting (b) political discussions and (c) to take
part in other political activities.
(iv) Respect support: These include attention paid (a) to government
information (b)manifestation of respect to the symbols of public
authority.
The Conversion Process
It means the conversion of demands of the people and their support or inputs into
decisions or policies of the government i.e. out puts.
The method and the process by which the political system converts inputs into
outputs and answers to the reactions of social environmentis called the conversion
process. The conversion process depends upon the capabilities of the political system.
1. It includes capability of the political system to acquire means.
2. Capability to regulate men and materials.
3. Capability to maintain and development such symbols or signs which
maintain people’s loyalty to the political system.
4. It also includes the capability to cope with demands in time.
Outputs:Outputs are the result of those activities which originate in a political system
from demands and supports. Normally they are an answer to the demands and
supports. The outputs can be in conformity with the demands and supports, or
even against them, much will depend upon the nature of the political system. The
outputs can be of the following kinds:
(i) Extractions: It can be in the form of (a) taxes, (b) booty, (c) penalties, (d)
leaves and (e) in the form of personal services.
(ii) Regulation of behaviour: It can take many different forms and can
influence whole human behaviour and relationships
(iii) Allocation of goods, services and officers: One form of outputs can be
the allocation of goods services and offices
(iv) Symbolic output: It includes (a) affirmation of values (b) display of
political symbols, (c) declaration of policies etc.
Feed-back Mechanism
1. The political system has got feed-back capacity or such mechanisms
which give positive or negative information to the system.
2. They provide the information about reactions to decision emanating from
the political system and is useful to the system because it enables the
system to stand upto those reactions and that in turn lends strength and
stability to the system.
According to Easton, there is a circulation between the environment and political
system. As a subsystem of social system, political system receives the demands and
support from the environment, which we can call input system. On the other hand,
binding decisions are made for all members of society in the form of laws and policy and
other forms known as public product, which we call output system. In the center of
political system, a kind of conversion process happened, the input was processed, and
output was delivered, which we call central processing system.
The interaction between environment and political system goes on and on along
with the path from input system to central processing system, output system, feedback
system. Now, we can see the structure and process of the political system. Firstly, inputs
of various kinds keep the system going. Secondly, these inputs are converted by the
processes of the system into outputs and these, in turn, have consequences both for the
system and for the environment in which the system exists. The formula here is very
simple and illuminating: inputs—political system or processes—outputs.
According to Easton, political system has certain properties including properties of
identification, inputs and outputs, differentiation within a system and integration of a system.
(1) Properties of identification.
To distinguish a political system from other social systems, we must be able to
identify it by describing its fundamental units and establishing the boundaries that
demarcate it from units outside the system.
(a) Units of a political system. The units are the elements of which we say a
system is composed. In the case of a political system, they arc political
actions. Normally it is useful to look at these as they structure themselves
in political roles and political groups.
(b) Boundaries. Some of the most significant questions with regard to the
operation of political systems can be answered only if we bear in mind the
obvious fact that a system does not exist in a vacuum. It is always immersed
in a specific setting or environment. The way in which a system works will be
in part a function of its response to the total social, biological, and physical
environment.
(2) Inputs and outputs.
Most of the political system must have continuing inputs to keep it going. Without
inputs the system can do no work; without outputs we cannot identify the work done by
the system. The specific research tasks in this connection would be to identify the inputs
and the forces that shape and change them, to trace the processes through which they
arc transformed into outputs, to describe the general conditions under which such
processes can be maintained, and to establish the relationship between outputs and
succeeding inputs of the system.
(3) Differentiation within a system
The members of a system engage in at least some minimal division of labor that
provides a structure within which action takes place.
(4) Integration of a system
David Easton hypothesize that if a structured system is to maintain itself, it must
provide mechanisms whereby its members are integrated or induced to cooperate in
some minimal degree so that they can make authoritative decisions.
14.7 SUMMARY
 From the analysis from above, we can draw some conclusions of the properties
of a political system as follows:
 Politics involves a persistent pattern of human relationships, as Robert
Dahl puts it. There is some continuity.
 A political system exists within the framework of some sort of collectivity,
an organization, a community, a state.
 There will be agreed procedures for making decisions binding upon the
collectivity.
 A political system makes binding decisions and promulgates them. Where
there is disagreement politicians are indispensable.
 A political system by no means makes all the decisions in a state. Many
decisions are made in markets, social institutions and so on. The political
system has a general supervisory capacity for regulating such decisions
and the way they are made. Therefore, as David Easton says, it allocates
values in society.
14.8 GLOSSARY
1 Enviornment – the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal
or plant lives or operates
2 Ideology – A system of ideas or ideals especially one which forms the
basis of economic or political theory and policy.
14.9 FURTHER READINGS
• Easton, David (1953). The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of
Political Science,AlfredA.Knopf, New York.
• Dahl A.Robert (1963). Modern Political Analysis,PrenticeHall,USA.
• Lasswell, H. (1962). The future of Political Science.
14.10 MODEL QUESTIONS
1 Define Political System & discuss its main characteristics?
2 Define Political System and discuss its functions according to David
Easton?

---00---
 Lesson-15

POLITICAL SYSTEM: ALMOND AND POWELL’S

STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

Structure
15.0 Objectives
15.1 Introduction
15.2 Almond’s Analysis of Political System
15.3 Characteristics of Political System
15.4 Functions of Political System
15.5 Critical Evaluation
15.6 Summary
15.7 Glossary
15.8 Further Readings
15.9 Model Questions
15.0 OBJECTIVES:
After reading this lesson you will be able to:
 understand functions of Political System according to Almond & Powell’s
Structural-Functional Model.
 discuss and critically evaluate Structural-Functional Analysis
15.1 INTRODUCTION
Political system is the set of formal legal institutions that constitute a
“government” or a “state.” This is the definition adopted by many studies of the legal or
constitutional arrangements of advanced political orders. It is also called a system of
politics and government. It is usually compared to the legal system, economic system,
cultural system, and other social systems. It is different from them, and can be generally
defined on a spectrum from left, e.g. communism, to the right, e.g. fascism. However,
this is a very simplified view of a much more complex system of categories involving the
views: who should have authority, how religious questions should be handled, and what
the government's influence on its people and economy should be.
More broadly defined, however, the term comprehends actual as well as
prescribed forms of political behaviour, not only the legal organization of the state but
also the reality of how the state functions. Still more broadly defined, the political system
is seen as a set of “processes of interaction” or as a subsystem of the social system
interacting with other nonpolitical subsystems, such as the economic system
The discussion of political System is closely related to both Functionalism of
Gabriel Almond and System analysis of David Easton based on conception of political
phenomena as a “system of interrelated and reciprocally regulated patterns of actions
and orientation, pattern that cluster together in equilibrium and that have certain needs
of maintenance and survival. Almond in his functional approach, utilizes the concept of
the political system instead of the more traditional “state,” limited by its legal and
institutional connotations. Almond distinguishes the political system in terms of particular
set of interactional properties: comprehensiveness, interdependence, and existence of
boundaries. In the work of David Easton, However, the system approach is most fully
articulated.
15.2 GABRIEL ALMOND’S ANALYSIS OF POLITICAL SYSTEM:
Gabriel Almond, the professor at Yale (1947–1950) and (1959–1963), Princeton
(1950–1959), and Stanford University (1963–1993) and the chair of the Social Science
Research Council's Committee on Comparative Politics has made a "distinguished
scholarly contribution" regarding the analysis of political System . In his analysis, first he
designed the characteristics of political system and then outlined the functions of the
system.
In the 1970s, political scientists Gabriel Almond and Bingham Powell
introduced a structural- functionalist approach to comparing political systems.
They argued that, in order to understand a political system, it is necessary to understand
not only its institutions (or structures) but also their respective functions. They also
insisted that these institutions, to be properly understood, must be placed in a
meaningful and dynamic historical context.
This idea stood in marked contrast to prevalent approaches in the field of
comparative politics-the state-society theory and the dependency theory. These were
the descendants of David Easton's system theory in international relations, a
mechanistic view that saw all political systems as essentially the same, subject to the
same laws of "stimulus and response"-or inputs and outputs-while paying little attention
to unique characteristics.
The structural-functional approach is based on the view that a political system is
made up of several key components, including interest groups, political parties and
branches of government.
In addition to structures, Almond and Powell showed that a political system
consists of various functions, chief among them political socialisation, recruitment and
communication: socialisation refers to the way in which societies pass along their values
and beliefs to succeeding generations, and in political terms describe the process by
which a society inculcates civic virtues, or the habits of effective citizenship; recruitment
denotes the process by which a political system generates interest, engagement and
participation from citizens; and communication refers to the way that a system
promulgates its values and information.
15.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF POLITICAL SYSTEM
As described by Almond in The Politics of Developing Areas, All political System
has four characteristics in common and in terms of which they may be compared.
 First of all, political systems, including the simplest ones, have political
structure (executive, judiciary and legislature etc.).
  Second, the same functions are performed in all political systems, even
though these functions may be performed with different frequencies, and
different kinds of structures.
 Third, all political structure, no matter how specialized, whether it is found
in primitive or in modern societies, is multifunctional.
 Fourth, all political systems are mixed systems in the cultural sense.
There are no ‘all- modern’ cultures and structures, in the sense of
rationality and no all primitive ones, in the sense of traditionality.1 All
political systems, in this sense, are transitional.

Self Assessment Questions

1. What do you mean by Political Socialization ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What are the ‘Input Functions of a Political System ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15.4 FUNCTIONS OF POLITICAL SYSTEM:

Although Almond nowhere offers a specific definition of function, he postulates
seven functional requisites which must be fulfilled by any political system. On the
political or “input” side functions are:
1. Political Socialization and Recruitment,
2. Interest articulation,
3. Interest aggregation, and
4. Political communication
On the governmental or “output” side the other functions of political system are:
1. Rule making,
2. Rule application and
3. Rule adjudication.
The functions are not of an equivalent nature, in that political communication is a
mechanism by which the other functions are performed- output as well as input, not to
mention feedback. All adequate analysis of a political system must locate and
characterize all of these functions and not simply these functions performed by the
specialized political structure. His functional categories were developed for the purpose
of comparing whole political systems- Western and nonwestern, modern, transitional and
traditional.
 The input functions are performed by the non-government structures, and by the
society and general environment, (a) like families, (b) schools, (c) political parties, (d)
pressure groups, (e) independent newspapers etc.
The output functions are functions of the governmental structures. These are (a)
legislature, (b) bureaucracy, (c) judiciary etc. which (a) frame laws, (b) enforce them and
(c) adjudicate in case of disputes or conflicts arising. The output functions resemble to a
large extent the functions of government as per traditional theory of the separation of
powers.
INPUT FUNCTIONS
1. Political Socialization and Recruitment: Political socialization is that process
by which individuals are inducted into the political culture of the country and their attitude
towards the political system are formed. Political socialization is a training process
through which an attempt is made to inculcate into the minds of individuals, in particular
the members of the younger generation, the political values, attitudes and beliefs so that
their loyalty to the political system may develop and in turn they may be able to become
good active citizens. Political socialization is a continuous process and goes on all till the
end of one’s life. The function of political socialization is performed through family,
schools, peer groups, political parties, voluntary associations and media etc.
The political recruitment is closely associated with political socialization. Political
socialization trains members of the society for different offices and roles in the political
system. Political recruitment means the function through which the offices or roles in the
system are fulfilled. The process of recruitment never ends; it is continuous. The
recruitment to the political offices or roles may be on a general basis or on a specific
basis. On what basis and with what competency recruitment is accomplished has a
powerful effect on the working and capability of the political system.
Interest Articulation: The political decisions may benefit or harm individuals or
groups of individuals living in society. That is why it is necessary to put forth demands
before the decision makers before they take decisions, or formulate policies. The
process through which different individuals and groups of individuals put up their
demands before the decision or policy makers is called Interest Articulation. This
function is performed through different structures. According to Almond and Powell,
these structures are of found kinds:-
1) Institutional Interest Groups:- (a) like legislature, (b) bureaucracy, (c)
army etc.
2) Associational Interest Groups:- (a) as labour unions, (b) traders
union etc.
3) Non- associational Interest Groups: (a)as caste-groups.
4) Anomic Groups:- (a) as group of demonstration, (b) rioters etc..
It is through interest articulation that the conflicts present in the various political,
economic, cultural and social structures of society come into the open.
2. Interest Aggregation: In order to further their interest the demands are made by
different individuals or groups of individuals upon the political system. To fulfill these
demands the political system cannot formulate separate laws and policies for each of
them. Interest aggregation or combination is achieved by the formulation of general
policies based on reconciliation and combination of various interests. Accordingly to
Almond and Powell, “The function of converting demands into general policy alternatives
is called interest aggregation.”
The function of interest articulation in the political system is performed by political
parties as well as by the government structures, like legislature, the executive and the
bureaucracy.
3. Political Communication: Communication means to give information. Each
citizen and official depends upon the information which he receives and then he
accordingly regulates his activities. In the modern democracies specialized
communication structures like television, radio, newspapers etc. can be visibly seen
working. Huge amounts are invested for their upto date maintenance.
The communication function can prove helpful in the accomplishment of other
activities or it may also hinder the activities. It is necessary for interest articulation that
the people must be provided with proper facilities for exchange of views so that their
capacity for organizing themselves in groups presenting demands upon the political
system may increase.
OUTPUT FUNCTIONS
Rule Making Function:- If men have to live together in society, if is necessary to
determine their responsibilities and to lay down rules to prevent their mutual conflicts. In
today’s political system, the work of making rules or laws is performed by legislatures
which are specialized structures.
The Rule Application Function: The function of the political system is not only
to frame rules but also to enforce them in a proper way. To a large extent, the spirit of
rules lies in their application. If they are not enforced properly the rules lose their
importance.
In a modern political system on the enforcement work is done by officials or
bureaucracy. They are an important instrument. In the words of Karl Frederick,
“The vast bureaucratic structure with ten thousand of officials make them the core of
modern government.”
4. The Rule Adjudication Function: The rules made by political system naturally
bring some responsibility or some kind of discipline upon individual or groups of
individuals. There is always an apprehension of the rules being breached or violated. It
is necessary, therefore, to punish those violating or not obeying the rules. Normally a
provision for punishments for violation of rules is made while formulating the rules. But
sometimes there can be dispute regarding the violation of rule and the extent of violation
and then what punishment it calls for. The adjudication function seeks to resolve the
dispute.
In today’s political system, the rule adjudication functions is performed by the
specialized structures like courts, judicial tribunals etc.
The functions are offered as a preliminary proposal and are modified in the
development of Almond’s work. In Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach,
Almond and Powell distinguished between three levels of functions, described as
‘activities’3. These levels are:
 Capability functions (Regulative, extractive, distributive and responsive functions
determine the performance of the system in its environment) ;
Conversion Functions (Interest articulation, interest aggregation, political
communication , rule making, rule application and rule adjudication are internal to
the system and involve the input-output flow as the system meets demands with
authoritative decisions. );
System maintenance and adaptation functions, specifically political socialization
and recruitment.
The theory of political system will consist of the discovery of the relations
between these different levels of functioning- capabilities, conversion functions
and system maintenance and adaptation functions- and of the relation of the
functions at each level.
Functional analysis of political system has been criticized in many ways. Some
argues that it no more enables us to predict than it enables us to explain the occurrence
of a particular one of the items by which given functional requirement met.4 According to
some other critics, the key terms of functional analysis are rarely given operational
definitions and thus cannot be put to an objective test.5 One of the most serious
problems lies in the meaning of ‘maintenance’, ‘persistence’ or ‘survival’. In biology, as
Hampel notes, survival of an organism has a fairly clear meaning, but social systems are
another matter altogether.
15.5 CRITICAL EVALUATION
Almond's functionalism has been critics of been ideological and conservative.
I.C. Jawic criticize that functionalism is limited as it leak explanatory power and
satisfactoriness.
Sociologist Don Martindale noted four drawbacks.
 The conservative ideological bias and preference for status quo
 Lack of methodological clarity
 An over emphasis on the role of closed system in social life does not
amount for the processes of change
 A failure to deal with social change
 Campbell argues that functionalism is illogical, while
 Mackenzie said it was based on old concepts and traditions.
 C.A. Powell terms it non operational and non functional.
 C. Wright Mill criticized it as been as ethnocentric in its emphases on
stability in the light of the Anglo-American norm and political traditions.
 Holt and Turner said it had operational difficulties in particular, the
difficulty in refining, operationalizing and testing hypothesis.
 Two quote S. E. Finer, "What Almond has to say could have been said without
using the system approach and it would have been said more clearly." He referred
Almond concept as "modish concept"(Modern sounding but actually not modern).
15.6 SUMMARY
After discussing the above mentioned aspect, we can conclude by saying that
Almond theory gave the much needed connivance in the study of comparative politics. It
has indeed played an important role in development of the function and structure in the
political system. Even though, as rightly brought by his critics he had a lot of problems
but we cannot denied the very fact that he has contributed enormously in comparative
politics and plays an important role in the study of this field of study. By saying that
Almond structural functional analyses gave much needed connivance and adjustable
role through the study of political system in the field of comparative politics, even his
worse critics will not have second opinion on this.
From the above, it is clear that the modern political thinkers prefer to use the
word ‘Political System’ in place of ‘State’ and ‘govt’ as this concept takes into its purview
the entire gamut of political activities, no matter the activities may be happening
anywhere in the society.
15.7 GLOSSARY
1. Hypothesis- A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any
assumption of its truth.
2. Adjudication – A formal judgment on a disputed matter
15.8 FURTHER READINGS
 The Political System: An inquiry into the State of Political Science by
David Easton (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953)
 The future of Political Science: By Harold Lasswell, 1962
 Modern Political Analysis: By Robert A. Dahl, 1963
 Structure functionalists approach to comparing Political Systems: By
Gabriel Almond & Bingham Powell 1966.
 On the Modern Political Theory : By S.P. Verma
 Plurality of worlds – David Lewis, 1986.
 Jain, M.P.(1979), Political Theory, Mahajan Printers, Maujpur, Delhi.
15.9 MODEL QUESTIONS
Q.1 Define Political System & discuss its main characteristics?
Q.2 Define Political System and discuss its functions according to Almond?

---00---
Director : Professor Harsh Gandhar
Department Co-ordinator : Dr. Kamla
Course Leader : Dr. Kamla

Class : B.A. Sem.- I,

SUBJECT: POLITICAL SCIENCE
(iii) Introductory Letter
(iv) Syllabus

CONTENTS

L.No. Title Author Page

UNIT -I
1 Political Science: Meaning, Definition Kanwar Deep Singh 1
and Scope
2 Relationship of Political Science with History Kanwar Deep Singh 19
and Economics

3 Relationship of Political Science with Sociology Dr.Emanual Nahar 29

UNIT -II
4 The State Shayama 34

5 Theories of the Origin of the State: Dr.Nirmal Singh 47

Social Contract Theory
6 Theories of the Origin of the State: Historical/ Dr.Kamla 65
Evolutionary Theory of the Origin of the State
UNIT- III
7 State: Liberal View Dr.Nirmal Singh 71

8 State: Marxian View Dr.Nirmal Singh 82

9 State: Gandhian View Dr.Kamla 94

10 Welfare State: A Neo-Liberal Perspective Navneet Kaur 106

L.No. Title Author Page

UNIT- IV
11 Welfare State: A Socialist Perspective Navneet Kaur 118
12 Sovereignty: Definition, Attributes and Types Prof. Surinder K. Shukla/ 127
Dr.Emanual Nahar
13 Sovereignty: Monoistic and Pluralist Prof. Surinder K. Shukla/ 138
Dr.Emanual Nahar
14 Political System: Meaning and Characteristics Suman Gupta 144
15 Political System: Almond and Powell’s Suman Gupta 156
Structural Functional Analysis

Vetter :Dr. Kamla

E-Mail of Department - [email protected]

Contact No. Of Department - 0172-2534332
 (i)

INTRODUCTORY LETTER

Dear Learner,
We welcome you on joining the Ist Semester of B.A. in CDOE. We
congratulate you on opting political science as an elective paper.This paper will
open new avenues for Employment. This will help you in clearing competitive
Exams like UPSC and will also provide you a solid base if you choose Journalism
and other profession like this.
In B.A. Ist, through this paper you will be able to understand the basic
concepts and theories of state like Gandhism, Liberalism and Marxism. Apart
from studying writer material, CDOE also organises Person Contact Programme
with the ‘objective’ of Personal Interaction of the students with the teachers to
solve these problems.
With Best Wishes

Dr.Kamla
Dptt. Of Political Science
CDOE
 (ii)

POLITICAL SCIENCE
B.A. (GENERAL) FIRST YEAR (SEMESTER SYSTEM) SYLLABUS
SEMESTER - I POLITICAL THEORY-I
Max. Marks: 100
Theory: 90 marks
Internal Assessment: 10 marks
Time: 3 hours
Objectives: The objective of this paper is to introduce first year undergraduate
students to some of the basic aspects, concepts and themes in the
discipline of PoliticalScience.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PAPER-SETTER AND THE CANDIDATES:
(a) There shall be 9 questions in all.
(b) In Question No. One, 15 short answer type questions be asked spreading
over whole syllabus to be answered in 10-20 words each. The students
shall have to attempt 9 short answer type questions i.e. 2 marks of each.
It shall carry 18 marks and shall be a compulsory question.
(c) Rest of the paper shall contain 4 Units. Each Unit shall have two
questions and the candidates shall be given internal choice. The
candidates shall attempt one question from each Unit i.e. 4 in all of 18
marks each.
(d) For private and reappear candidates, who have not been assessed earlier
for internal assessment, the marks secured by them in theory paper will
proportionately be increased to maximum marks of the paper in lieu of
internal assessment.
The paper-setter must put note (d) in the question paper.
Unit-I
1. Political Sciene: Meaning, Definition and Scope.
2. Relationship of Political Science with Economics, History and Sociology.
Unit-Il
1. The State: Definition, Elements and its Distinction from Government and Society.
2. (iii)Contract, Historical/Evolutionary.
Theories of the Origin of State: Social
Unit-III
1. State:Liberal, Marxian and Gandhian View.
2. Welfare State: Liberal and Socialist Prespective
 Unit-IV
1. Sovereignty: Definition, Attributes/Characteristics and Types.
2. Theories of Sovereignty: Monistic and Pluralistic.
3. Political System : a) Meaning, Characteristics.
Political System : b) Functions according to David Easton Almond & Powell.
Books Recommended :
1. J.C. Johri : Principles of Modern Political
Science,Sterling Publishers, New Delhi,
2009.
2. A.C. Kapoor : Principles of Political Science, S. Chand &
Company, New Delhi, 2009.
3. O.P. Gauba : An Introduction to Political
Theory,MacmillanIndiaLtd., New
Delhi,2009.
4. Andrew Heywood : Political Ideologies : An lntroduction,Third
Edition, Palgrave MacMillan, 2004.
5. RobertA. Dahl& Bruce S. : Modern Political Analysis,Sixth Edition,
FinebricKner Pearson Education, 2003.
6. Frank Bealey, Richard Chapman : Elements in Political
and Michael Sheehan Science,EdinburghUniversity Press,
Edinburgh, 1999.
7. Andrew Heywood : Political Theory:Anlntroduction,Macmillan
Press, London, 1999.
8. Aron I. Skoble&Fiber R. Maclian : Political Philosophy
(eds.) :EssentialSelections,Pearson Education,
1999.
9. Andrew Heywood : Politics, Macmillan, London, 1997.
10. M.P. Jain : Political Theory, Authors Guild Publication,
Delhi (Punjabi & Hindi) 1990.
11. S.P. Verma : Political Theory,Geetanjali Publishing
House, New Delhi, 1983.

Lesson-1

POLITICAL SCIENCE: MEANING, DEFINITION AND

SCOPE
Structure:
1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Origin and Evolution of Political Science as an Independent Discipline
1.3 Important Definitions of Political Science
1.4 Meaning of Political Science: Traditional View
1.5 Meaning of Political Science: Modern View
1.6 Nature of Political Science
1.7 Scope of Political Science
1.8 Summary
1.9 Glossary
1.10 Further Readings
1.11 Model Questions
1.0 OBJECTIVES:
After reading this lesson, you will be able to :
 trace the origin and evolution of Political Science as an Independent
Subject
 understandthe meaning of Political Science according to Traditional and
Modern Views.
 explain the Nature of Political Science
 discuss the Scope of Political Science
1.1 INTRODUCTION
We all are acquainted with the term ‘Political Science’. Ever since man started
living an organized social life, Politics has come to play a very important role. As we all
know, Political Science is concerned with different political activities of human beings.
However, at different stages of history Political Science has connoted different meanings
and its scope is continuously widening. Though Political Science has been discussed by
different political thinkers since ancient time, the history of Political Science as an
academic discipline is not very old. Besides, Political Science is also linked with different
other disciplines.
Political Science found its first systematic exposition in the writings of Greek
Philosophers. Plato (427-347 B.C.) and Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) were the two early
Greek Political philosophers who made far reaching and lasting contributions in the field
of Political Science. In his famous book the Republic, Plato justified moral significance of
the state, its organic unity, its educational functions and above all its supremacy over the
individuals. Aristotle is said to be the intellectual child of Plato and in his famous book
the Politics, he first developed a systematic study of Political Science as an independent
academic discipline.
 The Greeks were the first people who developed Political Science in the pure
and systematic form. Sub-sequently, it spread over all other countries and its study has
assumed great importance in modern times. The term Politics was first used by Aristotle
and he called it “the master science”. The word Politics is derived from the Greek word
polis meaning a city. To the Greeks the city was the state and the subject that dealt with
the City-State and its problems was designated as politics.
1.2 ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AS AN
INDEPENDENT DISCIPLINE
The primary development of political science originated from the time of Plato.
Greek Philosopher who systematically analyzed the political system of the ancient state
of Greece. Plato and Aristotle were two political scientists in the ancient Greece who
continuously quest for the systematic analysis on the political system of the city-state.
Although, Aristotle was the Father of Political Science, the work of Plato on “The
Republic” gave him the recognition as the parent of political philosophy. The “Republic”
was the first systematic study of the political process that generated the ideal of elite
politicians who used more on rationality to govern the state.
On the other hand, Aristotle was the first political scientist who excelled in the
field of science, logic and politics. He was Greek philosopher who was also a student of
Plato and known to be the tutor of Alexander the Great. Aristotle made generalization
about the political consequences of the various constitutional processes. Aristotle is
regarded as the Father of Political Science, because of his far reaching and permanent
contributions in the field of political Science.His political advocacy was the establishment
of written rules of governance and made comprehensive analysis of the political culture
of the community. As result of the evolving principles and concepts of political science,
the original ideas of Plato and Aristotle on government and state had fully realized in the
systematic study of political organizations and institution in the contemporary time. The
political manifestation of the idea of Aristotle generated the fundamental study on the law
of the land through the formulation, enactment and application of constitution. As a
written law of the state, it provides information of the basic political structure, processes
and systems of governance.
Later, Christian religious thinkers like St. Augustine and St.Thomas Aquinas, also
dwelt upon the idea of an ideal state and sought to derive moral and ethical principles
regarding the same. Accordingly, in the classical (Greek) and Christian formulations,
Political Science was more in the realm of political philosophy focusing on the study of
state.
In the fifteenth century, Niccolo Machiavelli, the Italian political thinker, started
the tradition of studying existing and historical political institutions. It marked a departure
from the classical and Christian traditions of political philosophy. Efforts were made to
identify institutional arrangements that would maintain social order and political stability.
Accordingly, political thinkers subsequently tried to deal with the historical origins of
different political institutions and their structural frameworks.
In 15th century, Jean Bodin (1530-1596) finally coined the term “Political
Science” based on the organization of institution related to law. It must be noted that the
contemporary definition of political science entails in the application of law in the different
branches of government. However, a more complete definition of political science when
Montesquieu (1689-1755) describe it as the distribution of the different function among
separate organizations along legislation, execution and adjudication of law.
 However, it must be mentioned here that the origin of Political Science as an
academic discipline is not very old. Many thinkers have contributed towards the growth
of Political Science as a discipline. In this context, the name of Francis Lieber, who was
a professor of History and Political Science at Columbia University, needs special
mention. His work ‘Civil Liberty and Self Government’ has made significant contribution
towards the growth of Political Science as an academic discipline. Another landmark in
the growth of Political Science was the establishment of a School of Political Science at
Columbia University at the initiative of John. W. Burgess in 1880. It was called the
Faculty of Political Science. In 1886 this school inaugurated the Political Science
Quarterly which was the first scholarly journal of Political Science as a discipline. It
heralded a new era in the growth of the discipline as it gave scholars a new platform to
express their views in writing.
The establishment of Johns Hopkins University in 1876 was another milestone in
the growth of Political Science. In this context, the establishment of Johns Hopkins
Historical and Political Science Association in 1877 and The Johns Hopkins Studies in
Historical and Political Science are worth mentioning. Accordingly, the above two
universities- Columbia and Johns Hopkins, contributed significantly towards the growth
of Political Science as an academic discipline. The studies and research carried out in
these universities also widened the scope of Political Science which was earlier confined
to the study of political institutions and historical origin. The subject subsequently began
to embrace various concepts like rights, justice, law, sovereignty while analyzing the
functioning of governments. The political thinkers also started discussing the merits and
demerits of various forms of governments, political institutions etc.
The establishment of the American Political Science Association in 1903
provided a boost towards the strengthening of Political Science as a discipline. It soon
became a leading organization for the study of political science and provided a platform
for different scholars, departments and institutions from the discipline of Political
Science. It also widened the scope of Political Science beyond the study of political
philosophy and institutions.
During the 1920s, Political Science made a paradigm shift in the form of the
positivist movement. It sought to make the study of Political Science scientific by
applying empirical and statistical methods. The Social Science Research Council was
chartered in 1923 to encourage scientific research in Economics, Sociology and Political
Science. The positivist movement culminated in the behavioural revolution of the 1950s.
The growth of behaviouralism can be regarded as the major landmark in the growth of
Political Science as a discipline. The behaviouralists put emphasis on making the study
of Political Science scientific. They were influenced by the developments and research in
different disciplines and they tried to make the study of Political Science inter-
disciplinary. In order to draw scientific conclusions the behaviouralism advocated the use
of statistical methods and tools in the study of Political Science. Thus, with the
emergence of behaviouralism the character of Political Science had changed to a large
extent. Behaviouralism shifted the focus of Political Science from the study of political
institutions to the study of day –to day behaviour of the individuals in a political society.
Political thinkers like David Easton, Charles E. Merriam, Arthur Bentley contributed
significantly through their writings and research towards the growth of behavioural
revolution in Political Science.
After the Second World War and in the early fifties of the twentieth century,
Political Science was highly influenced by sociologists like Tocqueville, G. Mosca, Max
Weber, Talcott Parsons etc. Such an interaction between political scientists and
sociologists helped to bring the study of Political Science closer to society. For instance,
the concept of the state, which had been central to Political Science, gave way to the
new concept of the “political system,” developed by David Easton. The new concept
highlighted the interaction between the society and the political process. During this
period the behavioural revolution in Political Science became popular and various
methods of research and techniques of data collection were identified by the political
thinkers. The Social Science Research Council of United States set up in the early
twenties of twentieth century continued to play an important role in popularizing
behavioural ideas in the post Second World War era.
Political Science entered a new phase towards the late 1960s in the form of the
Post-behavioural revolution. The rise of behaviouralism clearly introduced a scientific
vigour in the study of political phenomena. However, it soon came to be realized that too
much emphasis was being laid on adoption of scientific techniques in the field of Political
Science. In the process, Political Science was losing touch with the real social and
political issues. Therefore, post-behaviouralists made an effort to make Political Science
relevant to the society. However, it must be remembered that post-behaviouralism
cannot be separated from behviouralism as it has emerged out of behaviouralism.
Through using different techniques and methods, the post-behaviouralists have tried to
overcome the drawbacks of behaviouralism and make the study of Political Science
more relevant to the society. Thus, we can see that the Political Science which emerged
as a study of the state and government has undergone tremendous changes in the later
period. Because of the contribution of different scholars its scope is widening and its
nature is changing. In the present time, the focus of Political Science shifts from the
study of the state and government to the political system as a whole.
Many books have been written on Political Science by the eminent writers and
different definitions have been given.Asper usual of these definitions shows that the
authors themselves do not have very clear-cut views and they find it difficult to give
precise definitions. Evidently, describing the contents of a subject is easier than giving a
precise definition. Many political ideas have been developed and accumulated in course
of time. It is difficult to put different ideas within a limited scope of single definition.When
one examines an array of standard definitions, one is bound to be staggered at the
nature of their diversity. This diversity in defining Political Science is due to the varying
scope of Political Science in different times. Since its emergence as a scientific study,
Political Science has been growing in its scope. Hence the old definitions of Political
Science cannot suit the twenty-first century version of Political Science. One may further
examine some standard definitions of Political Science, given by eminent political
scientists.
1.3 Important Definitions of Political Science
 Gettell- Political Science deals with the associations of human beings
that form Political units with the organization of their governments and
with the activities of thesegovernment in making and administering law in
carrying on inter-state relations.
 Bluntschli- Political Science is the science which is concerned with the
State, which endeavours to understand and comprehend the state in its
fundamental conditions, in its essential nature, its various forms of
manifestations and development.
  Caitlin- For the text books, politics means either the activities of political
life or the study of these activities. And these activities are generally
treated as activities of the various organs of government.
 Seeley- Political Science investigates the phenomena of Government in
the same manner as Political Economy deals with wealth, biology with
life, Algebra with numbers and Geometry with space and magnitude.
 Laski-The study of Politics concerns itself with the life of man in relation
to organized states.
 David Easton-Political Science is concerned with the authoritative
allocation of values in a society.
 Harold Lasswell- Politics is the science of who gets what, when any why.
 Lasswell and Kaplan- “Political Science is the study of shaping and
sharing of power”.Lasswell regards political science as “policy
science’.He gives a positivist and non-normative meaning to the definition
of politics. He also writes, “The study of politics is the study of influence
and the influential. The science of politics states conditions; the
philosophy of politics justifies preferences.”
 Max Weber– “the struggle for power or influencing of those in power.”
Further, it includes within its study the struggle between the State and the
individuals and between the organised groups and the State.
 Bryce-Politics is the conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
 Hillman:Politics is the science of who gets what, when and why.
 Bottomore:Political institutions are concerned with the distribution of
powers in society.
 Garner- The meaning of the term “politics” is confined to that of the
business and activity which has to do with the actual conduct of affairs of
the State.
1.4 MEANING OF POLITICAL SCIENCE: TRADITIONAL VIEW
According to the traditional Political Scholars, Political Science was mainly the
study of State and Government.They focused on legal, institutional and structural
aspects of State Government and Law.
According to the traditional view:
v. The State is the central theme of Political Science. Political Science
studies about the State, its origin, its nature, its functions and so on.
Hence, Political Science may also be defined as : a historical
investigation of what the State has been, an analytical study of what the
State is and a politico ethical speculation of what the State ought to
be.Political Science, as narrowly conceived, is the science of the State.
As it is a study about the State, it makes an enquiry into the origin of the
State and the political authority. In this sense, it is a historical
investigation about the origin of the State.Political Science also studies
 about the structure and functioning of the State, Governments, inter-state
organization, etc. In this sense, it is an analytical study of what the State .
vi. Political Science does not confine its area to the past and present study
of states only. It also attempts to formulate principles of good government
or in other words, it suggests what the State ought to be.
vii. Political Science not only deals with the State and government, but also
deals with law. Men should be ruled by law. Law is necessary to regulate
social life and without law there would be chaos and confusion. Law
regulates and controls the behaviour of the man. It prevents anarchy.
Hence, Political Science deals with the State, Government and law.
viii. Political Science is a social science. As a social science, it deals with
relationship of man with man. It also makes an attempt to explore the
ideal relationship between man and the State. Aristotle rightly said; “The
State originates in the bare needs of life and continues for the sake of
good life.”How man should adjust himself with society is a major concern
of political science. It deals with freedom of individuals. Maximum State
intervention leads to loss of liberty. How individual liberty should be
safeguarded is an eternal problem in political science.
Thus, according to traditional political scientists,Political science is mainly: a
study about the State and the Government. It makes an enquiry into the origin of the
state. Political Science also studies the structure and functioning of the state government
inter-state organizations etc. In this sense it is an analytical study of what the state is. It
also attempts to formulate principles of good government, or in other words it suggests
what the state ought to be. It is sometimes said that Political Science deals with the
reality, while political philosophy tries to determine what they ought to do in keeping with
the ultimate good or purpose of human life. Political philosophy may properly be
recognized by its critical function. Political Science is concerned with the theoretical
explanation of Political reality, namely the phenomenon of the State. It attempts to
discuss the forms of political organization and logical justification of the state. It studies
the relationship between the sate and the individual
1.5 MEANING OF POLITICAL SCIENCE: MODERN VIEW
Political Science, is the systematic study of governance by the application of
empirical and generally scientific methods of analysis.As traditionally defined and
studied, political science examines the state and its organs and institutions. The
contemporary discipline, however, is considerably broader than this, encompassing
studies of all the societal, cultural, and psychological factors that mutually influence the
operation of government and the body politic.
 The term Politics has acquired a new meaning in the context of
advancements of late made in the discipline of Political Science. It hinges
upon the political activity carried on human environment, in time and
space, and thus a product of economy, the society, history and
geography. Political activity is based on agreement and whenever there is
freedom a great deal of politics is likely to be found. This follows because
men have diverse views, interests and characteristics.
 Political Science is the systematic study of governance by the application
of empirical and generally scientific methods of analysis. As traditionally
 defined and studied, political science examines the state and its organs
and institutions. The contemporary discipline, however, is considerably
broader than this, encompassing studies of all the societal, cultural, and
psychological factors that mutually influence the operation of government
and the body politic
 Political Science is a scientific study of the State – its nature, condition,
origin and developments – and government, their functions and purposes
and the institutions they foster in order to make the task of “good life”
possible. A student of Political Sciences will know something of society
whose political system is involved, its history and traditions, its physical
and human environments in order to assess to what extent the existing
intuitions fulfil the aspirations of the people and help in achieving the goal
of good life.
 The term politics now-a-days refers to the problems of government. As
such now-a-days a politician means a man who is interested in the
current problems of the day and not necessarily in the study of the state-
its nature, origin and characteristics. He is not a student of political
science but a member of political party. His activity is confined to the
actual conduct of the government. He works either in the policy-making
office or law-making legislature, or in the office or platform of the party he
belongs. But a political scientist is a student of political science; he is
concerned with the body of knowledge relating to the phenomena of the
state. His place of work is not the office of the government or the party but
the library. Thus between a politician and political scientist there may not
necessarily be a conflict, but their function are quite separate. So, though
there is a difference between the politician and political scientist, the view
that 'there must always be a conflict between the politician and the
political scientist' is not correct. In fact, to be a good politician, a man
must be first a political scientist. A man may simultaneously prove himself
a politician and political scientist.
 Robert Dahl is of the opinion that every human association has a political
aspect and it is in this context that he defines political system. A political
system, he says, “is any persistent pattern of human relationship that
involves, to a significant extent, power, rule, or authority”. He would,
accordingly include in his definition of a political system all sorts of human
associations, as private clubs, business firms, religious organizations, civil
groups, primitive tribes, clans, “perhaps even families”.W.WWilloughby-
Political Science is the science which has for its object the ascertainment
of political facts and arrangement of them in systematic order as
determined by the logical and casual relations which exist between them.
According to Paul Janet, Political Science “is that part of social science
which treats the foundations of the State and principles of government
have their roots in the past and their branches swing towards the future. It
is a systematic study which goes deep into the political problems of
yesterday for the benefit of today and utilizes the wisdom gained there
form for the aspirations of better tomorrow.
 Politics, as such, is striving to share power, or to influence its distribution
as well as the actual exercise of such power. Lasswell and Kaplan,
 according, definite Politics “as an empirical discipline, (as) the study of
the shaping and sharing of power” and “a political act (as) one performed
in power perspectives” in every phase of the society.
 Politics is, thus, a struggle for power on all the three levels it can be
looked at- State, intra-State and inter-State- and it is of the same species.
The role of leadership as well as the struggle for leadership is inherent in
the game of politics. It follows that every society or group requires some
power over other people which is recognized by a sufficiently large
number of people as legitimate and acceptable to them.
 Political science is the scientific designation of the subject of our study, and
this name has been accepted by the political scientists drawn from various
countries. It covers the whole range of knowledge regarding the political
governance of man.
1.6 NATURE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
Political Science is a study about the State. It makes an enquiry into the origin of
the State and political authority. In this sense, it is a historical investigation about the
origin of the State. Political Science also studies the structure and functioning of the
State, governments, inter-State organisations, etc.In this sense, it is an analytical study
of what the State is, Garner has rightly said that “Political Science begins with the State
and ends with the State”. But Political Science does not confine its area to the past and
present States only. It also attempts to formulate principles of good government or in
other words, it suggests what the State ought to be. It is therefore, a study of past,
present and future of the State.
However, the study of Political Science is wider than the activities of the
State.Upson writes “More limited than politics is the concept of the state.” The point that
politics is broader than the state can be easily demonstrated. Wherever the State exists,
there is also politics. But the reverse is not true-that wherever politics exists, so does the
State. We can rightly speak of international politics but we know that there is not as yet a
super national state.
Modern View
The recent view is that political science is not confined to an enquiry about the
state; it also deals with the social and psychological factors which influence the activities
of men in the state. It has to take into consideration the social science like sociology,
psychology, economics, ethics and history. The UNESCO in the definition of the scope
of political science included not only political theory and institutions, but also parties,
public opinions and international relations. Thus it becomes obvious that political science
has to study not only state but also the society as a whole in so far as it is related to the
various institutions of the state.
 Politics is a Science
Politics is considered as science on the following grounds.
 Politics can be studied in a systematic manner.
 It is said that experimentation is possible in politics.
 Political Science, like other Sciences, has absolute and universal laws.
  It is possible to make predictions in politics, but in a limbed are. (5).These
are certain principles and methods on which political thinkers
unanimously agree.
 Politics is a subject which has scientific nature.
Writers like J.S. Hill, Maitland, Collin, Barker, etc, maintain that is only on art.
Politics is not considered as science on the following grounds
 Politics is not a Science
 Politics has no absolute and universal laws like physical sciences or exact
sciences.
 It does not observe the theory of cause and effect which is the basis of all
Sciences.
 The subject of politics has not developed in a steady, regular and
continuous manner.
 Scientific methods of observation and experimentation cannot be applied
to politics.
Political Science is neither an exact science nor can it claim to predict the future
with certainty. The results in physical sciences, like Physics and Chemistry, are definite
and remain true under given conditions for all men and different claims. If there is any
variation, it can be tested and explained. But it isnot possible to impose precise
laboratory conditions on the political sphere in real life. Political Science deals with men
and it is a living subject matter which can be explained in terms of living human activity.
It cannot be expressed in fixed or static formulae. Man is dynamic and so must his
institutions be.
Political Science and Political Theory
As a discipline political science is much more comprehensive and includes
different forms of speculation in politics such as political through, political theory, political
philosophy, political ideology, institutional or structural frame work comparative politics,
public administration, international law and organization. With the rise of Political
Science as a separate discipline, political theory was made one of its subfields.
However, when used specifically with emphasis on science as distinct from theory,
Political Science refers to the study of Political Science refers to the study of politics by
the use of scientific methods in contrast to political philosophy which is free of follow
institution. Political theory on the other hand is not only concerned about the
behavioural study of the political phenomena from empirical point of vie but also
prescribing the goals which states governments, societies, and citizens ought to pursue.
Political theory also aims to generalize about the right conduct in the political life and
about the legitimate use of power. Political theory is neitghted pure thought nor
philosophy nor science. While it draws distinct from them. Contemporary political theory
is trying to attempt a synthesis between political philosophy and political science.
Although political science borrows heavily from the other social sciences, it is
distinguished from them by its focus on power—defined as the ability of one political
actor to get another actor to do what it wants—at the international, national, and local
levels. Although political science overlaps considerably with political philosophy, the two
fields are distinct. Political philosophy is concerned primarily with political ideas and
values, such as rights, justice, freedom, and political obligation (whether people should
or should not obey political authority); it is normative in its approach (i.e., it is concerned
with what ought to be rather than with what is) and rationalistic in its method. In contrast,
political science studies institutions and behaviour, favours the descriptive over the
normative, and develops theories or draws conclusions based on empirical observations,
which are expressed in quantitative terms where possible.
Although political science, like all modern sciences, involves empirical
investigation, it generally does not produce precise measurements and predictions. This
has led some scholars to question whether the discipline can be accurately described as
a science. However, if the term science applies to any body of systematically organized
knowledge based on facts ascertained by empirical methods and described by as much
measurement as the material allows, then political science is a science, like the other
social disciplines. In the 1960s the American historian of science Thomas S.
Kuhn argued that political science was “pre-paradigmatic,” not yet having developed
basic research paradigms, such as the periodic table that defines chemistry. It is likely
that political science never will develop a single, universal paradigm or theory, and
attempts to do so have seldom lasted more than a generation, making political science a
discipline of many trends.

Self Assessment Questions

Q1. Define Political Science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q2. “Political Science is not a Science”. Explain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.7 SCOPE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

There is no general agreement on the nature and scope of Political Science, “the
master science” as Aristotle described it, since there is no generally accepted definition
of the discipline, and its organizing concept, the State.In fact, there are as many
definitions as there are writers on the subject and all these definitions give to the entity-
the State-different meanings and conflicting roles.
Some writers restrict the scope of Political Science to the study of the State
alone, for example, Bluntschli. All such writers exclude the study of government from the
scope of political science deals only with government. Karl W. Deutsch says, “Because
Politics, the making of decisions by public means, it is primarily concerned with
government, that is, with the direction and self-direction of large communities of the
people.” According to Robson, “The purpose of political science is to throw light on
political ideas and political action so that the government of man may be improved.”
Harold Laski takes a more realistic view and emphasizes that the scope of political
Science embraces the study of both the State and Government, tough he maintains that
the State in reality means the government.
The scope of Political Science implies its jurisdiction or subject matter. Political
Science is a very wide and comprehensive subject. There is no agreement among the
Political Scientists as regard to the scope of Political Science. Despite this
disagreement, we may make an attempt to define the scope of Political Science which
includes the followings:.
14. Study of the State and Government
Political Science primarily studies the problems of the State and Government.
The state is defined as a group of people organised for law within definite territory. The
State possesses four characteristics, viz. Population, territory, government and
sovereignty. Government is an agent of the Stale. Political Science studies the activities
of the State and explains the aims and objectives of the State and government.
 Study of the State in historical perspective.
 Study of origin and evolution ofState.
 Study and analyses of functions of state at different periods of time.
 Study of the modern form of state.
 Study of different forms of Government, its specialized agencies and their
functions.
 Study of relationship between the people and the government.
The State is a people organized for law within a definite territory. This entity, the
sovereign political unity of life, orders and compels obedience by punishing those who
violate it commands. But no State acts by itself. There must be present in every State
some men or body of men competent to issue orders on its behalf and to see that they
are actually obeyed. That is the Government. This is, however, the conventional field of
functions of the government. The modern government has emerged as an active and
positive agent in the direction of affairs of all communities. In the older democracies, and
still more in the newer developing States as well as in the Communist countries,
government is looked on as a major, or even the dominant, organizing power in society.
A description of the State must, therefore, include the study of the structure and
functions of government.
Traditionally, the study of political values- of what, for example, ought to be the
political structure and what political goals ought to be sought-has been the field of
political philosophers. A main concern of the modern political philosophers is the study of
great thinkers of the past- PLato, Aristotle ,Machivelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau among
other. In the process he will analyse such value words as ‘Justice’, ‘rights’, ‘freedom’.
This activity is currently supplemented by the study of values as political facts.
The State, all the same, remains the central subject of the study of Political
Science as the whole mechanisms ofgovernment emerges from and revolves around
this entity. The need for government arises because there had been and there is need
for the state. The need for the State is deeply embedded in the compelling necessities of
human life and the advantages accruing from dwelling together on a defined territory and
sharing the benefits of political life.
When the State plays such a vital role in the life of man, it becomes all the more
important to know it in all its aspects: what the State has been what it is, and what it
ought to be. The State, as it is, refers to its existing structure and the analysis of the
principles and practices of modern governments. But what the State is can only be
understood by knowing what it had been. As we have seen, the study of the origin of the
State, its evolution, and the development of the mechanism through which it functions.
 All this elates to the study of the State as it ought to be. Here Political Science
enters the realm of political ethics and studies the moral problems of mankind in order to
establish the principles of collective morality. We consider and evaluate the pruposes
and ends of the State and the fundamental topics involved in such a study are: the
ethical foundations of authority; the nature and limits of political obligation; the rights and
freedoms of the individuals, groups and nations and an examination of the entire body-
politic from the point of view of the ultimate end of human life.
15. Study of relations of the individuals with the State
Relationship between an individual and a state is an interaction in which an
individual owes allegiance to that state, and in turn is entitled to its protection.
Citizenship implies the status of freedom with accompanying responsibilities. Citizens
have certain rights, duties, and responsibilities that are denied or only partially extended
to aliens and other noncitizens residing in a country. In general, full political rights,
including the right to vote and to hold public office, are predicated upon citizenship. The
usual responsibilities of citizenship are allegiance, taxation and military service.
16. Comparative Politics
Comparative Politics focuses on politics within countries (often grouped into
world regions) and analyses similarities and differences between various constitutions,
political processes, structures, political functions and political environment. Comparative
politics is a field and a method used in political science, characterized by
an empirical approach based on the comparative method. In other words comparative
politics is the study of the domestic politics, political institutions, and conflicts of
countries. It often involves comparisons among countries emphasizing key patterns of
similarity and difference
17. International Relations
International relations (IR) is the study of relationships among countries,the roles
of sovereignstates, inter-governmental organizations (IGO), internationalnon-
governmental organizations(INGO), non-governmentalorganizations (NGO),
andmultinational corporations (MNC). International relations is an academic and a public
policy field, and so can be positive and normative. It analyzes and formulates the foreign
policy of a given State.
The scope of Political Science includes a study of International relation is which
has become significant since the first quarter of the 20 th century. It covers a wide range
of subjects and includes diplomacy, international law, international organizations, lie the
U.N. etc. because of scientific inventions and discoveries, the cooperation and contact
among different nations of the world have become easier and the whole world turns to
be a family.
18. Study of International Law
Basically defined, International Law is simply the set of rules that countries follow
in dealing with each other.International law is the set of rules generally regarded and
accepted as binding in relations between states and between nations.It serves as a
framework for the practice of stable and organized international relations.International
law differs from state-based legal systems in that it is primarily applicable to countries
rather than to private citizens. National law may become international law
when treatiesdelegate national jurisdiction to supranational tribunals such as
the European Court of Human Rights or the International Criminal Court. Treaties such
as the Geneva Conventions may require national law to conform.International Law, also
called Public International Law or Law of Nations, the body of legal rules, norms, and
standards that apply between sovereign states and other entities that are legally
recognized as international actors.
19. Political Theory
Political theory is the study of the concepts and principles that people use to
describe, explain, and evaluate political events and institutions. Traditionally, the
discipline of political theory has approached this study from two different perspectives:
the history of political thought, and contemporary political philosophy. Political Theory
includes classical political philosophy and contemporary theoretical perspectives (e.g.,
constructivism, critical theory, and postmodernism).
20. Public Administration
Public administration is the implementation of government policy and also an
academic discipline that studies this implementation and prepares civil servants for
working in the public service. As a field of inquiry with a diverse scope, its fundamental
goal is to advance management and policies so that government can function. Public
administration is centrally concerned with the organization of government policies and
programmes as well as the behavior of officials (usually non-elected) formally
responsible for their conductstudies the role of the bureaucracy. It includes instruction in
the roles, development, and principles of public administration; the management of
public policy; executive-legislative relations; public budgetary processes and financial
management; administrative law; public personnel management; professional ethics.
Public Adminstrationis the field most oriented toward practical applications within political
science and is often organized as a separate Department that prepares students for
careers in the civil service.
21. Public Policy
Public policy is the principled guide to action taken by the
administrative executive branches of the state with regard to a class of issues in a
manner consistent with law and institutional customs. In general, the foundation is the
pertinent national and substantial constitutional law and implementing legislation such as
the US Federal code. Further substrates include both judicial interpretations
and regulations which are generally authorized by legislation. It examines the passage
and implementation of all types of government policies, particularly those related to civil
rights, defense, health, education, economic growth, urban renewal, regional
development, and environmental protection.
22. Study of Political Theory
Political theory is a major branch of Political Science. On the basis of the political
ideas or thoughts of political thinkers, political theory formulates definitions or concepts
like democracy, liberty, equality, grounds of political institutions including government,
explains their merits and demerits, their structure and working and arrives at different
conclusions on comparative basis. A student of Political Science must start his lessons
with political theory. Political theory explains the rudimentary concepts of Political
Science. It also includes the study of political philosophy.
 Political theory is the study of the concepts and principles that people use to
describe, explain, and evaluate political events and institutions. Traditionally, the
discipline of political theory has approached this study from two different perspectives:
the history of political thought, and contemporary political philosophy. Political Theory
includes classical political philosophy and contemporary theoretical perspectives (e.g.,
constructivism, critical theory, and postmodernism).
23. Study of Political Dynamics
The study of political dynamics has become significant in the 20th century. It
means the current forces at work in government and politics. It covers a wide range and
includes the study of political parties, public opinion, pressure groups, lobbies, etc. A
scientific study of the working of these political dynamics helps to explain the political
behaviour of individuals and different groups. The study in this field is often done in
collaboration with other social sciences like sociology, anthropology and psychology.
24. Study of Political Institutions
Political institutions are organizations which create, enforce, and apply laws; that
mediate conflict; make (governmental) policy on the economy and social systems; and
otherwise provide representation for the populous. Examples of such political institutions
include political parties, trade unions, and the (legal) courts. The term 'Political
Institutions' may also refer to the recognized structure of rules and principles within
which the above organizations operate, including such concepts as the right to vote,
responsible government, and accountability.
For a long period the study essentially centered around the legislatures,
executives and judiciaries, the three institutions from making, carrying out and
interpreting the law. As the study developed and knowledge advanced, the area
extended to include political parties, bureaucracies, interest groups and other groups
engaged in politics which have a continuous existence. At a later stage , it was further
supplemented by how political communications work though press, radio, television,
discussions or meetings and how demands emerge and are formulated through interest
groups and political parties. The emphasis is on procedures and institutions through
which authoritative decisions are made, and the outcome of such decision-making in the
form of rule-making, rule-application and rule-adjudication.
25. Political Behaviour
Political behaviour may be defined as any action regarding authority in general
and government in particular. An obvious example of an act of political behaviour is the
act of voting. In casting your vote you are, in a democracy, relating to government by
voting for whom you feel should form the government. In this act of political behaviour,
you also decide who you do not want to form the government.
The term political behavioris very broadly defined to include not only tangible
forms of behavior (such as voting and participation), but also topics such as public
opinion, mass communications, political psychology, and more. Politicalbehaviour
focuses less on political institutions and more on the individuals and/or groups. Which is
not restricted to declared behviouralists,concentrates on the behaviour of the individuals
and groups within political institutions.
26. Political Socialization
 Political Socialization is the process by which political culture is transmitted in a
given society. It occurs at both the individual and community level, and it extends
beyond the acquisition of political culture to encompass the learning of more
sophisticated political ideas and orientations. Political socialization is a life long process
and a variety of individuals and institutions contribute to its shaping effect. For example,
individuals are politically socialized by such groups as their family, peers, and social
class. Furthermore, they are socialized by existing laws, media, religion, education, their
own gender, and more. Basically, the process is never ending and the factors which
shape it are all encompassing.
Those groups and institutions which contribute to the process of political
socialization are known as the agents of socialization. These sources affect the
development of political values and attitudes differently, but they all contribute to the
individual's understanding of and orientations toward politics. The primary agents of
socialization are those that directly develop specific political orientations such as the
family. Whereas, the secondary agents of socialization tend to be less personal and
involved in the process of socialization in a more indirect manner such as the media.
Political socialization is a lifelong process by which people form their ideas about
politics and acquire political values. The family, educational system, peer groups, and
the mass media all play a role. While family and school are important early in life, what
our peers think and what we read in the newspaper and see on television have more
influence on our political attitudes as adults.
The above contents show the wide range of subjects that come under the fold of
Political Science. Broadly speaking, political science contains the topics dealing with
both empirical facts and philosophical values. Questions of facts are concerned with
“what is” and those dealing with values are concerned with “what should be”. The
contents of political science fall in either of these two broad categories. It is the human
element or the livingness of the subject which makes Political Science a wide area of
study.
1.8 SUMMARY
Political Science, thus, enters into various fields and touches many horizons. The
process of specialization on the various aspects of the discipline, orientation of
methodology, importantly behavioural, and the interdisciplinary explanations has
together brought about radical change in the scope of the discipline. Political decisions
are not made in vacuum or due only to the personal idiosyncrasies of political factors.
Economic factors, the social structure, the class, status and stratification systems
influence both the content and mode of making political decisions.
The scope of Political Science implies its jurisdiction or subject matter. Political
Science is a very wide and comprehensive subject. A conference of political scientists
held under the auspices of the Inter-national Political Science Association in Paris in the
year 1948 demarcated the Scope of Political Science to four zones, namely Political
theory, Political Institutions, Political dynamics and international relations. Political
Scinece has been referred to as a Master Science- by Aristotle. Since then, this subject
has a history of noble growth. Over these years, such concepts like sovereignty,
revolution, liberty, equality, democracy etc. have been vividly dealt with political science.
So to speak, Political Science primarily deals with in the state and government. The
credit goes to Greeks for developing Political Science in this pure and systematic form.
 The study of Political dynamics has become significant in the 21st century. It
means the current forces at work in government and politics. It covers a wide range and
includes the study of political parties, public opinion, pressure groups. A scientific study
of the working of the political dynamics helps to explain the political behavior of
individuals and different groups. Political scientists like David Easton, Charles Lindblo
and Thomas R. Dye hold the view that Political Science is a Policy Science. This
concept of Public Policy is of recent origin. It is also a product of Post-Behaviouralism. It
deals with the implementation, execution and formation of policy. In this process the
formal political groups play a vital role. Thus the scope of Political Science has been
widened greater importance in recent times.
1.9 GLOSSARY
1) Government – the group of people with the authority to govern a
country of state.
2) NGO – Non government organization is an organization that
generally is formed independent from government.
1.10 FURTHER READINGS
• Johari, J. C. (1985).Principles of Modern Political Science. Sterling
Publishers, Pvt.Ltd.UP.
• Verma, S.P. (1975).Modern Political Theory.Vikas Publisher.
• Gauba, O.P (2016).An Introduction to Political Thought Mayer
Paperback.
1.11 MODEL QUESTIONS
3) Discuss the Meaning and Nature of Political Science.
4) How the scope of Political Science has widened in the modern era.
Discuss

---00---
 Lesson-2

RELATIONSHIP OF POLITICAL SCIENCE WITH HISTORY

AND ECONOMICS

Structure:

2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Meaning and Definition of History
2.3 Relationship of Political Science with History
2.4 Meaning and Definition of Economics
2.5 Relationship of Political Science with Economics
2.6 Summary
2.7 Glossary
2.8 Further Readings
2.9 Model Questions
2.0 OBJECTIVES:
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:
 understand the meaning of History and Economics as independent
disciplines.
 discuss and access the relationship of Political Science with other Social
Sciences viz.: History and Economics.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
It is of utmost importance for the proper understanding of any subject of inquiry to
establish its relationship with other subjects, to see clearly what elements of its
reasoning it has to take from them, and what in its turn it may claim to give them.
Political science is deeply related to all other social sciences, because knowledge that is
gained about any phase of human behavior and attitudes, about the institutions that men
build, or the ideas to which they respond, cannot fail to be of use in similar fields of
inquiry. Each social science-Sociology, History, Economics, Ethics, Psychology,
Geography and Political science- supplements and fortifies the rest. If we divide them
into different sciences, they are distinctions within a unity as all aim at the study of man
in society. All are inter-dependent and inter-related. Each contributes importantly
to the advancement of the other
2.2 MEANING AND DEFINITION OF HISTORY
History is the study of the past, specifically how it relates to humans. It is
an umbrella term that relates to past events as well as the discovery, collection,
organization, and presentation of information about these events. The term
includescosmic, geologic, and organic history, but is often generically implied to
mean human history. Scholars who write about history are called historians. There is no
universally agreed definition of history. It has been defined differently by different
historians
 According to the earliest definition of Aristotle, “History is an account of
the unchanging past.”
 E. H. Carr gives a very beautiful definition of history. He says — history is
an unending dialogue between the past and the present.
 According to H. G. Wells, “Human history is in essence a history of
ideas.”
According to Freud, “Historical records are a law of right and wrong.”
 Pt. Nehru says, “History is the story of man’s struggle through the ages
against nature and the elements; against wild beasts and the jungle and
some of his own kind who have tried to keep him down and to exploit him
for their own benefit. “
 Dr. Radhakrishnan says, “History is the memory of a nation or a race.”
 The best definition which is scientific to a great extent was given
byRapson. According to him, “History is a connected account of the
course of events of progress of ideas.”
History also refers to the academic discipline which uses a narrative to examine
and analyse a sequence of past events, and objectively determine the patterns of cause
and effect that determine them.Historians sometimes debate the nature of history and its
usefulness by discussing the study of the discipline as an end in itself and as a way of
providing perspective on the problems of the present
The modern study of history is wide-ranging, and includes the study of specific
regions and the study of certain elements of historical investigation. Often history is
taught as part of primary and secondary education, and the academic study of history is
a major discipline in University studies.
2.3 RELATIONSHIP OF POLITICAL SCIENCE WITH HISTORY
The state and its political intuitions grow instead of being made. They are the
product of history and in order to understand them fully one must necessarily know the
process of their evolution: how they have become what they are, and to what extent they
have responded to their original purposes. All our political institutions have a historical
basis as they depict the wisdom of generals. History furnishes sufficient material for
comparison and induction, enabling us to build an ideal political structure of our
aspirations.
History, in its turn, has much to borrow from Political Science. Our knowledge of
history is meaningless, if the political bearings of events and movements are not
adequately evaluated. The history of the nineteenth-century Europe, for example, is an
incomplete narration of facts unless full significance of the movements, like nationalism,
imperialism, individualism, socialism, etc., are brought out. Similarly, the history of
India’s independent is devoid of all logic, if we do not sufficiently explain the political
result of the rise of the Indian National Congress: the Muslim demand for separate
electorates; the benevolent despotism of the Government of India Act , 1909; Montagu’s
August 1917 Declaration; the Reforms of 1919 and the experiment with Diarchy. The
Cabinet Mission plan; the June 3, 1947, announcement; and the Independence Act,
1947.
Political Science, says Bryce, “stands midway between the past and the present. It has
drawn its material from the one, it has to apply them to the other.”.
The relationship between Political Science and History is very close and intimate.
John Seeley expressed this relationship in the following couplet-
“History without Political Science has no fruit,
Political Science without history has no root.”
 Hegel- “Political history is a concept of the state with a moral and spiritual
force beyond the material interests of its subjects: it followed that the
state was the main agent of historical change.”
 Willoughby.-History gives the third dimension of Political Science.
 Lord action- The science of politics is the one science that is deposited
by the stream of history like the grains of gold in the stands of a river.
 Freeman goes to the extent of saying that “History is Past Politics is
present history.”
Both Political Science and History are contributory and complementary.
XI. Political Science is, undoubtedly, dependent on History for its material,
but it supplies only a part of the marital.
XII. History is a chronological narration of events including wars, revolutions,
military campaigns, economic upheavals, religious and social movements
and the rest. A good part of this material is not required by Political
Science. The main concern of a political scientist is to study the evolution
of the political institutions and the facts which bear, directly or indirectly,
on the State and government, and its socio-economic problems.
XIII. History deals with concrete and matter of fact things. It presents to us not
only facts things. It presents to us not only facts, but the causal
connection between the facts. Political Science is speculative as well,
since it deals with what the State ought to be. This speculative character
of the subject necessitates the consideration of abstract types of political
institutions and laws. History has hardly anything to do with this aspect of
Political Science. Finally, the historian’s task is not to pass moral
judgments, but the political scientist is bound to do so. It is here that
political Science joins hands with Ethics and parts company with
Sociology, History and Economics.
XIV. Political Science uses historical facts to discover general law and
principles.
XV. Political Science stands midway between History and Politics.
 XVI. Political History is the narrative and analysis of political events, ideas,
movements and leaders.
XVII. It is usually structured around the nation state.
XVIII. History furnishes sufficient material for comparison and induction,
enabling us to build an ideal political structure of our aspirations. In the
absence of historical data, the study of Political Science is sure to
become entirely speculative.
XIX. The writings of historians, in brief, form a vast reservoir of material which
a student of Political Science can analyse into meaningful patterns and
guide him in understanding the present and outlining the future.
Moreover, with its chronological treatment, history offers a sense of
growth and development thereby providing a base or an insight into the
social changes.
XX. History, in its turn, has much to borrow from Political Science. Our
knowledge of history is meaningless, if the political bearings of events
and movements are not adequate evaluated. The history of the
nineteenth-century Europe, for example, is an incompletely narration of
facts unless full significance of the movements, like nationalism,
imperialism individualism, socialism, etc., are brought out.
The conclusion is obvious. Political science and History are two distinct
disciplines with separate problems, yet they have a common subject in the phenomena
of the State and, as such, their spheres touch at many point and overlap at others.
Leacock rightly remarks that some of History “is part of Political Science, the circle of
their content overlapping an area enclosed by each.” Our Political Institutions are the
product of history and in order to understand them fully one must necessarily know the
process of their evolution: how they have become what they are, and to what extent they
have responded to their original purposes. Both Political Science and History are
contributory and complementary. So intimate is the affinity between the two that Seeley
maintained: “Politics is vulgar when not liberalized by History, and History fades into
mere literature when it loses sight of its relation to Politics.
2.4 MEANING AND DEFINITION OF ECONOMICS
Political science and economics are social sciences. Political science is the study
of politics in theory and practice, while as well as dealing with subjects that often relate
to one another in everyday life. Political Science and Economics are commonly seen as
sister subjects in academic terms.
Economics
Theterm economics comes from the Ancient Greek οἰκονομία (oikonomia,
"management of a household, administration”) rules of the house(hold for good
management)". 'Political economy' was the earlier name for the subject, but economists
in the late 19th century suggested "economics" as a shorter term for economic science
to establish itself as a separate discipline outside of political science and other social
sciences.
Economics isthe social science that studies the behavior ofindividuals,
households,and organizations (called economic actors, players, or agents), when they
manage or use scarce resources, which have alternative uses, to achieve desired ends.
Agents are assumed to act rationally, have multiple desirable ends in sight, limited
resources to obtain these ends, a set of stable preferences, a definite overall guiding
objective, and the capability of making a choice.
There exists an economic problem, subject to study by economic science, when
a decision (choice) is made by one or more resource-controlling players to attain the
best possible outcome under bounded rational conditions. In other words, resource-
controlling agents maximize value subject to the constraints imposed by the information
the agents have, their cognitive limitations, and the finite amount of time they have to
make and execute a decision. Economic science centers on the activities of the
economic agents that comprise society. They are the focus of economic analysis.
Economics focuses on the behavior and interactions of economic agents and
how economies work. Consistent with this focus, primary textbooks often distinguish
between microeconomics and macroeconomics. Microeconomics examines the behavior
of basic elements in the economy, including individual agents and markets, their
interactions, and the outcomes of interactions. Individual agents may include, for
example, households, firms, buyers, and sellers.
Macroeconomics analyzes the entire economy (meaning aggregated production,
consumption, savings, and investment) and issues affecting it, including unemployment
of resources (labor, capital, and land), inflation, economic growth, and the public policies
that address these issues (monetary, fiscal, and other policies). Microeconomics is the
study of how individual consumers and businesses make production, purchasing,
investment, and saving choices. Macroeconomics looks at how an entire economy works
and the way policies can affect the combined effects of microeconomic decisions.
It can be argued that economics is a social science rather than a pure science,
because it is based around resolving an irresolvable dilemma: how to meet people's
unlimited wants with limited resources. economics is the study of how resources are
produced, allocated, and distributed. A study of economics can describe all aspects of a
country’s economy, such as how a country uses its resources, how much time laborers
devote to work and leisure, the outcome of investing in industries or financial products,
the effect of taxes on a population, and why businesses succeed or fail.
People who study economics are called Economists. Economists seek to
answer important questions about how people, industries, and countries can maximize
their productivity, create wealth, and maintain financial stability. Because the study of
economics encompasses many factors that interact in complex ways, economists have
different theories as to how people and governments should behave within markets
Adam Smith, known as the Father of Economics, established the first modern
economic theory, called the Classical School, in 1776. Many authors, Math and
business experts have defined what economics means to them. A selection of
their definitions are as follows:
Adam Smith (1776) defines the subject as "an inquiry into the nature and causes of the
wealth of nations,"
 Lionel Robbins -"Economics is a science which studies
human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which
have alternative uses."
 W. Stanley Jevons - "The mechanics of utility and self interest."
  Alfred Marshall - "A study of mankind in the ordinary business of life; it
examines that part of individual and social action which is most closely
connected with the attainment and with the use of the material requisites
of well-being. Thus it is on one side a study of wealth; and on the other,
and more important side, a part of the study of man."
 Paul Samuelson - "The study of how a person or society meets its
unlimited needs and wants through the effective allocation of resources."

Self-Assessment Questions
1. Define Economics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Define History.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.5 RELATIONSHIP OF POLITICAL SCIENCE WITH ECONOMICS

xx. Political Science and Economics are both social sciences and hence they
are closely connected. In the past, economics which was regarded as a
branch of Political Science was called political economy. Today the two
subjects have been separated and study different areas, but the areas
are closely related to each other. In the promotion of welfare both the
subjects go hand in hand.
xxi. Modern economists do not agree with the older point of view. They regard
Economics as a separate discipline, which seeks to inquire how man gets
his income and how he uses it. Alfred Marshall, the celebrated
economist, considers it “on the one side the study of the wealth and on
the other and more important side a part of the study of man.” Its scope is
the study of human welfare and includes a discussion on Consumption,
Production, Exchange, and Distribution- the four pillars on which the
edifice of economics is built.
xxii. In spite of its treatment as a separate discipline, there is now no
difference of opinion that Political Science and Economics are auxiliary to
one another. Man in society is a common factor in the study of both these
sciences and it is the welfare of man and society for which each strives.
The study of both Political Science and Economics is directed to the
same common end. The welfare of man can only be obtained under
conditions of an orderly society, because both are inseparable. It is the
function of the State to secure these conditions so that every individual
gets an opportunity for pursuing his activities, economic activities, of
course, preceding the rest.
xxiii. No State can remain content merely to provide conditions of peace and
order. The purpose of the State is to create that atmosphere which may
be conducive to the good life of man and to give all an equal opportunity
for growth and development. The State performs certain functions in
 order to achieve its purpose. It is one of the important functions of the
State to see what its citizens consume. Every State is vitally concerned
with the health of its people, as the people are the health of the State.
xxiv. It also becomes necessary for the State to see how commodities are
produced and the nature and conditions of their production. For example,
the Government of India is now making ceaseless efforts for growing and
producing more, as the existing scale of production does not keep pace
with the total demand of the country with its explosive growth of
population.
xxv. When demand exceeds supply, conditions of scarcity are created and
prices rise. Rising prices cause distress for the masses and throw out fog
rear the orderly conditions of society it is the primary duty of the
government to remove conditions of distress and alleviate the sufferings
of the people.
xxvi. Similarly, banks, too, play an important role in controlling the price level
by regulating credit. The paper currency of a modern State is issued by its
Central or Reserve Bank. It is within the jurisdiction of the State to
regulate the functions of banks by necessary laws for even to nationalize
them, if necessary.
xxvii. The most baffling problems which confronts every country is that of
distribution. In Economics, under the heading distribution, we study how
the landlord, the worker, the capitalist, and the organizer are paid for the
work each does in the field of production.
xxviii. The theories of individualism and Socialism, with its different varieties,
illustrate better than any other the interaction of political science and
economics.
xxix. Political and economic conditions act and react on another. As a matter of
fact, the solution of many of the economic problems must come through
political agencies sand the major problems of every State are economic in
character. Britain’s political policy in India, and her reluctance to grant
independence to Indians was more an economic expediency than a
political advantage.
xxx. The burning questions of present-day politics, viz., government control of
industries, the relations of the State to industries, its attitude towards
labour and capital and a multitude of other similar problem, are all
economic questions interviewed in the political issues.
xxxi. A good government, in brief, judiciously plans for plenty and it is judged in
terms of specific economic achievements, that is, by the harsh realities of
administrative performance; by the production of food and arrangements
for its distribution at a reasonable price, by the growing production and
equitable distribution of essential commodities, by the growth of
employment opportunities, by the timely and efficient completion of
development projects and by the judgment of their priorities.
xxxii. The most prominent link between political science and economics is in
the practicalities of government. For example, there may be a connection
 between whether a politician considers himself left-wing or right-wing,
within the context of the country concerned, and whether the politician
puts more weight into fiscal economics, which aims to stimulate the
economy through government spending, or monetarist economics, which
aims to stimulate the economy by influencing the price and availability of
credit.
xxxiii. There are many topics in which stances can have both a political and
economic element, such as whether a government should attempt to
reduce inequalities across society, work towards equalities of opportunity,
or avoid any interference wherever possible. Taken as a whole, political
and economic views can't always be simplified into two camps; for
example, some politicians consider themselves economically
conservative but socially liberal.
xxxiv. Political Economy is most commonly used to refer to interdisciplinary
studies that draw on economics, law and Political Science in order to
understand how political institutions, the political environment and
economy influence each other.
xxxv. Within Political Science, the term refers to modern liberal, realist, Marxian
and constructivist theories concerning the relationship between economic
and political power among and within states.
xxxvi. Historians have employed the term to explore the various ways in the
past that individuals or groups with common economic interests have
utilized the political process to effect change over time that is beneficial to
their interests.
xxxvii. Economists and political scientists often associate the term with
approaches using rational choice assumptions, particularly game theory,
to explain phenomena beyond the standard limit of economics. In this
context, the term “positive political economy” is common.
xxxviii. Other especially anthropologist, sociologists and geographers use the
term “political economy” to refer to Neo-Marxian appraohces to
development and underdevelopment set forth by Andre Gunder Frank
and Immanuel Wallerstein.
2.6 SUMMARY
Social sciences study how people interact with and relate to one another.
Political science, with its emphasis on political systems and the distribution of power,
falls into this larger academic category. A multidisciplinary field, political science draws
from some other social sciences, including Sociology, History, Economics, Psychology
and Anthropology.
Political Science has a definite and proper relationship with many social
sciences, influence one another. It is thought that a number of sciences indirectly imply a
relationship and eventually a progress in political science seems to be continuous due to
the involvement and role of political science in many social sciences. Thus, the
relevancy of political science to other social sciences, viz and specifically History,
Sociology and Economics is described through several methodologies whereby it seems
to be highly acceptable and outstanding. This acknowledges that political science has
influences on other sciences, as well describe how essential this science as a reference
to observe or access the phenomenon of life and human activity very recently.
Political Science cannot be an isolated field as all branches of the social
sciences purport to explain the larger questions concerning people and the state. Hence,
there are symbiotic relationships between political science and other sub-disciplines of
social sciences as they have common ground in their quest to understand how political
systems work and how politics and governance functions in various diverse situations.
2.7 GLOSSARY
1) Realist- a person who accepts a situation as it is and is prepared to
deal with it accordingly.
2) Judiciously – Showing good judgment
3) Electorate – All people in a country who entitled to vote in an
election.
2.8 FURTHER READINGS
• Johari, J. C. (1985). Principles of Modern Political Science. Sterling
Publishers, Pvt.Ltd. UP.
• Jain, M.P. (2012). Political Theory.Bookage Publication, Delhi.
• Asisvatham, E &Misra K. K (2014-15). Political Theory. S. Chand & Co
Ltd, New Delhi.
• Ray, A, Bhatacharya M (1962). Political Theory. Eastern Publisher, New
Delhi.
2.9 MODELQUESTIONS:
3. Discuss the relationship between Political Science and History.
4. The inter-disciplinary study of History and Economics is necessary for
understanding various issues and aspects of Political Science. Discuss

---00---
 Lesson-3

RELATIONSHIP OF POLITICAL SCIENCE WITH

SOCIOLOGY

Structure:
3.0 Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Meaning and Definition of Sociology
3.3 Relationship of Political Science with Sociology
3.4 Summary
3.5 Glossary
3.6 Further Readings
3.7 Model Questions
3.0 OBJECTIVES:
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:
 understand the meaning of Sociology
 discuss and access the relationship of Political Science with Sociology.
3.1 INTRODUCTION
It is of utmost importance for the proper understanding of any subject of inquiry to
establish its relationship with other subjects, to see clearly what elements of its
reasoning it has to take from themand what in its turn it may claim to give them. Political
science is deeply related to all other social sciences, because knowledge that is gained
about any phase of human behavior and attitudes, about the institutions that men build,
or the ideas to which they respond, cannot fail to be of use in similar fields of inquiry.
Each social science-Sociology, History, Economics, Ethics, Psychology, Geography
and Political science- supplements and fortifies the rest. If we divide them into different
sciences, they are distinctions within a unity as all aim at the study of man in society. All
are inter-dependent and inter-related. Each contributes importantly to the
advancement of the other
3.2 MEANING AND DEFINITION OF SOCIOLOGY
Sociology
The term Sociology is derived from the Latin word ‘Socius’, meaning
companion or associate, and the Greek word ‘logos’ , meaning study or science.
Thus, the etymological meaning of sociology is the science of society.
Sociology is the scientific study of human social behavior and its origins,
development, organizations, and institutions. It is a social science that uses various
methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to develop a body of knowledge
about human social actions, social structure and functions. A goal for many sociologists
is to conduct research which may be applied directly to social policy and welfare, while
others focus primarily on refining the theoretical understanding of social processes.
Subject matter ranges from the micro level of individual agency and interaction to
the macro level of systems and the social structure.
Sociology is the study of human social relationships and institutions. Sociology's
subject matter is diverse, ranging from crime to religion, from the family to the state, from
the divisions of race and social class to the shared beliefs of a common culture, and
from social stability to radical change in whole societies. Unifying the study of these
diverse subjects of study is sociology's purpose of understanding how human action and
consciousness both shape and are shaped by surrounding cultural and social structures.
Sociology is an exciting and illuminating field of study that analyzes and explains
important matters in our personal lives, our communities, and the world. At the personal
level, sociology investigates the social causes and consequences of such things as
romantic love, racial and gender identity, family conflict, deviant behavior, aging, and
religious faith. At the societal level, sociology examines and explains matters like crime
and law, poverty and wealth, prejudice and discrimination, schools and education,
business firms, urban community, and social movements. At the global level, sociology
studies such phenomena as population growth and migration, war and peace, and
economic development.
Some Important Definitions of Sociology
 AugusteComete, the founding father of sociology, defines sociology
as the science of social phenomena "subject to natural and invariable
laws, the discovery of which is the object of investigation".
 Kingsley Davis says that "Sociology is a general science of society".
 Harry M. Johnson opines that "sociology is the science that deals with
social groups".
 Marshal Jones defines sociology as "the study of man-in-relationship-to-
men".
 Max Weber defines sociology as "the science which attempts the
interpretative understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a
casual explanation of its course and effects".
 Alex Inkeles says, "Sociology is the study of systems of social action and
of their inter-relations".
 Kimball Young and Raymond W. Mack say, "Sociology is the scientific
study of social aspects of human life".
Of the various definitions of sociology the one given by Morris Ginsberg seems
to be more satisfactory and comprehensive. He defines sociology in the following way:
"In the broadest sense, sociology is the study of human interactions and inter-
relations, their conditions and consequences".
Sociologists emphasize the careful gathering and analysis of evidence about
social life to develop and enrich our understanding of key social processes. The
research methods sociologists use are varied. Sociologists observe the everyday life of
groups, conduct large-scale surveys, interpret historical documents, analyze census
data, study video-taped interactions, interview participants of groups, and conduct
laboratory experiments. The research methods and theories of sociology yield powerful
insights into the social processes shaping human lives and social problems and
prospects in the contemporary world. By better understanding those social processes,
we also come to understand more clearly the forces shaping the personal experiences
and outcomes of our own lives. The sociological imagination is extremely valuable
academic preparation for living effective and rewarding personal and professional lives
in a changing and complex society.
Sociology offers a distinctive and enlightening way of seeing and understanding
the social world in which we live and which shapes our lives. Sociology looks beyond
normal, taken-for-granted views of reality, to provide deeper, more illuminating and
challenging understandings of social life. Through its particular analytical perspective,
social theories, and research methods, sociology is a discipline that expands our
awareness and analysis of the human social relationships, cultures, and institutions that
profoundly shape both our lives and human history.

Self-Assessment Questions
2. Give any two definitions of Sociology.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.3 Relationship of Political Science with Sociology

Sociology and Political Science are closely related. They both lack clearly
defined meaning. The origin of the term Political Scienceis rather old, as it is associated
with the Greek word Polis whereas the term Sociologywas coined by AugusteComtein
1839 to designate the science of society. Political science and sociology are very
intimately connected and rare mutually contributory.
ix. Sociology is the parent science of all the social sciences. It deals with
social development in general and analysis and describes social life in all
its phases and complexities through all ages and climes. Sociology may,
thus, be defined as the science of the origin and development, structure
and functions, of social groups , their forms, laws, customs, institutions,
modes of life, thought and action and their contribution to human culture
and civilization. These sociological aspects form the basis for the study
(genesis, growth and development) of political institutions and structures.
x. Sociology seeks to discover the general principles underlying all social
phenomena and social relationships to establish the laws and rules of
change and growth in a particular society.
xi. Both Political Science and Sociology are mutually contributory. Political
Science gives to Sociology facts about the organization and functions of
the state, and obtains from it knowledge of the origin of political authority
and laws which controlled society.
xii. A Political Scientist must be a sociologist and a sociologist ought to be a
political scientist. For example, the institution of marriage by itself is an
element in the social life of man and is the concern of Sociology. But if a
 code of marriage, like the Hindu Marriage Act, is enacted to regulate it in
a particular way, it at once falls within the domain of political Sciences as
it comes within the scope of organized control and obedience.
xiii. The analysis of political parties, pressure groups, Political associations,
unions and political roles cannot be divorced from their relationship to
social classes. The sociology of the electorate-behaviour of man in the
associated process- solves the difficulties emerging from the basic
democratic mechanism.
xiv. Various methods and concepts of sociology were applied to the study of
political behaviour and institutions which gave rise to a new branch called
Political Sociology.
xv. Political Science provides information to sociology about the organization
and functions of the state and knowledge of the origin of political authority
and laws which control society.
xvi. Policies are formulated and laws are enacted only after a careful
consideration of the social needs and the consequences the laws of the
people concerned.
3.4 SUMMARY
In spite of this close affinity between Sociology and Political Sciences, the study
of both the sciences is distinct and their problems are by no means the same. Sociology
deals with man in all his varied social relations and in all forms of human associations.
Its study is not confined to one aspect of man alone.
Political Sciences, on the other hand, is the study of the political governance of
man and it is a specialized branch of Sociology. It has a narrower and more restricted
field to cover than Sociology. Secondly, the political life of man begins much later than
his social life. Sociology is prior to Political Science. Thirdly, Sociology embraces the
study of organized and unorganized communities and the conscious and unconscious
activities of man. The province of Political Science is the politically organized society and
conscious political activities of man. Finally, Political Science aims at the past, present
and future determination of the political organizations of mankind , whereas Sociology is
the study of various social institutions that exist or have existed. It does not and cannot
predict about the future of society and social relationships. Its study is empirical and has
no philosophical trend to follow.
3.5 GLOSSARY
3. Empirical – verifiable by observation.
4. Prejudice - preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual
experience
3.6 FURTHER READINGS
• Johari, J. C. (1985). Principles of Modern Political Science. Sterling
Publishers, Pvt.Ltd. UP.
• Gauba, O.P (2016). An Introduction to Political Thought Mayer
Paperback.
 • Jain, M.P. (2012). Political Theory.Bookage Publication, Delhi.
3.7 MODEL QUESTIONS:
3. Sociology provides the material for the analyses of Political issues. Give
your arguments.
4. Discuss major similarities between the subject matter of Political Science
and Sociology.

---00---
 Lesson-4

THE STATE
Structure
4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Salient features of the state
4.3 Elements of the State
4.4 Non-essential elements of the state
4.5 State and other related concepts
4.6 Summary
4.7 Glossary
4.8 Further Readings
4.9 Model Questions
4.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson you will be able :
• to understand the concept of state
• to understand the importance of State' in a study of politics
• to locate the elements that join to form a state
• to understand the relationship of state with other institutions the
government, society, association and nation
4.1 INTRODUCTION
“The purpose of the state is always the same: to limit the individual, to tame
him, to subordinate him, to subjugate him” (Max Stirner, The Ego and His
Own, 1845)
The politics is often understood as the study of the state. Political science used to
be defined by almost all the political scientists as the science of state. A large majority of
political scientists accepted as valid the statement made by Garner, “Political science
begins and ends with the state”. This is widely mentioned that, “State as old as history
and politics is as old as state”. According to Woodrow Wilson, “State is a people
organized for law within a definite territory”. In this lecture script, we are going to
acquaint you with the concept of the State, its element, and how does it differ from the
Government, Society Association and Nation?
The traditional political scientist like Gamer, Gettle, Pollack and Strong accept the
centrality of the concept of State in Political Science. To Gamer, Political Science begins
and ends with State. While describing the scope of the subject, these political scientists
had preferred to use the term state because it is so comprehensive that it includes all
other institutions like Government Constitution etc. The term State in the modem sense
was used for the first time by Machiavelli in his book. 'The Prince', To the Greeks, the
concept was ambiguous. They used the word 'polls' which means 'city state'. In these
city states, the emphasis was on rights and duties not upon supremacy and obedience.
As Catlin points out, "they could more appropriately be described as the city community
rather than the modern state". However the concept of State began to emerge during the
later medieval age, but it was not well articulated, it was only in the 16th century that the
term or concept of State became current.
In common usage the term State is used in varied sense. We often come across
such phrases as 'state transport', 'State College of education', 'State aid to industries'
etc. Strictly speaking all such usages of the term 'state' are wrong. The fact is that when
we talk of the state transport we refer to that transport which is run by the government,
as distinguished from the one that is managed by a private company or an individual
capitalist. We thus confuse the two terms-state and government and do not understand
the difference between the two. Another equally wrong usage of the term is with regard
to the units of federation. We often describe Punjab, Harayana, HimachalPradesh etc.,
as states. These units are even officially described as states. But a Political Scientist
would not accept them as states. In fact, Punjab, Haryana and Himachal are the units of
a bigger state, India. All these so called states in India are the units of federation. In this
way, we can say that though term 'State' has been distorted in a number of ways to
cover a number of diverse units and usages yet in political science it has a definite
meaning and a precise definition.
Aristotle, “State is an association of families and villages having for its end a
happy and prosperous living- a self sufficient existence
Burgess says that state is "a particular portion of mankind viewed as an
organized unit."
Woodrow Wilson says that the state "is a people organised for law within a
definite territory."
Bodin defines the state as, "an association of families and their common
possessions governed by a supreme power and by reason".
Gilchrist, “A state is the concept of political science and exists where a number
of people, living on a definite territory are unified under a government which in the
internal matters is the organ for expressing their sovereignty and in the external matters
is independent of other government
Gamer, “the state is "a community of persons more or less numerous
permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent, or nearly so of
external control and possessing an organized government to which the great body of
inhabitants render habitual obedience". This definition covers all the elements of modern
state which are: first a number of persons. Second, the occupation of a definite territory,
third,having a well organized government, fourth, possessing independence of external
control.
4.2 SALIENT FEATURES OF THE STATE
The state can most simply be defined as a political association that establishes
sovereign jurisdiction within defined territorial borders and exercises: authority through a
set of permanent institutions. It is possible to identify five key features of the state.
6. The state exercises sovereignty: it exercises absolute and unrestricted
 power in that it stands above all other associations and groups in society;
Thomes Hobbes, for this reason, portrayed the state as a “Leviathan”, a
gigantic monster.
7. The state institutions are recognizably “public”: in contrast to the
private institutions of civil society- state bodies are responsible for making
and enforcing collective decisions in society and are funded at the
public’s expense.
8. The state is an exercise in legitimation: its decisions are usually
accepted as binding on its citizens because it is claimed; it reflects the
permanent interests of society.
9. The state is an instrument in domination: it possesses the coercive
power to ensure that its laws are obeyed and that transgressors are
punished.
10. The state is a territorial association: it exercises jurisdiction within
geographically defined borders and in international politics is treated as
an autonomous entity
The State may thus be said to consist of four elements namely, population
territory, government and sovereignty. We discuss them as under:
4.3 ELEMENTS OF THE STATE
• Population, Territory, Government, Sovereignty
1. Population:State being a human institution, cannot be conceived of without
human beings. Population is a essential to a state as threads are to a piece of
cloth. A desert or a mountain peak where people, normally do not live can not be
described a state. This much is, therefore, certain that there must be some
people to constitute a state. Now the question arises how many people should
be' there to form a state? This question regarding the number of persons
necessary or desirable for constituting a state can not be answered in concrete
terms. There is no limit to the size of its population. All that is required is that
there must be some human being living in it. This does not mean a dozen people
or so living in place will form a state. Their number should not be very small, but
there is no ceiling (limit) to the population of the state. Some writers have tried to
suggest a limit for example; Plato felt that an effective number of 5040 citizens
should be sufficient.
His disciple Aristotle opined that the population should be large enough to
be self-sufficing and small enough: to be well-governed. According to him a
hundred persons would rather be too small a number but a hundred thousand
would be too unmanageable. Likewise Rousseau, a great-admirer of small
republics and direct democracy, thought that ten thousand may be an ideal
number.While some states like the U.S.A. Russia and Canada are still under
populated relative to area, resources and similar factors. Other states like India,
China and Italy are confronted by the problem of a population which is expanding
too rapidly for their natural or technological resources. Therefore, every state
strives to confine its population within its exiting or potential resources. The
former set of spates (U.S.A., former U.S.S.R. and Canada) encourages
 increased population in comparison to the latter which attempts to control the
population.
2. Fixed Territory:Territory is the second essential element of the state. The
people do hot become a state unless they permanently settle down in some
territory. Previously, philosophers like Hall. Duguit, Seeley, etc. did not attach
much importance to the permanent settlement of a people on some territory.
There is now a consensus that nomadic people do not form a state though they
may not be deficient in political organisation. There have been numerous
organised groups in the early periods of human civilization which occupied no
fixed territory. It is now a fairly common opinion that such tribal formations, so
long as they do not settle down on a definite piece of territory, do not constitute
States. There is no such thing as migratory state. For example, the Jews were
not able to form themselves into a state till recently because they had no home-
land of their own. They lived scattered over various parts of the globe. But now a
good number of them have settled down in the parts of Palestine, and the Jewish
state of Israel has consequently come into being. Therefore, territory is
indispensable in the making of the state. The authority of the state extends not
only over persons, but over the territory also.
With regard to the extent of territory also we cannot fix any hard and fast
rules. The modem states vary greatly in size. On the other hand, the state of San
Marino has an area of only 38 squaremiles.There was a time when political
thinkers considered the smaller state to be better. This view prevailed in ancient
Greece. Aristotle was of the opinion that if the size of the state was very large,
good administration was difficult. Rousseau also subscribed to this view. These
writers were to some extent justified partly because the means of transport and
communications were then un-developed and partly because the representative
institutions had not yet been well organised. But now when the problems of
communication and government no longer hamper us, large size states are
preferable. That is why we find smaller states drawing closer to each other and
forming federations. Larger states have an added advantage of a vast economic
potential.
The extent of territory that a state should possess depends upon the size
of the population it has to support. If the population is larger than what the natural
resources of the country can sustain, complications are likely to arise unless it
rapidly becomes highly industrialized and economically efficient. On the other
hand, if the population is small many tracts of the territory would remain
uninhabited. This vital relationship between the territory and the population of the
state had impelled Aristotle to remark that the territory of a state should be small
enough to be well governed and large enough to be self-sufficient.It may be
added that the territory of a state also includes, besides the land surface the
entire air space above the land surface. Further, the authority of the state also
extends over a part' of the sea that touches its territory coast. The extent of this
maritime or coastal belt as it is called is generally three miles.
Finally, it may be remarked that the territory of a state should preferably
be contiguous. If it scattered and separated, it will pose, administrative
difficulties. Pakistan as it existed before the creation of Bangladesh consisted of
the East and West Pakistan separated from each other by two thousand miles
has been a victim of this geographical misfortune.
3. Government: Government is the concrete expression of the state. The people
may live in a particular piece of territory, but that inhabited territory cannot be
termed as state unless the people are controlled by a common government.
Government forms the agency through which the will of the state is formulated,
expressed and executed. Population in the absence of government is only an
unorganized mass of people. The government brings about regulation and
adjustment in the life of the people. The ends of the state can be achieved
through the government only. Moreover, the state is incapable of collective action
in any sphere without such an agency. All this means that government in one
form or another is essential for the existence of the state.
The Government has three branches - legislature, executive and
judiciary. The legislature makes laws, the executive enforces and execute them
and the judiciary interprets and punishes the breach of laws. The government
exercises the physical coercion at the disposal of the state and punishes
disobedience to its command.The form of Government is immaterial so far as the
state is concerned. It may be kingship, democratic or dictatorial, parliamentary or
presidential, federal or unitary. A change in government does not bring a change
in the state.
4. Sovereignty:Sovereignty is the most important element of the state. It alone
distinguishes the state from other associations. There are two kinds at
Sovereignty, (a) Internal and (b) External.
Internal Sovereignty: Internal sovereignty implies the supremacy of the state
over its citizens, over all their associations and over their entire possessions.
This means that the state possesses authority to secure and unquestioned
obedience from all citizens to its laws. If any one of them throws a challenge to
its authority by disobeying its laws, it .can inflict upon him any type of
punishment, ranging from a simple warning to death penalty depending of course
on the gravity of the crime.
External sovereignty: External sovereignty implies that a state is independent in
its external actions. This means that outside the territorial bounds of the state,
there is no other state, government, king or any authority, who may issue
command to this state. It is completely free from any such limitation. It may
voluntarily accept and abide by the dictates of the international law and
obligations.
To sum up, sovereignty means full authority over the citizens within and
complete independence from outside. But several other essential elements of a
state are described by writers. Burgess for example, gives all
comprehensiveness and permanence as peculiar elements of the state. But
those are the merits of a state not the essential elements constituting a stated
Population definite territory. Well organised government and sovereignty are thus
the essential elements of the state.
4.4 NON-ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE STATE
Some political scientists are of the view that a state has certain other attributes in
the addition to the four features mentioned above. These are:
7. Unity: The feature of the unity implies that the people inhabiting the
territory of the state should have one political organization. The people
 and the territory of one state cannot become the part of any other.
Therefore, there cannot be a territory of a state which is under the control
of any other state. According to Garner, “It means that there can be but
one state organization upon the same territory over the same people.
8. All comprehensiveness: All comprehensiveness means that all the
people or groups of people come with the jurisdiction of the supreme
power of the state. No individual or group of people, organization or
institution can be out of the jurisdiction of state sovereignty.
9. Continuity: The form of government in a state may undergo frequent
change but it does not affect the existence of the state. Monarchy may be
replaced by a republic form of government, the government by one
political party may be substituted by the government of some other
political party, but it will not affect the existence of the state.
10. Permanence: It means that the state is a permanent institution.
According to Garner, “A population organized as a state remains always
under some organization.” Many times the existence of the state is
abolished or a portion of the territory of a state is given to some other
state due to war or peace treaties but in all such cases it is the change of
sovereignty and people continue to inhabit the same territory.
11. Equality: The term equality means that all the state are equal in the eyes
of the international law. The smallness or vastnessof the territory of the
state, it developed, developing or under developed nature, and its
richness or poverty in no way affect the international status of a state.
12. International recognition: Many scholars are of the view that the
recognition of the state by the international community is absolutely
necessary for a state. Its after attainment of international recognition that
a state becomes the member of the community of nations and establishes
diplomatic relations with other state.

Self-Assessment Questions
1. Define State.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What are the main essential elements of the State?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Write down the essential elements of the State

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.5 STATE AND OTHER RELATED CONCEPTS

 • State and Government
• State and Association
• State and Society
• State and Nation
I. State and Government: The term "State" and "Government" confuse the
layman. People generally use them in an identical sense. Even Kings like Louis
XIV confused state with government. He used to say "I am the state". He could
claim that he was government as he was an absolute monarch and all
government authority vested in him. But he himself could not claim to be a state
as the state is altogether a different concept. Similarly the Stuart kings of
England lived under the same misconception.
It is not only the great kings’ arid monarchs who used the term state and
government in the identical sense. Even in the ordinary life, we find that the two
terms are used inter changeably, as if there were no difference between the two.
It is most noticeable when a classification of government is mistaken for
classification- of state or when acts of government are treated as if these were
acts of the state.The state is the politically organised"person" for the promotion of
common ends and the satisfaction of common needs, while the government is an
essential element of the state, through which the will of the state is expressed,
formulated and realized. State and government are two different terms having
altogether different meanings. The following points bring out the distinction
between the two.
1. State is the whole government is a part thereof: State is a
combination of four factors, viz, population, territory, government and
sovereignty whereas government is only one of the factors which
constitute the state. Government is only a part of the state and is not the
whole. Government is the working machinery through which the purpose
of the state are formulated and carried into effect. It is that agency of the
state through which the will of the state is formulated, expressed and
executed. Government is thus, only part of the state.
2. Membership of the state extends to/the total population but that of
the government to a part thereof: The state contains the total
population living in its territory, but the number of people who constitute
the government is much smaller, even though with the progress of
democracy this number also is on the increase. The government consists
of such people as are required to man its legislative executive, and
judicial departments.
3. State is permanent, government is temporary: The state is permanent.
A state remains a state so long as it fulfils four conditions, viz, population,
territory government and sovereignty. Obviously, these factors are not
easily destructible. But governments are temporary. They always go on
changing. They come and go but states continue forever. Death of a
monarch or a ruler or the forcible overthrow of a government or its
peaceful replacement through a democratic election does not mean the
extinction of the state. This means that change in the government do not
 constitute a change in the state because state is permanent and
government is temporary.
4. The state is abstract, the government is concrete: The state is merely
a concept, which cannot be perceived by our senses; it is something
abstract and can only be understood and not seen. As against this, the
term 'government' refers to a certain number of people who can be seen
and known. Unlike the state which is all identical, the governments exhibit
different forms such as - monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, unitary
and federal, cabinet and presidential government. All states are alike in
essence and it is possible to conceive of a state without reference to any
particular government.
5. The individual can have rights against the government but not
against the state: The individual may have rights against the
government, but can certainly have no right against the state, because
the state is the source of all power. The government and the individuals
are both under it. Further, individuals can have complaints and grievance
against the government and not against the state. State never acts by
self. It always acts through the government which alone can inflict injury
on others.
6. Sovereignty belongs to the state, not to the government:Sovereignty
is the exclusive characteristic of the state, whereas the government is
only an agent of the state. Whatever authority or power belongs to the
government is derived from or-delegated by the state. The state can
increase or decrease this power. Thus, the relationship between the state
and government is that of a master and a servant.
7. Territory is characteristic of states, not of government: State, is a
territorial 'organization: As stated earlier, state cannot be found unless it
has a permanent territory. Territory is thus one of its essentials elements.
The government, on the contrary, does not have reference to territory.
It may be noted in the end that distinction between state and government is more
of theoretical nature than of any practical value. That is why recent thinkers like Harold,
J. Laski and G.D.H: Cole have, for practical purposed, slurred over this distinction. We
all know that all actions of the state are taken by the government.
II. State and Society: Society is a sociological term. In ordinary parlance, it is used
to denote a jumbled collection of groups, associations that men form in order to
fulfil their varied needs. Actually, however, it is something much wider than those
social groups. Besides, being a sum total of associations. It also includes the
whole range of human relationship-social, economic, cultural, religious, and
political, etc. It has, thus a wider connotation than what the term 'state' implies. In
plain words, it is a wider whole and state is a part thereof. Society may be
defined as the complex of organized associations and institutions within a
community. It is a web of social relationship. Let us work out this distinction in
details in the following manner.
(1) Scope of society is wider than that of state: State is a community of
persons organized for law within a definite territory. It has definite scope.
The state is only concerned with political relations of the organized
 communities. Society, on the other hand, is comprehensive and covers
the whole range of human relation i.e. social, economic, political religious
etc. All relationship between man and man, whether direct or indirect,
conscious or unconscious, organized or unorganized are covered society.
It is universal, all pervading and all-inclusive group of human beings. The
purpose of the state is to maintain only the external, conditions of society.
Therefore, we can easily conclude that scope of society is much wider
than that of the state.
(2) State has territorial reference but society has no territory: State is a
territorial organization. It has well defined boundaries of its own. But
society is not restricted to any geographical area. The Jews, for example,
constitute a society, although they are spread all over the world. So is the
case with the Hindu society, the Islamic or the Christian society. It has
thus no territorial reference as the state always has. Its scope may cover
the entire world transcending the boundaries of various states. Further in
the same state the people may be organised into different societies
having different social tradition. But you know that the state has always a
define territory.
(3) State creates order in Society:It is clear that society is not the same
thing as state, but it is the state which maintains the frame work of social
order. The society is held together by the state which is the highest form
of social organization. It makes the individual obey certain laws without
which well ordered social life would not be possible.
(4) State has an element of coercion: State is a coercive organization in
the sense that it demands obedience from all its citizens. If anyone
disobeys its authority, it can punish him, its punishment can assume, any
form, ranging from a simple warning to death penalty. Society, on the
other hand is voluntary and an informal organization possessing no such
competence to punish its members.
(5) Society is prior to state: In point of time, society is prior to state. As has
been described by various writers society preceded the state just as it
preceded the family, the church, the corporation and the political party. It
unites all these like a tree unites its branches. It is now generally
conceded that a considerable time must have lapsed before man evolved
the form of political organization called the state. The primitive people
lived in kinship groups before the state emerged. Historically considered,
therefore, the state comes into existence much later than the society.
These differences apart, the state and society have many things in common with
each other. The relationship between the two is quite intimate. One depends upon other.
Society cannot progress unless state takes upon itself the task of its welfare.
Conversely, state cannot function properly if society does not furnish to it the right type
of human material and proper social milieu.
III. State and Association: In our daily life, we observe that man forms a variety of
groups and associations partly with a view to satisfying his social instinct and
partly with a view to fulfilling his wants. The groups which formally organize
themselves in order to meet certain specific wants are known as associations.
State is also one such association, because it is also formally organized with the
 overall purpose of advancing the political welfare of its citizens, it is however, a
unique type of association, different from the other associations. It differs from
others in the following manner:-
1. State possesses territory while association does not: One of the
central features, of the state is that it possesses territory. Without territory,
state cannot come into existence. On the other hand, association does
not possess territory.
2. Membership of the state as compulsory, but that of an association is
voluntary:The membership of the state is obligatory. The mere fact that
one is born in a state, confers upon him its membership which cannot be
resigned under normal conditions. The membership of the association, on
the other hand, is voluntary. One can acquire the membership of an
association at will and surrender it whenever it so chooses.Further, one
can at one time be a member of one state only. If one acquires the
citizenship of another state, he automatically, relinquishes the citizenship
of the first state. On the other hand, one can acquire the membership of
as many associations as one likes. As a matter of fact, one does
associate oneself with a number of associations.
3. State has coercive power but an association has no legal force: As
said earlier, the state possesses an element of coercion. It punishes the
offenders through its authority. This power is enjoyed only by the state
and not by any other association because state alone is sovereign.
4. State is permanent but an association may be temporary: State is a
permanent association. Once formed, it does not come to an end so
easily. On the other hand, associations are formed when need be and
dissolved when their purpose is served.
5. State is a multipurpose association but association may have a
single purpose: The main feature of an association is singleness of
purpose for the achievement of which it is formed. A cricket club is formed
for the promotion of the game of cricket. A state does not have any one
single object to achieve. It is multipurpose organization: All human
activities; social, economic, political, etc. fall directly or indirectly in its
purview.
6. State is a supreme association and all other associations are
controlled by it: State is a supreme association. It controls and co-
ordinates the activities of all other associations. Sometimes it creates
associations like the universities, trade unions etc. The state is, therefore,
an all-pervasive, all embracing and all inclusive association. It brings
harmony by controlling the external behaviour of these associations.
IV. State and Nation: The term nation' has been derived from Latin word 'Natio'
meaning race. This is a term which is used to denote that group of people who
are united among themselves by the bonds of brother hood or the sentiments of
oneness, In good old days, when racial bonds were quite strong to hold people
together, nation was considered more or less equivalent to race. When racial
bonds grew feeble, their place was taken by such factors as common history,
common religion, common language and common interests. With the passage of
 time the term nation come to be associated with nationals of a sovereign state,
who are united among themselves by the community of governmental system,
mutual political interests, cultural background and economic aspirations etc. Thus
the two terms nation and state came to coincide with each other. Even today
sometimes these two terms are used interchangeably e.g. western nations,
European nations or African nations etc. Here we do not mean nation but state.
There is a difference between these two terms which is given below.
(1) State is political and legal concept whereas nation is a psychological
concept, state refers to certain institutional apparatus whereas nation
refers to feelings of attachment and loyalty. It is the mental and emotional
integration of the people.
(2) For constituting a state we need population, fixed territory, Government
and sovereignty. All these four elements are essential if anyone of these
elements is missing, state cannot be constituted. Since nation is a unified
group of people, its constituent elements are common race, common
language, common culture, common religion, common history etc. None
of these is an essential element. They go on changing. As in early times
common race was the unifying factor but now it has been replaced by
other factors.
(3) Fixed territory is essential for the state but not for the nation. Before 1948
the Jews were a nation but they had no fixed territory of their own. When
in 1948 they got the fixed territory, they established the state of Israel.
Same is the case of sovereignty. Before 1947, India was a nation but it
could not be called a state because it had no sovereignty, it was ruled by
the Britishers. After 1947 when it attained independence India became a
state.
(4) There can be two or more nations in one state. Former U.S.S.R was one
state but there were many nationalities within it.
(5) Nation can be wider than the state. State has a fixed well defined
boundary. But Nation can extend beyond that denned boundary. For
example from racial point of view French nation extends to Italy,
Switzerland, Canada etc.
(6) A nation is a natural and spontaneous organisation. After Second World
War, Germany was divided into two separate independent states. But
they remained emotionally one and in October 1990 were united into a
single state. North and South Vietnam have also become one state.
4.6 SUMMARY
The state has always been central to political analysis, to such an extent that
politics is often understood as the study of the state. This is evident in two debates.
6. The first and most fundamental of these focuses upon the need for
the state and the basis of political obligations: The classic justification
for the state is provided by social contract theory, which constructs a
picture of what life would be like, in a stateless society, a so called “state
of nature”. In the view of thinkers such as Hobbes and Locke (1632-
1704), as the state of nature would be the characterized by an unending
 civil war of each against all, people would be prepared to enter into an
agreement- a social contract- through which they would sacrifice a portion
of their liberty in order to create a sovereign body without which orderly
and stable existence would be impossible. In final analysis, individuals
should obey the state because it is only safeguard they have against
disorder and chaos.
7. The second area of debate concerns the nature of state power: The
major positions in the debate can be summarized as follow. Liberal view
the state as a neutral arbiter amongst competing interests and groups in
society, a vital guarantee of social order; the state is at worst a necessary
evil. Marxists have portrayed the state as an instrument of class
autonomy from the ruling class oppression, a bourgeois state, or allowing
for its “relative autonomy” from the ruling class, have emphasized that the
role is to maintain stability within a system of unequal class power.
The late twentieth century nevertheless witnessed a general “hollowing out” of the
state, leading, some argue, to its growing irrelevance in the modern world. Chief
amongst these developments have been: globalization and the incorporation of national
economies into a global one that cannot be controlled by any state; privatization and the
growing preference for market organization over state management; and localism, the
unleashing of centrifugal pressures through a strengthening of regional and community
politics and the rise of particularistic “nationalisms”.
4.7 GLOSSARY
3. Globalization- The process by which people and goods move easily
across borders.
4. Kinship- Blood relationship.
4.8 FURTHER READINGS:
• Verma, S.P. (1975). Modern Political Theory.Vikas Publisher
• Asisvatham, E &Misra K. K (2014-15). Political Theory. S. Chand &
Co. Ltd, New Delhi.
4.9 MODEL QUESTIONS
3. Discuss the elements of State.
4. Discuss the differences between State, Society and Nation.

---00---
 Lesson-5

THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF STATE: SOCIAL

CONTRACT THEORY

Structure
5.0 Objectives
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The Social Contract Theory: Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau
5.3 Rousseau’s Comparison with Hobbes and Locke
5.4 Critical Evolution of Social Contract Theory
5.5 Summary
5.6 Glossary
5.7 Further Readings
5.8 Model Questions
5.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson you will be able:
 to discuss and critically evaluate the Social Contract Theoryof the origin
of the State.
 to understand the views of Hobbes, Locke and Rosseau on the Social
Contract.
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Reaching an agreement about what we mean by “the state” provides a basis
upon which to examine a deeper problem: what is the nature of state power, and what
interests does the state represent? From this perspective, the state is an “essentially
contested” concept. There are a number of rival theories of the state each of which
offers a different account of its origins, development and impact on society. Indeed,
controversy about the nature of state power has increasingly dominated modern political
analysis and goes to the heart of ideological and theoretical disagreement in the
discipline. Four contrasting theories of the state can be identified as follows:
5. The Pluralist State
6. The Capitalist State
7. The Leviathan State
8. The Patriarchal State
 In this context, there are many theories which have endeavoured to answer the
question: how has the state come into being? The oldest theory about the origin of state
is perhaps the Divine Theory. The theory, that God ordained the state, found its
advocates in various religious utterances. For example, Christians believed that God had
imposed that state upon men as a punishment for his sins represented by Adam's fall
from grace in the garden of Eden. Throughout the middle ages divine origin theory held
sway, but the revolution of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries waged in the name
of the people destroyed all the divine pretensions of a fading royal absolutism.
Another theory holds that state originated in conquest, 'War begot the king' is the
postulate of Force Theory. The supporters of this theory opine that state has its basis in
justice and is essentially evil. The weak are subdued by the strong who later clothe
themselves with the pretensions of legitimacy. This theory does not sanction any
resistance to the state actions and it does not recognize those natural rights of life,
liberty and property, which are supposed to be the life and breath of any organized
living. Its over emphasis on force is the greatest argument against it.Family Theory
explains that state originated with the family which later developed into the clan and
tribe. It was family where from the individual inculcated the habits of obedience carried
over from the father to the tribal council of elders. This theory oversimplified the origin of
state which has not been such a straight and simple process and hence only, partly
explains the origins of state.There is then the Social Contract Theory which signified the
ultimate triumph of the principle of popular sovereignty over the irrational concept of
divine rights of kings. This makes the state a man-made institution which rests on the
consent of the individuals. Once an accepted view, this theory gained more democratic
orientations at the hands of various political philosophers - Rousseau being the foremost
of them. The other two philosophers whose names have almost become synonyms for
this theory are Hobbes and Locke. But this theory being too speculative, also failed to
solve the issue of how state came into being Speculation in the realm of political science
is a virtue only to a limited extent and social contract theory is wholly based on
speculation and imagination, which means that history .does not come to its rescue.
This is quite evident that the state has always been there even though in a
rudimentary form, ever since man inhabited this planet. But the origin of state like all
human institutions cannot be explained in terms of any single factor, neither can its
development be traced to an unbroken chain of progressive evolution, starting from a
specific period to the present day. In fact state is neither an artificial creation (Social
Contract Theory) nor a divine make (Divine Origin theory) - neither does it trace its origin
in coercion (Force theory) 'nor did man straight jumped into political organization rising
from the family living - It is a natural and beneficent institution. It is there because it is
needed to be there - what exists must have a reason to exist otherwise it would cease to
exist. State is an evolution out of a complex set of human needs. This evolution forbids
any explanation in terms of human reason, since it delies any set pattern of growth.
Evolutionary theory offers the most convincing answer to this problem of state origin
laying down that the state is a continuous development of human society out of a grossly
imperfect beginning through crude but improving forms of manifestation towards a
perfect and universal organization of the mankind.
However, before discussing the evolutionary theory, we shall discuss in detail the
Social Contract Theory about the origin of state.
5.2 THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
 The social contract theory played a very important role both in political theory and
practice. It, therefore, needed to be discussed at length. A social contract theory is a
voluntary agreement amongst individuals through which an organized society, or state,
is brought into existence. Used as a theoretical device by thinkers such as Hobbes
Locke and Rousseau. In the classical form, social contract theory has three elements:
4. The image of a hypothetical stateless society (a ‘state of nature’) is
established. Unconstrained freedom means that life is solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish and short’ (Hobbes).
5. Individuals therefore seek to escape from the state of nature by entering
into asocial contract, recognizing that only a sovereign power can secure
order and stability
6. The social contract obliges citizens to respect and obey the nature,
ultimately in gratitude for stability and security that only a system of
political rule can deliver.
In brief the social contract theory, based' on speculation, as it had been,
considers the state a man made institution, its exponents hold that there was a time
when state did not exist anywhere in the surface of the globe. At that time, nature ruled
and regulated the conduct of the primitive man. To that stage, they describe as the state
of nature. They further say that the primitive man, compelled by certain circumstances
thought of establishing the state and, he actually established one by means of a social
contract. In their opinion, the state is, thus, the result of a conscious effort on the part of
man.
This theory has been as old as the history' of the political ' philosophy. Like any
other branch of human knowledge this theory also traces its origin to the pre-Platonic
days. In the Greek city states of ancient times, there lived', a group of philosophers,
called the Sophists, who believed that the state was the outcome of a convention, hence
it impinged upon the natural freedom of the man. Since those Greek-days, this theory
found its reference in all periods in the long history of the Western political thought. It
was also upheld by the Indian philosophers. Kautilya in his Arthasastra says, "People
suffered from anarchy as illustrated by the proverbial tendency of a large fish swallowing
a small one, first elected Manu to be their king and allotted one sixth of the grains grown
and one tenth of their merchandise as sovereign's dues. Supported by this payment,
kings took upon themselves the responsibility of maintaining the safety and security of
their subjects."
This theory found its first detailed exposition at the hands of three eminent writers
of the recent times, namely, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, it is they who pushed this
theory of prominence. Let us now, study their views at length.
Thomas Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher who lived in England (1588-1679)
at the time of the civil war. The Roman Catholic King, Charles I had entered into a very
serious political controversy with his protestant Parliament. The controversy had
culminated into worst type of civil war, leading to a ghastly situation of disorder and
anarchy. After eight years of that nerve-breaking situation, the King lost and he was
beheaded. The monarchy also temporarily abolished. Thomas Hobbes who had once
been a tutor to Charles I felt very much fomented partly over the loss of his favourite
King and partly over the lawlessness that he witnessed and experienced. Being a
philosopher, he brooded over the situation and then arrived at the conclusion that the
only method by which the recurrence of any such situation could be avoided, was to
strengthen the authority of the king. He gave expression to his views in the form of a
theory which he expounded in his famous book. Leviathan, published in 1651. Since he
stood to strengthen the authority of the King, the sovereign of his conception wielded the
power and might of a despot. That sovereign came to be symbolically described, after
the name of the book, as Leviathan. We will discuss Hobbes's theory in detail in the
following paragraphs.
State of Nature
Hobbes begins his theory with a critical analysis of the nature of many He held
that man is by nature a selfish being. He is also an egoist. Both these features of his
personality combine to make him a self-centered human being, always worrying about
himself and ceaselessly engaging himself in satisfying his own personal wants. He is
least mindful of the convenience of others and does not hesitate even to the slightest to
trample over the needs of his so-called fellow beings if these needs clash with his own.
If, to-day, man does not behave in that selfish manner, the reason is not that he has
improved but because there is an established authority which checks and regulates his
conduct at every step. If there is no policeman to stop him, he would not spare any effort
to look and tease others.
Keeping in view the prevalent situation of disorder and confusion, he
philosophized that there must have been one period in the life of man when there did not
exist any authority whatsoever anywhere in the world. At that time man lived in the state
of nature. In the absence of anyone who would exercise a check upon him, he gave the
fullest display to his selfish and egoistic nature. At that time he could lay his hand upon
anything that appealed to him and could retain that as long as he could physically
manage to do so. Thus, the man lived by the strength of his physical power. He was at
war against everyone else and behaved like famished wolves seeking to devour
whomsoever they came across. Liberty that he possessed meant to him a license to use
his power for his own preservation, might that mean the death and destruction of
everyone else. In that ghastly situation, the law of the jungle 'might is right'-prevailed,
with the result that the life of man, to quote Hobbes's own words, was "solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish and short."
In the opinion of Hobbes, the state of nature was, therefore, both pre-social and
pre-political. It was pre-social in the sense that the modern civilization had not drawned
as yet and man led the most uncultured life. He did not know those sophistications of
social living as form the basic governing norms of our life, today. It was pre-political in
the sense the political authority in the form of a state or government had also not come
into existence. In a word, man led the most primitive type of life.
Social Contract
Hobbes further explains how that state of nature came to be transformed into a
civilized state. He says that people must have at one stage, been fed up with uncertain,
insecure state of nature and must have, thought of getting rid of it, and live peacefully
and happily in a civilized way. With that end m view, they must have gathered together
at one place and must have collectively deliberated over that question. In the end, they
must have decided to set up a state by means of a contract or compact. One of them
must have got up, so conjectured Hobbes, and must have addressed others in the,
manner, "I authorize and give up my right of governing to this man or this assembly on
this condition, that thou give up thy right to him and authorize all his action in like
manner." When each one of the assembled voluntarily surrendered his right of governing
himself to another, a state came into existence and the person with whom that right was
deposited by others became their ruler. In this way, a contract was entered into by the
primitive man, out of which the state and the sovereign both emerged.
The Emergent Authority
If we carefully study the manner in which the contract was entered upon, we find
that the authority that emerged out of the contract might that be called the state, the
sovereign, the ruler, the Government or the Leviathan was quite despotic. Two facts lead
to this conclusion; firstly, man surrendered the right of governing himself. It was that
basic right by virtue of which he conducted his whole life. He would no longer be guided
and governed by his own will, but, instead, by the will of .the ruler. He thus ceased to be
at his own. Secondly, the ruler to whom he surrendered his right to govern himself was
not a party to the contract. The ruler's consent to act as such was never obtained. In
fact, he did not utter even a single word, this way or that way. The assembled ones
talked among themselves, one telling the rest that he had surrendered his right of
governing himself to someone and would submit to him provided they also do so. He,
therefore, stipulated with his fellow beings and not with the one whom he gave his right
to rule. The conferment of sovereignty upon the ruler was thus unconditional, which
implied that whatever the ruler commanded his people to do, they must abide by his
orders. They would not raise even their little finger in defiance of his command. The only
logical limit to his authority was that he could not ask them to commit suicide or to do a
thing which might cause some physical harm to them. This he could do because they
had surrendered to him the right to govern with the sole object of making their lives more
secure and happier.
The characteristic 'features of Hobbes' sovereign may be summed up, as under:
(1) Hobbes sovereign is an absolute despot whose authority cannot be
challenged or flouted by his subjects under any circumstances
whatsoever.
(2) The sovereignty of Hobbes conception is absolute, unlimited, inalienable
and indivisible.
(3) Law is the command: of the sovereign. In other words, all laws emanate
from the will of the ruler.
(4) Hobbes' contract was binding and irrevocable. To break it was to revert
back to the same old state of savagery, murder and loot. There is no
intermediary stage between the two-the state of nature and the state of
the sovereign ruler. People may live in the either.
(5) The contract transforms the state of .nature into a civilized state. Since
both the ruler and the state emerge from the contract, there is hardly any
difference between the two. Hobbes's does not, therefore, make any
distinction between the government and the state, as the later two
philosophers do.
 (6) Hobbes contract was both social and political in nature because it
established not only a civilized society but a state also.
Criticism of Hobbes’s Social Contract Theory
8. Wrong definition of Human Nature: Hobbes argued that an individual is
unsocial selfish, brutish and cruel. But Man is a social human being who
leads a life of cooperation and friendship.
9. Need of the two parties for a contract: Hobbes’s contract is one sided
because the sovereign created by Hobbes was not party to the contract
nor he was bound to obey the conditions of the contract.
10. State and Human liberty: There is no place of human liberty or human
will against the state. Hobbes established a absolute state by the social
contract.
11. Definition of history and state of nature: There is no historical proof of
Hobbes’s view that before the state came into being; individual was living
in the state of nature.
12. It is against the liberal democratic principles: Today, the liberal
democracy is popular in the world in which the supreme power is vested
with the people and the government, State cannot be absolute beyond its
subject.
13. Difference with the state and government: Hobbes is not mentioned
any difference between state and the government, whereas these are two
different organizations.
14. How a uncivilized person can become civilized overnight: Leopard
cannot change his colour overnight meaning by that a night before an
individual was uncivilized brutish and cruel whereas next morning he
became civilized. How could it be possible before contract an individual
was bad and just after the social contract he became a noble being.
John Locke
Like his predecessor, John Locke was also the product of his times. He lived in
England (1632-1704) at that time when one unpopular King' quietly vacated the palace
and another, chosen by his people, came and occupied the throne. That event called the
glorious or bloodless Revolution, transformed the basic character of the British Kingship.
One long era of despotism came to an end another of constitutional monarchy ushered
in. Highly impressed by this significant event, the philosopher John Locke propounded
the theory of constitutionalism. In justification thereof, he talked about the origin of the
state and adopted the same line of approach as Hobbes did. He thus made a very
significant contribution to the development of the social contract theory.
State of Nature
Locke was also of the opinion that before the advent of the state, people lived in
the state of nature: He, however, does not subscribe to the view of Hobbes either with
regard to the human nature or with the state of nature. He says that man is basically not
a selfish animal. On the contrary, he is a social being, always animated by fellow-
feelings reason and justice. Accordingly, the state of nature was not a state of war and
constant fear. It was a state of perfect freedom wherein man lived in peace with his
fellow-beings and always actuated by the noble instinct of compassion and mutual help.
Man's conduct was regulated by the laws of nature which everybody keenly and
peacefully obeyed. He also possessed certain natural rights; noteworthy among them
were the rights to life, liberty and property. He not only enjoyed those rights himself but
also allowed others to enjoy them. The state of nature was thus a state of positive peace
and or natural give and take. Locke himself describes the state of nature as "a state of
perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their persons as they think fit,
within the bounds of the law of nature without asking leave or depending upon the will of
any other man."
Even though the state of nature was one of peace and goodwill, it suffered from
two basic shortcomings. Firstly, the laws of nature were uncertain. Secondly, there was
no recognized authority who could either give an authoritative interpretation to the laws
of nature or could settle the mutual disputes of the people. These two insufficiencies
often created difficulties for them, more specifically made, the enjoyment of their rights to
life, liberty and property difficult. Despite their best intentions to the contrary they began
to quarrel among themselves' in an ever increasing measure. To eradicate this lacuna
and to make their life more peaceful and orderly, people thought in terms of establishing
political machinery and, consequently, they held a convention and concluded a contract.
To sum up, Locke's state of nature, compared to that of Hobbes, was not pre-
social but only pre-political. Man knew the basic ingredients of social living, peace,
fellow-feelings, goodwill, and mutual give and take. The only thing that was missing was
the state. It was thus pre-political and non pre-social.
Social Contract
Locke was of the opinion that since the state of nature was deficient only in one
respect, i.e. there did not exist any political authority which could enforce law and order,
people had a very limited objective when they concluded a contract among .themselves.
He says that people mutually agreed to surrender only one right - the right to settle their
disputes and to punish others. By the surrender of this right they incorporated
themselves into a body public and thus the state was born. To elaborate, hitherto people
possessed a number of rights. Out of that multitude, they surrendered only one right and
not all the rights, as Hobbes suggested. This right that they surrendered was the political
one. They surrendered it not to any individual or to any assembly, but to an authority
which was to be subsequently established. By the surrender of this right, they stipulated
among themselves that in future whenever they quarreled among themselves, they
would not settle their disputes themselves, according to their individual conveniences.
They would instead, refer their dispute, to the authority concerned whose verdict they
would honour and abide by. This contract therefore, procured for them those basic
conditions of law and order as better facilitated the preservation of their life, liberty and
property. It was thus a social contract.
After they had organized themselves into a body politic, they proceeded ahead to
establish the authority which would settle their disputes. Locke says that people must
have picked up a person from among themselves and then stipulated with him that he
would act as a ruler or a government for them. They must have imposed certain
conditions upon him and if he accepted those conditions, he would have become their
ruler. In this way, that authority was established which they needed to enforce law and
order. This second contract, of which Locke does not make a direct reference, was the
political and governmental contract because it set up the political authority.
Emergent Authority
Locke suggests that the people of the state of nature concluded two contracts
and not one. Out of the" first contract, which people concluded among themselves by
surrendering one right, the body politic emerged. Through this contract people mutually
agreed not to handle the law themselves and instead, to get all their disputes settled
through a commonly constituted and accepted authority. This contract bound the people
in one harmonious whole it was irrevocably according on all. The body that emerged out
of it can rightly be described as the state. The second contract through which people
established the authority to settle their dispute was of a transitory nature in the sense
that whenever that authority violated the terms of the contracts would expose itself to the
people for dismissal, the limited powers that authority possessed and their exercise
having been hinged to the will of the people, made it resemble to the constitutional
government, of the modem times. Thus suggesting two contracts, Locke makes clear cut
distinction between the state and the government.
The government of Locke's conception was a limited government unlike that of
Hobbes which possessed all the features of an absolute despot. By making the
government a party to the contract, and by vesting in the people the right to revolt in
case of any breach of the contract, Locke seals the fate of his ruler. He thus, recognizes
the sovereign character of the people over their ruler and, thereby, upholds the doctrine
of popular sovereignty.Locke also makes a distinction between the legislature and the
executive forms of the government. He vests in the people's body established through
the first contract, the right to make law and thereby to streamline the law of nature. He,
likewise, vests in the other body established through the later contract, the right to
interpret and enforce the law. This provides a clear cut clue that the first body was the
legislature and the second, the executive.
Criticism of Locke’s Social contract theory
5. Wrong narrative of history: There is no proof of the state of nature as
presented by Locke, therefore to accept that earlier in the state of nature
the life of an individual was very peaceful and then suddenly it became
unpeaceful.
6. Danger of revolution: If any case state or the government is not working
according to the conditions of the contract then the people can revolt
against such government and can change the government.
7. No difference between state and society: Locke makes no difference
between state and government, whereas state and society are two
different institutions Society is older than state and the scope the society
is much wider than that of the state.
8. Rights are possible in the state: According to Locke, individual enjoyed
rights of life, liberty and property in the state of nature. But we know it
quite well that the rightscan be enjoyed only in the state because rights
are those conditions of social life which are recognized and protected by
 the state.
To conclude, Locke's theory was more comprehensive than of Hobbes. He not
only upheld the doctrine of constitutional government and of popular sovereignty, but
also clearly saw the distinction between the State and the government, on the one hand,
and between the legislature and the executive on the other.
Rousseau
The last in the series of the contractualist was Jean Jaques Rousseau. Unlike his
two predecessors, he was not the product of his times. He was French and lived much
earlier than the breaking out of the French Revolution (1712-1778). His writings, in fact,
inspired the people of France to rise into a revolution. He was never motivated by the
idea of expounding a theory, much less than that of the origin of the state. He wrote a
book, named the "Social Contract" (1762) wherein he wanted to assert the supremacy of
the collective body of the citizens over the ruler. It was in justification of this thesis that
he entered into the discussion of the state of nature and the origin of the state. The
social contract theory that he expounded was thus incidental, an appendix, to his basic
objective. We examine his theory in detail in the following paragraphs:-
State of Nature
Like other contractualists, Rousseau also begins his theory with the description
of the state of nature. He himself was not, however, very clear about what the state of
nature was. He took some hints from Hobbes and some from Locke and tried to logically
blend them together so as to present a somewhat integrated account of the state of
nature. He says that the state of nature, to begin with, was a state of eternal bliss and
idyllic happiness. Since modem civilization had not dawned yet a man did not know the
so-called present day sophistications. He was neither clever nor deceitful, neither-good
nor bad, neither virtuous nor vicious. He was an innocent noble beast. At the same time,
he was also a savage brute. He himself would not attack another because no physical or
any other want impelled him to do so. But if somebody attacked him, he would not spare
him at all. Like a savage animal, he would tear him to pieces. Rousseau, thus aptly
describes himself 'a noble savage'. In that state of nature, no authority of any types
existed nor was there any law to bind the conduct of man. He was solely guided by his
biological instincts. He was thus absolutely free to do anything he linked. Gamer very
beautifully portrays the picture of the state of nature of Rousseau's conceptions in these
words: "It is an earthly paradise in which happiness, innocence and joys of unrestricted
freedom abound without limit, where equality reigns, where the yoke of law and the
burdens of state press upon the shoulders of no man and where none are subjects and
none sovereign". Rousseau than rightly describes it as a state of eternal bliss and idyllic
happiness.
Rousseau says that this state of eternal bliss did not last for long. Gradually,
population increased and with it the foodstuffs fell short of the demand. Side by side,
man also developed reason. Compelled by the scarcity of the means of subsistence and
impelled by reason, man "began to acquire and hold things. This acquisitive instinct led
to the emergence of the institution of private property. This in its turn further aroused
another instinct of man, namely, the possessive instinct. When man asserted his right
over his property, he was challenged by his fellow-beings. These acts of assertion and
challenge made him conscious of such notions as 'mine and thine'. This marked the
beginning of that civil strife which went on increasing with the passage of time and which
ultimately left the society torn into pieces. When man's life became-insecure and self-
preservation posed problems, he thought in terms, of restoring the lost peace. It was this
pursuit for self-preservation that m. de men negotiate a contract among themselves
which, consequently, established the state.
Social Contract
Unlike Locke and very much like Hobbes, Rousseau says that people concluded
only one contract, wherein each individual surrendered all powers that he possessed
and pooled them in common. The authority that emerged out of this contract was
described by Rousseau as the General Will. Rousseau gives philosophical dimensions
to this individual surrender of power.
He says that the will of each individual has two aspects - one that wills the private
.good and the other, the common or collective good. The people in the state of nature,
impelled by the common desire of establishing peace, surrendered only that part of their
will that willed the common good. The sum total of these wills that emerged was the
General Will would always be actuated by the welfare of the whole collectivity of the
people. It was thus the sovereign possessing paramount powers on all individuals.
Dwelling his concept of the General Will, Rousseau says that the individual, while putting
his person and powers in common, did not reduce himself to zero as was suggested by
Hobbes. He got back as much as he surrendered. Previously his person and his powers
belonged to him and to him alone.
He could employ them in any manner he liked, may be in partial or total disregard
of the convenience of his fellow beings. Now after he has surrendered his will, he
becomes a member of the collectivity, an inseparable component of the whole. He gets
back in lieu of his will an indivisible part of the power of the General Will. To illustrate the
point, if the General Will commands him to gallows, we would say that he himself goes
to the gallows because the General Will when-passed that order also involved the best
part of his will. His going to the gallows would thus be tantamount to his committing
suicide. Rousseau himself explains this in these words, "Since each gives himself upto
all, actually there is little he gives up. In fact, he acquires over every associate the same
right that is given up by him. Man thus not only gains the equivalent of what is lost but
also acquires greater power to preserve what is left. "In this way, we find that this
contract established a sovereign in the form of the General Will and every individual was
a part of it and possessed co-equal powers.
Rousseau further says that this sovereign General Will can command any one
person or a set of persons to run the day to day affairs of the State. This person or
persons became executive and its function was to execute the law was enacted by the
sovereign, the General Will. Rousseau does not agree with Locke that the general body
of the citizens entered into a separate contract with one individual or a set of individuals
and thereby established the government. He says that the General Will is the sovereign
and everyone living in the society is subordinate to it. The question of the General Will
entered into a contract with any single individual or individuals do not arise at all. It,
therefore, commanded anyone of the individual or individuals to act as the government
for the whole society. That government, being subordinate, to the General Will, would
remain in power only so long as the latter wished. As and when it so the General Will
can ask the government to go and substitute another government in its place.
 To sum up, Rousseau talks of only one contract and that contract not only
created order out of chaos but also established a body politic in the form of the General
Will. It was thus both social and political in character.
The Emergent Authority
The General Will emerged out of the contract, composed the best part of the wills
of all the individuals. Since each individual surrendered Ills will and pooled it in common
and got back in return an indivisible part of the whole, the General -Will was a
permanent entity and a sovereign body. This body was always actuated by the higher,
common good of the whole society because it was the sum total of that part of the
individual wills which was always motivated by the general, and not the private, interests
of the people. Everyone must, therefore, willingly obey it not necessarily because it is the
sovereign body but also because its orders imply his good as well, which he may not be
able to perceive at the moment. If he somehow does not obey its orders, he can
legitimately be coerced by it to do so and thereby "force him to be free".
Agreeing with Hobbes, Rousseau says that sovereignty is inalienable and
indivisible. The sovereignty which rests with General Will cannot be transferred or
delegated to someone else. People can collectively deliberate among themselves and
enact laws and decide other vital state matters, and then pass their decision to the
government for implementation. But they cannot delegate or transfer their original
powers. He does not, therefore, subscribe to the modern theory of representative
democracy where under people periodically delegate their sovereign rights to their
democratically elected representatives. He emphatically assets, "As soon as a nation
appoints a representative, it is no longer free, it no longer exists."
The General Will, however, vests its authority of implementing the laws and of
handling the day to day affairs in a government which is subordinate to it in every
respect. Its authority as well as its tenure is limited. It is there at the behest of the
General Will which can dismiss it whenever it so pleases. Rousseau thus indirectly
subscribes to the concept of the limited government.
Criticism of Rousseau’s Social contract theory
5. Social contract theory encourages Absolutism: According Rousseau,
General will is sovereign and an individual’s freedom lies in obeying the
general will. Even if general will is wrong, an individual cannot oppose it.
6. Difficult to understand the concept of general will: Rousseau’s idea of
general will is vague and it is very difficult to determine it. In general will
the will of all or the will of majority has not been clarified by Rousseau.
7. State of nature is just an imagination: According to rousseau, the
state of nature was a ‘golden period’ in which an individual lived a very
peaceful life. But such a state of nature can be possible only in utopia and
not in real world.
8. Disrespect of individualism: Rousseau merges individuals’ personal will
into the general will as a result of which an individual loses his personal
will and becomes just a drop in a absolute general will.
To sum up, the emergent authority of Rousseau's contract has two facets. One
comprises the General Will which is sovereign, indivisible and inalienable. In other
words, one that possesses all the features of an absolute despotic ruler. The other facet
is the government which the General Will establishes by its demand. The government is
limited in every respect. Rousseau may thus be described as champion of popular
sovereignty, on the one hand, and the limited government, on the other.
Self Assessment Questions
1. Who wrote “Social Contract”?
___________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
2. Locke’s views of Social Contract.
___________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

5.3 ROUSSEAU’S COMPARISON WITH HOBBES AND LOCKE

At the outset we hinted that Rousseau did not command much of originality in so
far as the raw material that he used to explain his basic thesis was concerned. He
borrowed something from Hobbes and something from Locke and tried to logically blend
them so as to produce his theory. Let us compare him with his two predecessors in
some details.Beginning with his description of the state of nature we find that Rousseau
begins with Locke and ends with Hobbes. He says that, to begin with, the state of nature
was one of peace, containment, and happiness. No one quarreled with another, the
reason being that there was no need or occasion for any such quarrel. That state of
nature, thus, resembled to some extent with that of Locke. Later on, when population
increased and reason downed, private property' crept in, the urge to acquire and hold
property made man to quarrel with one another. Gradually, the hitherto, peaceful state of
nature degenerated into a civil war wherein everyone behaved in the most savage
manner. Life became-insecure and uncertain. In other words, the .same law of the jungle
began to operate as Hobbes referred to in his .Leviathan.
Moving further on to the social contract, we find that Rousseau amply agrees
with Hobbes. Like the latter, he says that only one contract was concluded wherein
people surrendered all the powers that they possessed. This contract was both social
and political because it not only transformed the population of the noble savages into a
civilized society but also organized the people into a body politic.
By the surrender of powers, the authority that emerged - a sovereign ruler in
case of Hobbes and the General Will in case of Rousseau - was a permanent entity and
possessed all the features of an absolute despot. Since the people had surrendered all
their powers, they were no longer in a position to rebel against the ruler. The argument
that each of the philosophers adduces is, however, different, Hobbes, plea is that man
after transferring all his powers to the ruler, reduces himself to zero, hence loses his
right to rebel. So far as Rousseau is concerned, he says that man, actuated by the
general good of the society, surrenders his person and powers in common and in return
gets back his rights as an indivisible part of the whole. Since the General Will not only
involves his own will but also aims at the common good of the whole society, he should
not, and in fact cannot, disobey the General Will. If he somehow violates its command,
he can be coerced to obey it. To Hobbes and Rousseau the ruler is, therefore, an
absolute sovereign. His will know no bound. His every word is law for the people.
Sovereignty vests only in him. He cannot transfer or delegate his sovereign powers in
another. Delegation would destroy sovereignty. In a word, sovereignty in the eyes of
both these philosophers is absolute, inalienable and unlimited.
 There is, however, a difference between the sovereigns of Hobbes and
Rousseau. The former vests sovereignty in a person or a set of persons and the latter in
the General Will the former in a determinate human being and the latter in an intangible
Will of the people. In other words, to Hobbes one single person or a body of persons can
possess powers far higher and better than the rank and file and can thus issuer
command to them. To Rousseau, on the other hand, no single person can occupy a
position superior to the rest and to the denial of the same status to others. In his opinion
the General Will and not any single individual can alone be sovereign. To sum up, both
Hobbes and Rousseau subscriber to the theory of absolute sovereignty with the only
difference that to Hobbes' sovereign is an individual and to Rousseau, the General Will,
Commenting upon it, one writer says "Rousseaus" General Will is Hobbes' Leviathan
with its head chopped off.
It will, however, be a statement of partial truth if we say that Rousseau
subscribed only to Hobbes' theory of sovereignty. He was equally obliged to Locke for
his concept of limited government. Credit goes to Locke for enunciating the concept of
constitutional democracy. He says that man in the state of nature surrendered his right
to govern himself and pooled it in common. The body politic (state) that thus emerged
concluded a subsidiary' contract with one person (who was one among them) and
conditionally gave to him the right to rule over them. The moment he violated his
contract, people revolted against him and removed him, substituting another in his place.
In this way, he enunciates and upholds the theory of limited government. Rousseau also
subscribes to it and goes a step farther. He says that the general will that emerged out of
the basic contract was the sovereign body. None was superior to it in any way. This
sovereign will appoint one person to enforce the laws that it enacted from time to time
and also to handle other day to day affairs of the state. Being a sovereign body, it
possessed all powers to appoint and remove the government at will. The government
was a body subordinate to the general will. While, on the one hand, Rousseau
subscribes to Lacke's theory of constitutional government, he, on the other totally
subordinates it to the general will.
Another striking similarity in the views of Locke and Rousseau is that both of
them made clear cut distinction between state and government and a.lso between the
legislature and the executive. To Locke the general body of the people established by
means of the first contract, was a state and hence also. acted as the legislature, and the
ruler who emerged out of the subsidiary contract, was the government as well as the
executive. To Rousseau, the general will was the state as well as the legislature and the
government that the general will established also acted as the executive. Their theory
thus marks a definite improvement over the one presented by Hobbes.
5.4 CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
The social contract theory enjoyed its maximum popularity during the 17th and
the 18th centuries. The 19th century marked a period of its decline. It attracted criticism
from a number of quarters. Philosophers like Ludwig Van haller, HermyBenthem, Sir
Henry Maine, T.H. Green, Edmund Burke, Bluntschli subjected it to severe criticism, with
the result that it gradually tottered to its grave leaving behind a large progeny of scholars
to indulge in useless academic discussion.
The main points of criticism can be discussed, as under:-
4. Historically False: The Primary object of this theory was to speculate
about the origin of the state. It miserably failed to achieve that lofty
objective. History does not furnish any instance when a state might have
 been established by .means of a contract and much less of that state
which was deliberately established by such people as were nothing short
of brutes. The advocates of this theory, however, cite the case of the
May-flower. When after the discovery of America the nationals of a
number of European countries began to migrate to that new land, a ship,
called the Mayflower, sailed with some British Puritans in 1620. Its
passengers contracted among themselves to establish in the name of
God a new state. This case no doubt provides an apt example where
people voluntarily and consciously established a state through a contract.
But it must be noted that all the Mayflower people were the civilized
citizens of England and were fully familiar with the working of the political
institutions. It was not the case of a people who lived in the state of nature
and behaved more beasty than the beasts of the jungle. This evidence is,
thus a self defeating one, T.H. Green was, therefore, very correct in
describing this theory of historical fiction.
There is another aspect of this theory which is also not supported
by history. The contractualists say that in the state of nature man lived
singly and led the life of an isolated individual. In the opinion of Hobbes
and also in that of Rousseau (in the later stage when private property
merged) man was a deadly enemy of man and was always haunted by
the ear of others. The contract that man concluded with his fellow beings,
brought an end to that lonely, individualized life and established in its
place a community and, therefore, man began to lead a collective life.
History does not subscribe to this theory of the social evolution of man.
The evidence gathered by historians reveals that the primitive man lived
in communities. To keep his body and soul together, he moved from
place to place in large groups, may those be described as tribes or herds.
In those communities, compassion and fellow-feeling prevailed. The
weaker were not allowed to die. They were adequately protected by the
entire folk. There was no such thing as man killing to man. It was much
later in the march of civilization, that the individual appears and replaces
the community life of the tribes. Highlighting this process. Sir Henry Maine
says, "Early laws are biding not on individuals but on families .......The
movement of progressive societies has been uniform in one respect.
Through all its course it has been distinguished by the gradual dissolution
of family depending and the growth of individual obligations in its place.
The individual has been steadily substituted for the family as the unit of
which civil laws take account.
5. Scientific Illogical: In the second place, the theory, says Garner, "must
be rejected upon grounds of philosophy and reasons." It suffers from a
inherent contradictions. To point out a few, we find Hobbes and
Rousseau telling .us that there was a time when state did not exist
anywhere on the surface of the glotre. At that time, man lived in the state
of nature. In the absence of any legal authority to exercise a check upon
his activities, he gave the fullest display to his selfish nature. Man was an
enemy of a man. He could kill anyone he liked and could snatch anything
from anyone. The law of the jungle 'might is right' was the only rule that
guided his conduct. Then' they tell us that man when got tired of that
reckless state of war, thought of establishing a state by means of a
 contract and he did so. Now question arises how could that man who until
yesterday was a savage and who could not bear the sight of another, who
was at war with all others, ever think of establishing a peaceful order?
How could political consciousness dawn upon him quite all of a sudden?
Much more puzzling than all this was: how could man ever think of that
institution which he had neither seen nor experienced, nor had heard
others of having either seen or experienced? It is all logical. Either man in
the state of nature was not a savage as these contractualists: describe
him or he was as such, he did not establish this state. If both these
assumptions are correct, then it may not be a wonder if tomorrow all the
lions of India hold a convention at Delhi and negotiate among themselves
in their own language a social-cum- political contract.
Another contradiction is that these contractualists on the one
hand, hold that in the state of nature man enjoyed natural liberty and
rights, and, on the other, deny the existence of any legal authority. We
know that rights and liberty impose upon people certain obligations, to
enforce which some sort of legal authority is a must. Rights and liberty
without corresponding duties are nothing but a license to do anything one
likes. Now question arises, how could rights exist without an authority?
Either there were no rights in the appropriate sense of the term or some
sort of authority did exist to enforce them.
6. State is not based on Contract: The notion that state is based on a
contract is also a false basis. It may be rejected on a number of grounds;
Firstly, contract is always bilateral in character, i.e. it always presupposes
the existence of two equal partners, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau do not
work on this basic premise. The man in the state of nature surrendered
his powers and person to one individual in case of Hobbes and to the
collectivity in case of Locke and Rousseau without any conditions
whatsoever. The person to whom powers are surrendered is never taken
into confidence. He becomes their ruler without making any commitment
at all. Is it justified to describe this act of the surrender of powers by such
terms as contract or compact?
Secondly, contract is always supported by some sort of a legal sanction, which
means that any breach of the contract by either party must be duly punished. None of
the contractualists make a reference to any such sanction, Locke does, however, say
that the government when violated the contract can be punished by dismissing it and
substituting another in its place. But the trouble is that he does not admit in explicit terms
that the constitution of the government was effected through a contract. When the two
parties are not referred to at all, as in the case of Hobbes and Rousseau and no
conditions are imposed upon the one whom powers are transferred, the question of
sanction does not arise at all. Moreover, sanctions are meaningless when there is no
legal authority. In the state of nature, no-such legal authority existed. Hence sanctions if
at all incorporated in the contact would have been devoid of any significance.
Thirdly, this theory when speaks of the state as having come out of a contact,
hinges the relationship of the citizen with the state to that basic contract, which
proposition is again seriously exposed to criticism. To say that my relationship with the
site is contractual in nature implies that I and the state both are at liberty to break the
contract and free ourselves from mutual obligations resulting from the contract. If that
were so, people would have resigned the membership of the state when that suited their
convenience and would have acquired it when haunted by some danger. Gamer very
rightly points out. "Such a view tends to make the state a matter of individual caprice and
if the doctrine is followed to its logical conclusion, is subversive of authority and leads to
anarchy and dissolution." On the contrary, the relationship of the individual with the Sate
is a partnership of a very high order. It is an ever-lasting thing never coming to an end. It
does not involve any element of violation or option.
Finally, apart from the danger of this relationship encouraging anarchy, it is
inherently illogical Contract is always entered into between two equals and not between
two unequal. Here, in this case the contract takes place between an individual and the
state. The former in comparison to the latter is far too '• unequal. This does not,
therefore, sound logic, "It would be just as logical", points out Ludwing von Haller, "to
speak of a contract between an individual and the sun that he would allow himself to be
warmed by it, or between him and the frost that he would clothe himself better."
To sum up, the theory of social contract does not furnish a satisfactory, logical
and scientific explanation, much less an authentic one, regarding the origin of the state.
Someone has aptly remarked that it was a bad history, bad philosophy and bad law: If
we objectively look into those events in the context of which this theory was expounded,
we find that the primary object of these philosophers was not to put forward any cogent
explanation regarding the origin of the state. Each had his own motive. Hobbes to
defend monarchy, Locke to justify the Glorious Revolution and Rousseau to establish
the right of resistance on the part of subjects to sovereigns. The talk of the origin of the
state was Just incidental or a corollary to the main mission. This theory, however, served
a very useful purpose. It finally exploded the myth of the divine origin of the kings and
established in its place a theory of popular sovereignty and limited government. This has
been quite a significant contribution of this theory of the development of political philosophy.
5.5 SUMMARY
Social Contract theory was advanced in 17th and 18th centuries by the eminent
philosophers. This social contract theory throws light on the origin of the society. The
classical representatives of this theory are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and J.J.
Rousseau.According to this theory men lived in a 'state of nature'. Society came into
existence because of an agreement or contract among themselves in order to achieve
certain ends. However, the supporters differ from one another and give their individual
views.
The theory of such a contract, first formulated by the English philosophers
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, assumes that men at first lived in a state of anarchy in
which there was no society, no government, and no organized coercion of the individual
by the group. Hobbes maintained that by the social contract men had surrendered their
natural liberties in order to enjoy the order and safety of the organized state. Locke
made the social contract the basis of his advocacy of popular sovereignty, the idea that
the monarch or government must reflect the will of the people. Like Locke, the French
philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau, in Le Contract social (1762), found the general will
a means of establishing reciprocal rights and duties, privileges, and responsibilities as a
basis of the state. Although historically important, the theory as a basis of society and
the state has generally been discarded by modern social and political scientists.
5.6 GLOSSARY
 1. Glorious Revolution – A revolution in Britain in 1688 in which the
parliament disposed king James-II.
2. Sovereign – A supreme ruler.
5.7 FURTHER READINGS
• Verma, S.P. (1975). Modern Political Theory.Vikas Publisher
• Asisvatham, E &Misra K. K (2014-15). Political Theory. S. Chand &
Co. Ltd, New Delhi.
5.8 MODEL QUESTIONS
1. Discuss the Social Contract Theory based on the views of Hobbes and
Locke.
2. Compare the Views of Hobbes, Locke and Rosseau on the Social
Contarct theory of the origin of the State.
3. Critically Evaluate the Social Contract Theory.
---00---
 Lesson-6

THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE: THE

HISTORICAL/EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

Structure
6.0 Objectives
6.1 Introduction
6.2 The Evolutionary Theory of the Origin of the State and its Various Determinants
6.3 Summary
6.4 Glossary
6.5 Further Readings
6.6 Model Questions
6.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able :
 tounderstand the Historical or Evolutionary theory of the Origin of the
State.
 critically discuss various dimensions of the Evolutionary Theory of the
State.
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Various theories have been put forward to explain the origin of the state. Some
philosophers assert that the state is the result of social contract or an agreement
between the people and the sovereign. There are others who feel that it is the direct
result of force.There is yet another set of philosophers who contend that the state is a
magnified image of the family. All these theories, however, are maimed and fallacious
and have little truth in them.This led Garner to remark that the state is neither a
handiwork of God, nor the result of a superior physical force, nor the creation of a
contract, nor a mere expansion of family. It is a slow process of growth and evolution.
The state did not come into existence abruptly.It has developed from its crude and
simple form to the modern, complex structure slowly. In the words of Leacock, "the state
is a growth, an evolution, the result of a gradual process running through out all the
known history of man and receding into remote and unknown past."The origin of the
state cannot be traced to a single factor of a definite period. The historical theory regards
the state as a product of slow historical evolution extending over a long period. Various
factors have contributed to its development.
The theory which explains, and is now accepted as a convincing origin of the
State, is the Historical or Evolutionary Theory. It explains that the State is the product of
growth, a slow and steady evolution extending over a long period of time and ultimately
shaping itself into the complex structure of a modem State. Burgess has aptly said that
the State is a “continuous development of human society out of a grossly imperfect
beginning through crude but improving forms of manifestation towards a perfect and
universal organisation of mankind.” It is difficult to say how and when the State came
into existence. Like all other social institutions, it must have emerged imperceptibly,
supported by various influences and conditions.
Apart from the influences of physical environment and geographical conditions,
there are five important factors which made men to aggregate at different places and
separated one group from another, thereby paving the way for the rise and growth of the
State.
6.2 THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE AND
ITS VARIOUS DETERMINANTS
The researches in history, anthropology, ethnology (science of races and their
relation to one another) and comparative philosophy have amply established that state is
an outcome of a long process of historical evolution. It is a finished product of
innumerable centuries and millions rolled by in this process of historical evolution: the
element at consciousness did not play any role worth the name even. Taking its start
from an awfully crude beginning this unconscious march of civilization was spread over a
number of stages, each of which was an improvement over the one immediately
preceding it. This process gradually flourished into this institution which is so perfect, so
well organized and so fine as to ensure the best possible development of human
personality.
In this development, a number of factors played their part. It would be a gross
exaggeration of facts if we say that Kinship or Force has exclusively been responsible
for the emergence of the state. In fact not one but many factors made their contribution.
Another point which is to be taken note of is that all these factors worked not in isolation
of one another, but, more or less in union. Sometimes one factor was more significant
than the rest; sometimes they worked simultaneously, and so on. For our convenience
we will, however, discuss them individually under separate headings.
5. Kinship: The first major fact that substantially contributed to this process
of state building was kinship. It is now widely recognized that family was
the original basic institution out of which state gradually emerged.
Consisting of father, mother and children the family was held together by
the bonds of kinship, all the members of this institution, were as they are
today, sentimentally attached with one another.
Father, who was the head of the family, was highly respected by everyone and
his command in that crude social organizational set up extended over the life and death
of every member of the family. Gradually, as the family enlarged, grand old father
assumed the role of a patriarch. His decree still remained valid over his folks. Each such
family maintained its independent entity and in time of inter-family feuds, the members
zealously fought for the honour and existence of their respective units. Kinship was the
only bond which held them together and instilled in them a sense of love and pride for
their families. The bond of kinship was so strong for the primitive man that even at a later
stage when it became difficult to trace one's ancestory, if someone cited of an ancestor
who also happened to be the ancestor of another person, the two sentimentally felt
attached with each other and considered themselves as the offspring of the same family
stock.
 Even today, the Indian concept of 'biradari' is nothing but the recurrence of the
same old spirit of family affection. Emphasizing the role of kinship in the development of
the state. Maclver says, "the magic of names reinforced the sense of Kinship as the
course of generation enlarged the group. The blood bond of kinship changed
imperceptibly into the social bond of wider, brotherhood. The authority of the father
passed into the power of the chief.... Once more under the aegis of Kinship new forms
arise which transcend it. Kinship creates society and society at length creates the state."
6. Religion: As time rolled by and the membership of the families
tremendously increased, it became a problem to trace one's ancestory. In
that changed situation, religion emerged as a strong bond of unity,
holding the people together. To the primitive man, ignorant as he was,
anything that failed to touch his imagination, appeared to him as of divine
origin and he, consequently began to worship that. Each family adopted
its own God and began to identify itself by the God it worshipped. Hence
emerged such separate families as worshipped sun, moon, rain, earth
etc. If sometime some head of the family saved it from a disaster either in
war or in some natural calamity, he also began to be worshipped by his
posterior generation. It is in this way that the origin of the Hindu ‘gotras’
names was founded.
In primitive times, when blood bond came to be weakened as a result of the large
expansion of family, religion stepped in to hold the members of the same tribe together.
People when found others worshipping the same god as they did, felt automatically
attracted to one-another. A sense of oneness, a sentiment of brotherhood was aroused
by them. In this way, religion very eminently served the purpose which kinship had now
failed to do. F.G. Frazer has conducted an extensive study of the primitive societies and
has highlighted the role of religion in the origin and development of society. He says that
"to begin with, common worship of gods and ancestors was a potent welding factor
among families and tribes. Later oh, the magician who created a profound impact by his
magic and intelligent interpretation of things,' held sway in the society. He gradually
became the priest king, serving both the religious needs of the society and holding them
together in the face at any danger. Frazer gives a large mass -of evidence to prove this
development of events. It is thus proved beyond doubt that religion played a very
significant part in the development of state."
7. Force: Another very important factor that helped the transformation of the
primitive society into the modem state was the force. Some thinkers
consider force as the only factor responsible for the birth of the state. That
was, however, not the case Force contributed but partially.
The primitive man did not know the act of cultivation and he consequently, lived
on the wild natural growth. When population grew, the available foodstuffs of one locality
ran short. The residents decided to send out to the neighbouring place one section of
theirs. Another group was already living there. The latter finding the former encroaching
upon their land and foodstuffs checked them obviously, the two groups came to clash. It
is in this way that force came to play its part. Since in the initial stages the problem was
that of foodstuffs, the visitors killed the vanquished groups and regained supreme in the
new found land. By and by, more groups began to move from place to place. Clashes
increased and force became a dominant factor in the expression of society. Later on, a
consciousness dawned upon the victors not to put the vanquished to death and instead
assign to them such odd jobs as they did not like to do themselves. That was the
beginning of the practice of command and obedience.
When population came to acquire a stable position, force assumed a new role.
There started intra-group feuds. The stronger took the help of force in' order to keep the
other contenders for power in check. Those who maneuvered to throw a successful
challenge to the stronger, replaced him and those who lost to him were either
mercilessly crushed or were made him councilors and advisors. The force was also
needed by the stronger to establish law and order in the society and also to keep off the
aggressor. Thus force played a very significant role not only in the emergence and
development of the state but also in its continued existence.
8. Political Consciousness: The last factor in the series was the political
consciousness. The society gradually came to live in permanent
habitations. But that did not confer on it the status of the state. So long as
political consciousness did not dawn upon a society, state was not born.
The political consciousness was, thus, the supreme element in the
process of the state building. By political consciousness, we mean the
existence of certain ends, which can be achieved through political
organization. These pre-conceived ends did not exist earlier because
man was not conscious of what he was striving for. It was at a much later
stage in the development of society that the people were forced by the
circumstances to frame their goals, and establish some sort of political
organization to achieve these goals. The stage arrived when aggressions
increased and the need was increasingly felt to have some permanent
force to fight out the aggression so that every time the whole population
was not required to define itself. Further, the need to support those who
fought at the frontiers and their dependents was another additional factor
which helped this consciousness to grow. It may be wrong to suppose
that the rank and file in society all at once began to think in terms of the
political organization. This consciousness first dawned upon a few natural
leaders and then gradually spread among the rest. Guided by these
leaders, the society worked out a political organization needed for the
purpose. By and by, this organization improved upon itself as
circumstances required ultimately flourishing into the modern state.

Self-Assessment Questions
1. Role of Political Consciousness in the origin of the state?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What is minimal State?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Role of the State

Contrasting interpretation of state power has clear implication for the desirable role or
responsibilities of the state. What should state do? Among the different state forms that
have developed are the following:
 6. The minimal state
7. The developmental state
8. The social democratic state
9. The collectivized state
10. The totalitarian state
The minimal state: The minimal state is the idea of classical liberals, whose aim
is to ensure that individuals enjoy the widest possible realm of freedom. This view is
rooted in social contract theory, but it nevertheless advances an essentially ‘negative’
view of the state. The state is merely a protective body, its core function being to provide
a framework of peace and social order within which citizens can conduct their lives as
they think best.
The developmental state: A developmental state is one that intervenes in
economic development. This does not amount to an attempt to replace the market with a
socialist system of planning and control, but rather to and attempt to construct a
partnership between the state and major economic interests, often underpinned by
conservative and national priorities.
Social Democratic state: The social democratic state is an active participant,
helping in particular to rectify the imbalances and injustices of market economy. It
therefore tends to focus less upon the generation of wealth and more upon what is seen
as the equitable os just distribution of wealth.
Collectivized state: The justification for state collectivization stems from a
fundamental socialist preferences for common ownership over private property. However
the use of the state to attain this goal suggests a more positive attitude to state power
than that outlined in the classical writings of Marx and Engles.
Totalitarian State: The essence of totalitarianism is the construction of an all
embracing state, the influence of which penetrates every aspect of human existence.
The state brings not only the economy but education, culture, religion, family life and so
on under direct state control.
6.3 SUMMARY
No single factor is responsible for state building. It is result of evolutionary
process in which kinship, religion, property, force and consciousness of people are main
factors.To sum up, the origin of the state cannot be traced to a single factor of a definite
period. The historical theory regards the state as a product of slow historical evolution
extending over a long period.
6.4 GLOSSARY
3. Democratic - Relating to or supporting democracy or its principles.
4. Totalitarian - Relating to a system of government that is centralized and
dictatorial.
6.5 FURTHER READINGS:
• Verma, S.P. (1975). Modern Political Theory.Vikas Publisher
 • Asisvatham, E &Misra K. K (2014-15). Political Theory. S. Chand &
Co. Ltd, New Delhi.
 Duggal, R.N. (2014), Political Theory, Duggal Publishing House,
Jallandhar.
6.6 MODEL QUESTIONS
3. Discuss the various dimensions of the Evolutionary Theory of the Origin
of the State.
4. Critically Evaluate the Evolutionary Theory of the Origin of the State.

—00—
 Lesson-7

STATE: LIBERAL VIEW

Structure
7.0 Objective
7.1 Introduction: State and Liberalism
7.2 Elements and salient feature of Liberalist State
7.3 Liberalist view point about the nature of state: salient features and criticism
7.4 Summary
7.5 Glossary
7.6 Further Readings
7.7 Model Questions
7.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson you will be able :
 to understand the Liberal views of State.
7.1 INTRODUCTION: STATE AND LIBERALISM
Liberalism is a political ideology whose central theme is a commitment to the
individual and to the construction of a society in which individual can satisfy their
interests or achieve fulfillment. The core values of liberalism are: individualism,
rationalism, freedom, justice and toleration. The liberal belief that human beings are, first
and foremost, individuals, endowed with reason, implies that each individual should
enjoy the maximum possible freedom for all. On the other hand, the politics is often
understood as the study of the state. Political science used to be defined by almost all
the political scientists as the science of state. A large majority of political scientists
accepted as valid the statement made by Garner, “Political science begins and ends with
the state”. This is widely mentioned that, “State as old as history and politics is as old as
state”. According to Woodrow Wilson, “State is a people organized for law within a
definite territory”. In this lecture script, we are going to acquaint you with the concept of
the State, its element, and how does it differ from the Government, Society Association
and Nation?
Significant differences nevertheless exist between classical liberalism and
modern liberalism:
In Classical liberalism is distinguished by a belief in a “minimal state”,
whose function is limited to the maintenance of domestic order and personal security.
Classical liberals emphasize that human beings are essentially self-interested and
largely self-sufficient; as far as possible, people should be responsible for their own lives
and circumstances. As an economic doctrine, classic liberalism extols the merit of a self-
regulating market in which government intervention is seen as both unnecessary and
damaging.
 Modern liberalism exhibits a more sympathetic attitude towards the state,
born out of the belief that unregulated capitalism merely produces new form of injustice.
State intervention can therefore enlarge liberty by safeguarding individuals from the
social evils that blight their existence. Whereas liberals understand freedom in negative
terms, as the absence of the constraints of the individual, modern liberals link freedom to
personal development and self realization. This creates clear overlaps between modern
liberalism and social democracy.
7.2 ELEMENTS OF LIBERALIST STATE
7. Individualism: Individualism is the core principle of liberal ideology. It
reflects a belief in the importance of the human individual as opposed to
any social groups or collective body. Human beings are seen, first and
foremost, as individual. This implies both that they are equal moral worth
that they possess separate and unique identity.
8. Freedom: Individual freedom or liberty is the core value of liberalism. It is
given priority over, say, equality, justice or authority. This arises naturally
from a belief in the individual and the desire to ensure that each person is
able to act as he or she pleases or chooses. Nevertheless, liberals
advocate “freedom under the law”, as they recognize that one person’s
liberty may be a threat to liberty of others.
9. Reason: Liberals believe that the world has a rational structure, and then
this can be uncovered through the exercise of human reason by critical
enquiry. This inclines them to place their faith in the liberty of individual to
make wise judgments on their own behalf, beings, in most cases, the best
judges of their own interest.
10. Equality: Individualism implies a belief in the foundational equality: that is
belief, that individuals are born equal, at least in term of moral worth. This
is reflected in a liberal commitment to equal rights and entitlements,
notably in the form of legal equality (equality before law) and political
equality (one person, one vote, one value).
11. Toleration: Liberals believe that toleration (the willingness of people to
allow other to think, speak and act in way of which they disapprove) is
both a guarantee of individual liberty and a means of social enrichment.
They believe that pluralism in the form of moral, cultural and political
diversity is the positively healthy: it promotes debate and intellectual
progress by ensuring that all belief is tested in a free market of ideas.
12. Consent: In the liberal view, authority and social relationships should
always be based on consent or willing agreement. Government must
therefore be based on the “consent of governed”. This is a doctrine that
encourages liberals to favour representations and democracy. Similarly,
social bodies and associations are formed through contracts willingly
entered into by individuals’ intent on pursuing their own self interests.
7. Constitutionalism: Although, liberal see government as a vital guarantee
of order and stability in society, they are constantly ware of the danger
that government may become a tyranny against the individuals (power
tent to corrupt, Lord Acton). They therefore believe in the limited
government, this goal can be attained through the fragmentation of
 government power, by the creation of checks and balance amongst the
various institutions of government, and through the establishment of a
codified or written constitution embodying a bill of rights that defines the
relationships between the state and individual
Features of liberalist state
An 'ism' is a way of life drive towards a certain ideal. This 'push' towards the ideal
is anchored on certain principles which in the long run tend to materialize its goals and
ends through the conceptualization of certain values, incarnation of a method of thinking
covering politics, economics, education, ethics and the various activities of the spirit.
Through the institutional framework an attempt is made to channelize activities in a way
that the set goals are reached at-or at least an attempt is made to reach them. While
trying to reach it, so many times, arrangements are waived, institutional edifices are
altered, policies are framed and reframed to suit the journey towards the target, that is
why an 'ideology' is very seldom a dogma or an inflexible rigidity. This is what makes it
difficult to come upon agreed explanations of the 'liberalism'.
13. Liberalism is a flexible, alterable arrangement of political 'ideals'
which are relative to time and place: Otherwise why and how would
Lenin the inventor of twentieth century totalitarianism be allowed to, pass
as the greatest of liberals by some. It is interesting how at one time or the
other the conservatives, the stories were also complimented with the
'Liberal' adornment. But then there must be some common denominators
which could be marking the liberal ideology otherwise it would not have
stood apart from the rest of the ideologies; it would have blended and
merged with them. An analysis of what liberalism is and what it is not, is
the only denominator which we can address this strand of thinking in an
authentic way.
14. The idea of progress: The idea of progressis at the centrality of
liberalism of all kinds and brands. Progress is taken as a social
inevitability and that accords it the sociological validity also. It turned out
in the course of time that liberalism was indissolubly intertwined with
humanism, personal rights and human rights. It was also at times realized
that the main threats to this cult arose from the interventions in free
development in the name of industrialization and to check the abuse of
power. As the conservatives were osculating between reaction and
continuity- the socialists between revolution and democracy the liberals
were persuaded by doubts between their economic and political
postulates - the irony of the whole thing is that in every conflict as the
state who was the beneficiary.
15. The state not only as a negative instrument but as a positive
medium for the maximization of freedom: liberalism is understandable
because its basic theme human progress is also riddled with numerous
social economic, political and cultural ambivalences. It was under the
deadening experience of the dictatorship and the 2nd World War that the
World realized the validity of the anti-totalitarian attitude of the liberalism
which culminated in a demise of the absolutist claim of the various
ideologies and a survival of a libertarian social democracy. Now the time
has come of the trend of generalization and integration of liberalism in all
 democratic parties and a reigning voice in revived western libertarian
parliamentary democracies. There was a hush attempt to forsake the
impact of the totalitarian yoke and to favour the emancipation of the
fetters on thinking, human freedom and dignity and the economic growth.
Even though liberalism at various times has acquired various shapes and
manifestations variously different from each other because of the
pressures of historical relativity, it can laboriously be summed up into
certain tight and defined categories.
16. Upholds the idea of individuality: Just as in the totalitarian ideology
success becomes the barrier of truth, in the liberal ideology the truth itself
is a final and determining category and upholding of human dignity and
human reason is the cardinal principle of the truth. In the liberalist cult
individual takes precedence over group-equality over freedom. Since
individualism is the keynote that keeps the liberalism going, it is
worthwhile here to illustrate the difference between the classical liberal
notions of individualism and the modem ones. Early liberalism i.e. the
classical liberalism was individualistic-undiluted and clear-the
governments are there to protect the individual rights. The man who
previously was the executor and judge of natural law gave way to the
circumspection of this right to the state for a larger cause-the well being of
all. The rationale, therefore, for the state is to defend the rights of
individual-thus Locke, one of the earlier individualists, pleaded for the
idea of 'limited government.
17. Recognition to the elective principle or an advocacy of
representative Government: Liberal idea takes its roots from a very
different premise as compared to the democratic idea in democracy "who
rules' is one basic concern and liberalism's concern is what the
government does. This is why the liberals are not smitten by the
democratic idea but in the final analysis of the problem "what is done for
the individual" necessarily gets linked with "who rules' - and there we find
the convergence of both democracy and liberalism. One must bear in
mind that the identification of the two ideas was the result of historical
development and not of logical necessity. This also makes us to
appreciate the suspicion of the earlier liberals towards the democratic
ideal, they were skeptical that if power was allowed to pass over to the
ignorant and property less masses they might abuse it.
This dilemma of liberalism is well focused by George Grote a
prominent English liberal in 1867. He said, 'I have outlived my faith in the
efficacy of republican government regarded as a check upon the vulgar
passions of a 'majority in a nation and I recognize the fact that supreme
power lodged is their hands may be exercised quite as mischievously as
by a despotic ruler. Modem liberalism has announced truce with the
democracy but off and on it keeps cautioning democracy to be genuinely
'democratic'.
18. Primacy to reason: The rise of liberalism is from the debris of
unreasonableness-what irrationality does to human dignity, its intolerance
towards a counter argument and its rigid adherence towards dogmatism
the toward fanatical espousing of religious heresies - it is from here that
 the liberalism takes roots as a movement giving priority to reason over
non-reasonableness, as a rejection of dogmatic rationalism-secularization
of law and of politics too, through a non-religious approach-ushering in
individualism combining the humanists dignity and the protestant's
responsibility, at the same time an enthusiastic response to the new ideas
and new movements. The liberalist's main worry is the defence of
individual's dignity and capacity for choice that is why it seems at variance
at various historical junctures because of : the varying sources of
resistance, which it sought to counter. At times it looked like democratic
socialism, at others democratic progressivism so many times it has
passed for liberal conservatism and liberal socialism-one contradictory to
the other. Liberalism is the freeing of human potentialities in the sciences,
arts and literature. For the unfolding of the individual's capacities, the
greatest handicap and risk is from intolerance and hence liberalism is all
for the tolerance in human relations. Looked at intimately tolerance is the
off shoot of reason. The emancipation of conscience through the
elimination of religious discrimination, emancipation of minds through free
universal education, emancipation of women through free and
compulsory education in them and corresponding change in social morals
have been the liberal stands at various times and various places.
19. Right and equality of opportunity: The classical liberal belief is that
achievement criteria such as talent, industry and creativity-rather than
birth criteria should be the determining factor of one’s' social position.
While they made a case for equality of law they did not put up a plea for
equality of conditions-because to do that they had to attack them favourite
them-the idea of private property.
In its import, modem liberalism is much more equaliterian since it
accepts that the formal legal equality does nothing to mitigate the
vastness of disparities in the life chances of the children of affluent and
paupers. Modern liberalism gives sanction to such differences rather than
raise a voice against them- it liberalizes its guarded sanctity to private
property only to accommodate a generous allowance for 'every citizen to
have the full means of earning by socially useful labour for a healthy
civilized existence. They can still go further as to say in the words of
Hobhouse that if the economic system did not so provide the citizen he
still has a claim not as of charity, but as of right on the national resources
to make good the deficiency'.
20. A case for Reforms: Liberalism is a midway approach between the
revolution of extreme left and the reaction of extreme right. As if to suit
itself to the clamours of times it has adjusted its endowments to quicken a
revolutionary pace or a conservation posture. But it is more like itself
when it mouths the reformist thesis. Since it has basic faith that men are
rational and responsible so the reordering of social and political
arrangements can be furnished by them in a constitutional way without
raising any disproportionate din. But the desire to new arrangements of
reforms should be deliberate and conscious. Dictums like 'trial and error",
'experimental approach', keeps on surfacing over and over again amidst
the liberal philosophy.
21. A new approach towards religion: Which is opposed to clericalism but
is not atheist or irreligion? The liberalist's anticlericalism has sprung out
from its stress on individualism. Freedom means freedom of conscience
too besides of press, speech and assembly. Liberalism grants religion a
private place in individual's life. Ritualism of any kind is considered
repugnant to individual's freedom of conscience. Religion has to rest on
faith rather than fear, (rather than the mechanized working of ritual and
conformity). It anchors at spontaneity and not formalism.
22. An unflinching trust in education-as a method to bring about
revolution: Education unlike in totalitarian ideology is not regarded as a
medium of indoctrination but as a way to formulate and develop individual
personality. Education is stressed upon as an excellent method for
socialisation and training of skills by the communist regimes, the liberals’
humanist approach did not find this idea congenial. Their idea of
education is unique in that education is considered in liberal lexicon as
every body's own way of finding guidance and key to development. That
makes a liberal society like that in the United States essentially different
in appearance from the one where the indoctrination is education. This
kind of liberal education has its pitfalls too. This kind of self-education
presages a strong character on the part of its recipients and also an
exceptional calibre on the part of its students to cope with the multiplicity
and diversity of ideas which lie scattered during school and college life to
assimilate it in a proper way and to properly incarnate thinking with the
aid of them unaided by any outside help. This system leaves a lot to the
individual's initiative".
23. Liberal defence of property: Locke was of the opinion that before the
advent of the state, people lived in the state of nature: He, however, does
not subscribe to the view of Hobbes either with regard to the human
nature or with the state of nature. He says that man is basically not a
selfish animal. On the contrary, he is a social being, always animated by
fellow-feelings reason and justice. Accordingly, the state of nature was
not a state of war and constant fear. It was a state of perfect freedom
wherein man lived in peace with his fellow-beings and always actuated by
the noble instinct of compassion and mutual help. Man's conduct was
regulated by the laws of nature which everybody keenly and peacefully
obeyed. He also possessed certain natural rights; noteworthy among
them were the rights to life, liberty and property. He not only enjoyed
those rights himself but also allowed others to enjoy them. The state of
nature was thus a state of positive peace and or natural give and take.
Locke himself describes the state of nature as "a state of perfect freedom
to order their actions and dispose of their persons as they think fit, within
the bounds of the law of nature without asking leave or depending upon
the will of any other man. “Liberalists feel that property entails liberty as a
natural off shot. Jefferson, a onetime American President had opined that
it would be desirable to see the day when all families have some
property-that is why liberals shun the idea of abolition of property-diffusion
of it could be alright, to solve the problem of haves and have nots and an
iniquitous system.
 24. Economic ideas of Liberalism: The liberal's live and let live' stance
manifests itself in the economic field as near unbridled capitalism-a free
market. As a regulator of economics this economy accrued two
advantages to the liberalist: it enables more people than did any other
system to act in the economic field on the basis of their own decisions,
and the other, that it was by far the most productive. The disadvantages
of this economy were enormous but even then to its advocate the
advantages were more numerous. At certain junctures the liberals of
various countries did make a plea for state intervention in the market and
limited free enterprise as was the case with Swiss-French radical-still the
range of autonomy in economic activities remained considerable.
In sum, liberalism is basically concerned with the idea of liberty,
whether it be the liberty of religion or of economic activity it is first and
foremost-a choice, which is not value based for it is neither good nor evil,
neither right nor wrong, it is not even the welfare economy, or belief or
disbelief in god, it is to concur with Locke, 'a capacity for choices, inherent
in the reasoning faculties of human beings. Capacity for choice underlines
hostility to any determination of human beings and allowing them
abundant freedom for the variety of experiences conducive to the
richness and meaningfulness of active living. But one thing should be
taken care of that in the context of organised community the liberal's
liberty is the right to be exercised within limits dictated by the
requirements of social order. This endows liberty with a tinge of morality-
the discrete capacity of the individual to choose between right and wrong
responsibility. Liberty is the chance given to mankind to work out their
own destinies. We can associate with liberalism the names of Laski,
Hobhouse, J.S. Mill, Adamsmith-but this name dropping exercise is futile
because Liberalism as said earlier has meant different things at various
times, its protagonists are numerous and mutually incompatible.
7.3 LIBERALIST VIGILANT ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE STATE
The views of liberalists about the nature of the state can be divided into the
following headings:
11. State is a man made institution: According to liberalist, state is neither a
divine institution nor it is the outcome of force, but it is an institution made
by man for the fulfillment of his needs. Famous contractualists Hobbes,
Locke and Rousseau have supported this viewpoint.
12. State is a necessary evil: According to liberalists’ state is necessary fo
those functions which the individual himself cannot do. But with the use of
laws the state curtails the liberty of the individuals and becomes obstacle
in the way of his progress. Thus it is an evil. Keeping this view in mind
this objective, the liberalists who are also known as individualists,
advocated the principle of ‘Laissez faire” (The non-interference of the
state)
13. Difference between state and the society: Liberalists believe that the
state and society both are two different institutions. The society is older
than the society. Like state has fixed territory, society has not; state has
government but has not.
 14. State is a pluralist association: Liberalists, like the pluralists agree that
social, economic, political, religious and cultural are the various aspects
of individual life in a society. The individual has made various
associations for the fulfillment of his needs. Maclver, “State is one of the
associations among many within the community.”
15. State is only a mean for the sake of society: The state cannot be an
end in itself. In fact, it is e mere mean of all surrounding development and
welfare of the society. The state is for the individual, not individuals are
for the state, because the individual has created state in order to protect
their liberty.
16. State has limited sphere of its activity: According to the liberalists, the
state should undertake only those activity which the individual himself is
not capable to undertake. All the remaining work should be done by the
individual on his own. But contemporary liberalists consider the welfare
nature of the state and are in favour of assigning the state more and more
functions.
17. Reconciliation of conflicting interests: The state is an instrument of the
reconciliation of various conflicting interests. There is scarcity of many
things in the state and each individual wants to establish his control over
the maximum number of goods. All this leads to conflict and the state is
an instrument which tries to establish coordination among these
conflicting interests.
18. Supporters of democratic government: liberalist argues that till the
state does not possess a democratic government, it cannot perform its
welfare functions. They therefore, emphasize the importance of
democratic form of the government. They favour the institutions of
representative democracy.
19. Citizen’s allegiance towards the state; Liberalists are of the view that
the membership of the state is compulsory for each individual, whereas
of other institution it is optional and discretionary for the individual, the
state look for the interests of all the people whereas other institutions do
not do so.
20. Laws cannot limit the freedom of an individual: Classical liberalists
are on the view that laws limit the freedom of an individual; therefore they
are in the favour of making the minimum numbers of the laws. And
contemporary liberalists are on the view that the laws of the state do not
limit the freedom of the individual rather these create proper environment
for the enjoyment of freedom and are the guardian of the freedom.
In sum up, we can say that according to liberalists, the state is manmade
institution. It is a mean to protect the freedom of and individual. It maintains law and
order; it is not above the individual as the will of the people is the basis of the state.
Criticism of Liberalist View point:
Following critics may be mentioned to the liberalist view point about the nature of
the state:
6. The state is not an association like other association: This viewpoint
of liberalists cannot be accepted because the state cannot be placed at
 par with other association. The state is sovereign and it protects and
promotes the interests of all the citizens living in the state.
7. State is not an evil: The present state is concerned with the life of the
individual even before he is born and continues to look after his interests
even after his death.
8. The state is not an artificial institution: The state is the natural
institution because it is the natural institution and is the result of historical
process and various factors like nature of man, religion, magic; force,
economic welfare etc have contributed its growth.
9. Marxist Critic to the liberalist: Marxists do not consider the state as
having come into existence as a means of welfare of all the people. They
opine that the state is a class institution which came into existence in
order to protect the interests of ruling class only. The ruling class utilizes
the supreme power of the state in order to protect and promote their own
interests and to exploit and suppress the economically weaker sections of
the society.
10. State is the source of rights: According to Locke, sate is the protector
of the rights not the source of the rights. But in contemporary state, the
individuals enjoy only those rights which are made available to him by the
state. No individual claim to enjoy any right without the consent of the
state.
The state has always been central to political analysis, to such an extent that
politics is often understood as the study of the state. This is evident in two debates.
8. The classic justification for the state is provided by social contract theory,
which constructs a picture of what life would be like, in a stateless society,
a so called “state of nature”. In the view of thinkers such as Hobbes and
Locke (1632-1704), as the state of nature would be the characterized by
an unending civil war of each against all, people would be prepared to
enter into an agreement- a social contract- through which they would
sacrifice a portion of their liberty in order to create a sovereign body
without which orderly and stable existence would be impossible. In final
analysis, individuals should obey the state because it is only safeguard
they have against disorder and chaos.
9. The major positions in the debate can be summarized as follow. Liberal
view the state as a neutral arbiter amongst competing interests and
groups in society, a vital guarantee of social order; the state is at worst a
necessary evil. Marxists have portrayed the state as an instrument of
class autonomy from the ruling class oppression, a bourgeois state, or
allowing for its “relative autonomy” from the ruling class, have
emphasized that the role is to maintain stability within a system of
unequal class power.
10. The state is a historical institution: it emerged in response to a particular
set of circumstances in sixteen century Europe, and it has continued to
evolve in the light of changing circumstances. In today’s world,
developments such as the rise of international migrations and the spread
of cultural globalization have tended to make state borders increasingly
“permeable”. The power and significance of the state has also been
affected by the process of “political globalization”. However there is
 debate about the extent to which this has weakened state power.
Emergent market state are concerned less with the provision of the
economic goods and more with the maximizing the opportunity available
to citizens. Nevertheless, some weak postcolonial states barely function
as states, having a negligible capacity to maintain order.
7.4 SUMMARY
The late twentieth century nevertheless witnessed a general “hollowing out” of
the state, leading, some argue, to its growing irrelevance in the modern world. Chief
amongst these developments have been: globalization and the incorporation of national
economies into a global one that cannot be controlled by any state; privatization and the
growing preference for market organization over state management; and localism, the
unleashing of centrifugal pressures through a strengthening of regional and community
politics and the rise of particularistic “nationalisms”. We cannot ignore the significance of
the liberalist ideology. It is pertinent at the conclusion of a discussion of the role of the
state according to liberal theory, to compare the liberal theory with some current
tendencies in state practice. Firstly, the current reform mindset focuses upon problems
and provides sweeping solutions without regard to their wider ramifications. In this way,
the fine adjustments which the common law has made between rights and duties have
been overturned in vast blocks. The balance of order has been upset. For example, in
the field of family law, attention was given to the traumas undergone by litigants in efforts
to prove fault. "No-fault" divorce was introduced as a solution without consideration of
the effect of such a measure upon the status of marriage and the rights of innocent
parties. The liberal system by contrast, requires that adjustments to the system should
be carefully thought out so as to be consistent with the underlying rationale of the
system. Furthermore, because of the complexities and unforeseen factors involved
reforms should be introduced slowly and incrementally.
7.5 GLOSSARY:
3. Liberalism – Liberalism is a political & moral philosophy based on the
rights of individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before
law.
4. Constitutionalism – Doctrine that government’s authority is determined by
a body laws or constitution.
7.6 FURTHER READINGS
3. O.P Guaba (2005). An Introduction to Political Thought. Delhi: Mayur
Publications.
4. Heywood, A. (2007). Politics, New York, Palgrave MacMillan.
7.7 MODEL QUESTIONS:
3. Discuss the various determinants of Liberalist State
4. Critically evaluate the Liberalist view of the state

---00---
 Lesson-8

STATE: MARXIAN VIEW

Structure
8.0 Objective
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Elements ofMarxian views to the state structure
8.3 Features of Marxian view to the state structure
8.4 Marxist view point on the nature of the state: salient features and criticism
8.5 Summary
8.6 Glossary
8.7 Further Readings
8.8 Model Questions
8.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able
 to understand the Marxian concept of state.
 to understand the various determinants of Marxian view of the state
structure.
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Marxism is an ideological system within socialism that developed out of, and
drew inspiration from the writings of Karl Marx (1818-83). However, Marxism is codified
body of thoughts came into existence only after Karl’s death. It was the product of the
attempt notably by Friedrich Engels (1820-95), KalKautsky (1854-1938) and Georgie
Plekhanov (1856-1918), to condense Marx’s ideas and the theories into a systematic
and comprehensive world view that suited the needs of the growing socialist movement.
However, there are a number of rival versions of Marxism, the most obvious ones being
classical Marxism, Orthodox Marxism and Modern Marxism
4. Classical Marxism is the Marxism of Marx and Engels
5. Orthodox Marxism is often portrayed as dialectical materialism and later
formed the basis of Soviet Communism. This vulgar Marxism placed a
heavier stress upon Mechanistic theory.
6. Modern Marxism has tried to provide an alternative to the Mechanistic
and determinist ideas of orthodox Marxism by looking Hegelian
philosophy.
8.2 ELEMENTS OF MARXIAN VIEW TO THE STATE STRUCTURE
Historical Materialism: The cornerstone of Marxist philosophy of what Engels
called “the materialist conception of history”. This highlighted the importance of
economic life and the condition under which people produce and reproduce their means
of subsistence. Marx held that economic base consisting essentially of the mode of
production or economic system, conditions or determines of ideological and political
superstructure.
Dialectical Change: Following Hegel, Marx believed that the driving force of
history was the dialectic, a process interaction between competing forces that result in a
higher stage of development. In its materialistic version, this model implies that historical
change is the consequence of internal contradiction within a “mode of production”,
reflected in class antagonism. Marx’s critique of the bourgeois state, or his “critique of
politics,” first developed out of a critical confrontation with Hegel. The best place to start
is thus his 1843 Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, in which Marx challenges
Hegel’s dialectical justification for the status quo. There are two main lines of argument
that we should pay close attention to: (1) Marx’s conception of the political state as a
separate sphere and (2) his radical conception of direct democracy as opposed to the
democracy of the bourgeois state.
Alienation: Alienation was a central principle of Marx’s early writings. It is the
process whereby, under capitalism, labour is reduced to being a mere commodity, and
work becomes a depersonalized activity. In this view, workers are alienated from the
product of their labour, from fellow workers and ultimately from themselves as creative
and social being.
Class struggle: The central contradiction within a capitalist society arises from
the existence of private property. This creates a division between the bourgeoisie or
capitalist class, the owner of the means of production, and the proletariats who do not
have own property and thus subsist through selling their labour. The bourgeoisie is a
ruling class. It not only has economic power through the ownership of wealth, but also
exercises political power through the agency of the state and possesses ideological
power because its ideas are the ruling ideas of the age.
Surplus value: The relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is
one of irreconcilable conflict, reflecting the fact that the proletariat is necessarily and
systematically exploited under capitalism. Marx believed that all value derives from the
labour expended in the production of good. It means that the quest for profit forces
capitalist enterprises to extract “Surplus Value” from their workers by paying them less
than the value of their labour.
Proletariat revolution: Marx believed that capitalist was doomed and that the
proletariat was its “grave digger” According to his analysis, capitalism would pass
through a series of increasingly serious crises of overproduction. This would being the
proletariat to revolutionary class consciousness. Marx proclaimed that the proletarian
revolution was inevitable, and predicted that it would occur through a spontaneous
uprising aimed at seizing control of the means of production.
Communism: Marx predicted that proletarian revolution would usher in a
transitional social period during which a dictatorship of the proletariat would be required
to contain a counter revolution mounted by the dispossessed bourgeoisie. However as
class antagonism faced and a fully communist society came into existence, this
proletarian state simply “wither away”. A communist society would be classless in the
sense that wealth would be owned in common by all and the system of commodity
production would be replaced by one of production for use’ geared to the satisfaction of
genuine human needs.
8.3 FEATURES OF MARXIAN VIEW TO THE STATE STRUCTURE
Marx was a German, a thorough student of economics, Marxism is more a
philosophy which falls in the realm of economics than in political science, since it
assigns, and economic conditions a primary role in determining social and political ideas.
In this Marx reverses Hegel’s ideology that "idea" is the central theme of human
existence. Marx was-not the first to talk about society divided into hostile halves of
'haves' and 'have nots', before him there was a long array of people who talked about
one or the other aspect of socialism. Economic Determinism:According to Marx social,
political and ideological institutions are the outcome of economic forces. So much is
Marx hung up on material conditions calling the tune in the social, political and spiritual
processes of life that he accords human will a minimal place in organizing things
independent of material conditions. The fact that the forces of production and means and
conditions of production dictate terms in ascribing superior and inferior status to certain,
classes, is considered infallible by Marx, to him all the social, political, ethical, even
religious systems are the manifestations of nothing else but the systems of property and
economic production. It is the economically dominant class which used philosophy,
religion and law to its own advantage. Marx's theory of historical materialism in its
extreme form lays down that all art, religion and culture are nothing but the end result of
economic conditions, it however, ones down this sharpness later when it avers that if not
the result of materialistic forces they get very largely conditioned by the economic factor.
Engels says the same thing tough, in a different way that the economic conditions speed
up the process of social evolution in a way that religion, law and philosophy lend
substance to the forces of social evolution.
8. State, Class Conflict and Class Antagonism: The process of social
evolution gains speed through the action and reaction between two
hostile classes. Class conflict in Marxian scheme is a civilizing process.
What apparently seems hostility between two halves of society is in fact a
process of bargaining and accommodation to make society functional and
congenial to social change, which in turn acts as a stabilizing force? This
conflict between the positions of domination and subjection eventually
leads to a total transformation of the conditions which cause such a
conflict. The conflict takes birth because of the insistence of ruling class
to maintain itself whether by coercion, concessions or persuasion to
prevent the subordinated classes to seek redressed through
emancipation. Class domination is endeavored by the dominant class or
classes to continue or maintain, strengthen, extend or defend themselves.
Because of this intent theirs to dominate, the germs of class-conflict can
be assigned to the very anatomy of social order. The subjugated class
rebels against this kind of unequal arrangement and hence naturally rises
to change and replace it, with the passage of time, this change also
decays into breeding of forces of inequality and unfairness, again the
subjected interests give it a jolt and does away with it. Hence from
freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild master and
journeyman bourgeois and proletariat; human society's march can be
described as a struggle between the economic forces, dominant and
subjected. Marx's dialectical materialism treats the very problem at the
 level of academics and abstraction.
9. Dialectical Materialism: In the word dialectic what is impregnated are
two things the idea of progress, as well as 'self contradiction' hence it
denotes movement through self contradiction. The word dialectic rules out
the thesis that there could be any such thing as eternal 'principles' or
'systems'. It is based on the premise that the dialectical movement is the
law of nature which is evident in onward and upward movement from the
lower to higher, from simpler to complex forms. Dialectical materialism is
a still more advancement denoting that this material world develops in
accordance with the laws of movement of matter. As maintained by the
idealists the evolution of the world is not synonymous with the evolution of
ideas or universal spirit. It is the evolution of matter or material; forces.
Matter plays such a vital role in human evolution that even thought is the
outcome of it, not to speak of sensations, perceptions and consciousness.
Matter therefore is of foremost importance, consciousness or ideas are of
secondary importance. Human brain which generates thought is also
matter. Matter moves inspired by the necessity of its own nature hence it
is an active agent. The contradictions inherent in it cause struggle, which
is a negative aspect but it turns out to be positive because this very
struggle pushes forward movement. The source of motion eventually and
initially as propounded by Marx is matter and not brain. In the light of
these facts Marx goes on to interpret human history in a material context.
Let us pass on to that.
10. Materialistic Interpretation of History: The fact, that ideas are not
independent of the material environment -but are sublimates to it, is
supported by Marx by bringing in history as evidence. It is not the
consciousness of men that determines their material conditions but it is
their material conditions which determine their consciousness is Marx's
consistent refrain here. All human history can be explained in terms of
material conditions. The most important materialconditions of life are the
productive forces, which are both animate and inanimate, labourers,
inventors, engineers being the animate, and soil, raw material, tools etc.
being inanimate. Secondary in importance to the forces of production are
the conditions of production, which means the form of state, the laws and
the nature of the grouping of social classes. The social, political and legal
institutions of all times have a definite correspondence with the conditions
of production. The forces of production are a natural dispensation while
the condition of production is manmade. An improvement or alteration in
productive force renders redundant old laws, institutions and ideas
because they fail to match the forces of production which have assumed
dynamic nature. The result is a widespread dis-satisfaction and the
society clamours for a corresponding change in institutions. The
disharmony between the forces of production and the condition of
production creates conflict of interests and promotes class struggle so
that the old social order full of contradicting nature gives way to a new
one based on new conditions of production. It is apparent that the
essence of the historical development of human society has been so far,
the progressive unfolding of dialectic and perfection of the productive
 forces. Marx's historical materialism is the innovative interpretation of the
Hegelian idea who viewed nature being involved with the process of
evolution inherently propelled by the idea to create and negate and
recreate one stage after the other, each higher than the other, in eternal
progression each stage creating its own antagonism which negates it at
the same time creating a new higher state. Marx substituted instead of
idea the economic forces as the predominant dynamic agency of human
society and its history.
11. Marx's Theory of Surplus Value: Marx's theory of surplus value
propounds that the value of any commodity is the cost of raw material
plus the amount Labour spent on it to make it socially useful and
valuable. Labour is what transfers a mere mass of material into
something decorous and useful. Hence the labourer is the one who
should be accredited into transforming mass of anything into giving a
shape and form. Justifiably the extra money earned out of that commodity
minus the cost price of material should be that of the labourer. But the
irony of the situation is that it goes to the coffers of those who own means
of production. Since the onset of industrial revolution, the capitalists who
own the means of production create such competitive conditions that the
value of the commodity created by labour is appropriated by the capitalist
as his surplus profit. The throat cutting industrial competition by its nature
brings down the wages of labourer to a mere subsistence, resulting in the
labourer getting his minimum wages and no share in the profit. His
subsistence minimum is only a fraction of the value created by him, with
introduction of machinery this fraction is even on decrease. Let us put it in
plain arithmetic to make it more intelligible.
12. Dictatorship of the Proletariat: Having realized that there was an
implacable rift between the rich and the workers in the economic scene,
Marx, sought to bring about a-worldwide intensification of it. Workers
have no country was his slogan here. Though fully convinced that the
economic condition would eventually pit the capitalists and workers
against each other, Marx was not for the evolution taking its course. He
was all: for the revolution being precipitated and speeded up through
organization and energetic action on the part of workers, for this purpose
agitation could be launched by a great socialist political party. The affinity
of economic interests would impel the workers to come under the aegis of
a political party. A violent revolution by the workers -would bring about the
establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx was of the belief
that the revolution would be fostered and fomented by the capitalism itself
which inherits in itself the seeds of its destruction. Because the blind
competition in the industrial field would lead to over production, which
would give birth to unemployment and consequent depression, which
provide ideal conditions for the workers waging war. Marx nowhere
elucidates the strategy of revolution but accepts the inevitability of the use
of force. The workers by a social and political revolution would capture
the political power and do away with the vestiges of capitalism and
establish a communist society. After liquidating the last remains of the
capitalism, way shall be paved for a classless society.
 13. In Marx's scheme class occupies a central place: The individual has
importance only as the member of a particular class. He symbolizes the
ideas, traditions and character of the class he belongs to, by environment
and through education. The privileges of the economically powerful class
are transmitted into social rights which are reflected in the social and
political institutions. They naturally arouse the antipathy of those to whom
they are not congenial. So the human history evolves through this
antipathy finally into capitalist class and proletariat class. It is to the
proletariat that the final act of ushering into a classless society is
assigned but before the advent of the classless society, the proletariat
would use their political supremacy to wrest by degrees the capital under
the command of the bourgeois and to centralise all the instruments of
production in the hands of the state, the proletariat organise as a ruling
class in this case. Assured that the society is no more a group of mutually
hostile classes the proletariat would dissolve its own supremacy as the
ruling class. The dictatorship of the proletariat even if established by
violent methods would not be maintained by violence and repression. The
era of dictatorship of the proletariat is marked by two stages, the higher
and the lower ones, the power is the revolutionary transformation of
capitalism into communism and the higher is the elimination of all classes
and then finally the disappearance of the proletariat as the wielder of
power.
14. Classless Society: Marx had a natural antipathy towards the institution
of state. State becomes a means of exploitation in the hands of dominant
class, and its chief characteristic is its coercive character rather than
welfare activities. State's existence is necessary where there is capitalism
as capitalism warrants the existence of classes, the existence of class
implies the rule of a particular class, in such a state of affairs, Marx
ridicules the existence of any democracy. How can there be a
government of the people, where there are no people but classes. The
chief guarantee of the government of the people is the classless society,
where there will be no exploitation of man by man. Exploitation
dehumanizes human beings and has a debasing effect on them, it turns
men into commodity. In the classless society or the communist society
man will be totally free and rational. It will be a stage of perfection for man
and hence there would be no need for the coercive apparatus of the
state. There is not going to be any contradictory interests to be
harmonized by the state. Man from being a victim of coercion would
voluntarily perform I all those functions which are so much needed to be
performed in the interest of the society.

Self Assessment Questions

1. What is Alienation ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Explain Proletariat Revolution ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.4 MARXIAN VIEWPOINT OF THE NATURE OF THE STATE; SALIENT
FEATURES OF CRITICISM
The "material basis" of the state is "relative scarcity." Relative scarcity is a
condition in which the productivity of labor enables a group of people to produce a
surplus, that is, an amount of goods—food, clothes, tools—that is more than enough t o
enable them to survive, yet not enough to allow everyone to live in true abundance.
When productivity reaches such a point, society divides into classes: (a) the vast
majority, who spend most of their time working, while receiving an amount of goods (or
monetary equivalent) that barely enables them to live; and (b) a tiny minority who exploit
the majority—that is, appropriate surplus and live in luxury without performing productive
labor. The state is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the
admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with
itself, that it is cleft into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to disp el. But in
order that these antagonisms, classes with conflicting economic interests, might not
consume themselves and society in sterile struggle, a power seemingly standing above
society became necessary for the purpose of moderating the conflict, of keeping it within
the bounds of "order"; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it,
and increasingly alienating itself from it, is the state.
We can divide the Marxian views about the nature of the state into following
headings:
13. State is a class Organization: According to the Marxists, in every period
of the history, the state has remained as a class organization and it
always protected the interests of the class which controls production and
means of production. According to Lenin, “The state is nothing but the
machine of suppression of one class by another.
14. State is not a natural institution: Hegel, “State is the march of God on
earth.” But the Marxist do not agree with viewpoint, according to them
state protects and promotes the interests of particular class and such an
institution can be accepted as a natural institution. State is an instrument
of exploitation of the poor by the rich.
15. Class antagonism is the responsible for the origin of the state:
According to Marx, “in the ancient time when the private property had not
come into existence, then the state was also not there. But as soon as the
institution of private property came into existence, the society got divided
into two classes and with expansion of the private property, the division
became deeper. This way the class antagonisms in the society were
responsible for the origin of the state.
16. State is the result of Evolutionary process: According to Marxists, the
state is the result of class division, yet the class division is the process of
long evolutionary process. In the ancient time there was nothing like
private property and this was the age of primitive communism. But
gradually with the development of the institution of private property, the
society got divided into two classes.
17. State is an instrument in the hand of rich class: The class which has
control over production and mean of production has control over the state
and state protects the interests of the rich class only. According to Marx,
in the capitalist state, the power is under the control of capitalist class or
rich class.
18. State is a mean not an end: According to Marxists, the state is not a
natural institution, it is a means and the class which had control over the
state power, made use of it for the protection and the promotion of their
interests. In capitalist state, the power would be used by the rich, but in
the proletariats state, the power would be used by the proletarian class.
The state is only the means of power.
19. State cannot create unity and harmony in the society: According to
Marxists, State is only a class institution, which has control over the state
power. So state is itself a class institution, how it can create unity and
harmony in the society.
20. Force is the basis of the state: According to Marxists, force not will is
the basis of the state and state is the power institution, it is based on
force with the use of power. It tries to maintain the prevalent social
political and economic structure.
21. Welfare state is a means to save the capitalist order: Marxists argue
that the welfare functions of the state is not the welfare of the general
public, these functions are made to maintain the capitalist order and
pacify those who oppose it. As a result of revolution, a new
consciousness emerges among the poor and they accept that the
capitalist order is the root cause of all the problems.
22. State is the temporary institution and it shall wither away: According to
Marxists, the state is a class institution and it shall exist so long as the
classes exist. When the classes come to an end, then there will be no need
of the state. This way the state is the unnecessary institution and it shall
gradually wither away.
23. In general, the state is controlled by the economically dominant
class: the state is controlled by the economically dominant class,
enabling it to maintain its control over the exploited classes. "As the state
arose from the need to hold class antagonisms in check, but as it arose,
at the same time, in the midst of these classes, it is, as a rule, the state of
the most powerful, economically dominant class, which, through the
medium of the stat e, becomes also the politically dominant class, and
thus acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed
class. Thus, the state of antiquity was above all the state of slave owners
for the purpose of holding down the slaves, as the feudal state was the
organ of the nobility for holding down the peasant serfs and bondsmen,
and the modern representative state is an instrument of exploitation of
wage labour by capital.
24. The state is part of the "superstructure" of society: Marx and Engels
analyzed human society as divided into a material base (or basis), and a
superstructure that rests on it. The base is made up of the instruments of
 production, the social classes, chiefly the exploiting and laboring classes,
of the particular society, and the relations between these classes. The
superstructure consists of political and cultural institutions, including the
state, churches, schools, etc., as well as corresponding ideational realms:
politics, religion, science, art, etc. The state is a major, if not the major,
element of this superstructure.
Criticism of Marxist Viewpoint
9. State is not an artificial institution: The state is the natural institution
because it is the natural institution and is the result of historical process
and various factors like nature of man, religion, magic; force, economic
welfare etc have contributed its growth.
10. Stateless society is not possible: It is fact that nowhere in the world,
the classes have come to an end. The state is essential to establish
internal and external peace as no other association can do this function.
The present state establishes reconciliation among opposite interests and
this maintains harmony.
11. State is not the product of class struggle alone: Many other factors
namely the blood relations, religion, social nature of the individual, force,
political consciousness etc. have also significantly contributed to origin of
the state. We accept that the economic conflict has its big share ii the
origin of the state.
12. State does not be a mere instrument in the hand of rich class: The
contemporary state is an institution of public welfare which promotes the
interests of each class in the state. The spirit of public welfare has
become so popular that each state endeavors to become a welfare
institution.
13. The force cannot the basis of the state: Will, not the force is the basis
of the state (T.H Green). A state based on force cannot live for a long
period. The stability of the democratic states and instability in the
dictatorial states supports this viewpoint.
14. Human being is not all vile and evil, torn between the competitive
forces of disharmony: Cooperation, compromise and adjustments of
volition play a equally important role in human life. History is replete with
so many instances where human beings actuated by inner wealth of
compassion laid down their lives for lesser beings not caring for an
economic or physical survival. At many an important phases of the history
ideas played such a vital role in shaping the destinies of nations-.
Surprisingly these ideas came forth from the people who are slotted not in
the privileged class, for examples Gandhi and Abraham Lincon. A very
big flaw is awaiting our attention in the treatment of Marx's contention of
proletariat rule, which he terms as democratic. But so far as one
represses another, which may be proletariats ruling over the bourgeois
there cannot be any democracy. Freedom and democracy are antithetical
to suppression and violence.
15. Moreover, for Marx dictatorship of the proletariat is a temporary
phase: but once the taste of power is relished it is very hard to forsake it
 and relax one's hold over men and things. Power is a great intoxicant; it is
difficult to get cured of this. Marx considered religion as bane of human
society and as a thwarting force-to any revolution but in the modern times
religion goads men with a fevour to fight revolutions and becomes an
embedding factor to bring various divisions of society to work for a
common cause. It also has acted as s purifier of causes purifying those
who embattle them.
16. Marx's hostility to state is also a little too exaggerated: State is the
repository of wisdom of centuries and provides the necessary peaceful
conditions for the human evolution to endure. Even in Russia the state
has found a permanent stronghold, there are-no signs of its withering
away. In fact, what has withered away is Marxism.
8.5 SUMMARY
Marx and Engels saw the State as being a product of class struggle. It was the
executive committee of the ruling class. It was an instrument by which one class rules
another. In most of their writings they seem to see the State as a neutral tool. It can be
taken and used by either workers or capitalists. Their classical political statement is The
Communist Manifesto.As a theoretical system, Marxism has constituted the principle
alternative to the liberal rationalism that has dominated western culture and intellectual
enquiry in the modern period.
The state: (1) tends to perpetuate itself; (2) works to increase its power vis-a-vis
the rest of society, including the ruling class; (3) often acts ahead of the conscious
decisions of the ruling class, stepping in where action is necessary but before the ruling
class can agree on a policy; and (4) occasionally dominates the majority of the ruling
class, as in fascist and other types of dictatorships. As a political force, in the form of the
international communist movement, Marxism has also been seen as the major enemy of
Western capitalism. The core of Marxism is a philosophy of history that outlines why
capitalism is doomed and why socialism and eventually communism are destined to
replace it. This mistaken idea that Marxism is somehow pro-state comes first from the
development of reformist Social Democratic parties after Marx and Engels' death that
indeed argued that the path to socialism led through the existing state institutions. In
particular, Social Democracy of the early 20th century envisioned socialism as
something to be achieved by gaining a majority within the representative institutions of
the state, and then using its electoral conquests to implement a series of social reforms,
leading to full socialization of production. The “political state” that Marx refers to here is a
modern product: it is only on the basis of bourgeois relations that the state clearly
separates itself from civil society. Marx’s contrasting description of feudal relations in this
essay is helpful in this regard: “The old civil society [of feudalism] had a directly
politicalcharacter, i.e. the elements of civil life such as property, family and the mode and
manner of work were elevated in the form of seigniors, estate and guild to the level of
elements of political life.
8.6 GLOSSARY
3. Proletariat – working class people regarded collectively.
4. Materialistic – excessively concerned with material possession, money
oriented.
8.7 FURTHER READINGS
 • Kapoor, A C. (2009). Principles of Political Science, S. Chand &
Company, New Delhi.
• Heywood, A.(2004). Political ideologies: an introduction (3rd ed.)
Palgrave MacMillan.
• Robert A.Dahl& Bruce S. FinebricKner. (2003). Modern Political Analysis
(6th ed.) Pearson Education.
8.8 MODEL QUESTIONS
3. Discuss the various determinants of the Marxian view to the state
structure
4. Critically discuss the various features of the Marxian nature of state

---00---
 Lesson-9

STATE: GANDHIAN VIEW

Structure
9.0 Objective
9.1 Introduction: Political Ideas of Gandhi
9.2 Determinants of Gandhian Philosophy
9.3 Gandhian viewpoint of the state and ideal state, its criticism
9.4 Similarities and dissimilarities between Marx and Gandhi
9.5 Summary
9.6 Glossary
9.7 Further Readings
9.8 Model Questions
9.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able :
 to understand the Political Ideas of Gandhi.
 to explain the similarities & dissimilarities between Gandhi & Marx.
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Born on October 2, 1869 at Porbander Kathiawar, young Mohan DassKaram
Chand Gandhi was nurtured into religious and human values by his God fearing devout
mother. He did not show much promise as a student. After doing his bar-at-law from
England, he proceeded to South Africa to wage legal warfare in favour of the helpless
Indians there. His much loved Satyagraha was given a preliminary trial in South Africa
and it did bring dividends for him. When he came back to India, Indian national
movement was largely in the hands of Congress which had two dominant groups within
it— the Moderates and the Extremists. To start with Gandhi had the goodwill of both the
wings— even in the later years his line of action was the amalgam of the methods of
both moderates & extremists.
In the initial stages he believed in British sense of justice. In 1920 his faith was
rudely shaken due to the passing of Rowlatt Act, tragedy at ' JallianwalaBagh and
allowing General Dyer to" go free. In 1920 at a special meeting of the Congress, policy
of non-cooperation was accepted and subsequently launched. The movement had to be
withdrawn due to theviolent events in ChauraChauri. In 1930 after about eight years he
started, the civil disobedience movement and launched the historic Dandi March on
March 12, 1930 to violate the salt law. Gandhi-Irwin Pact was signed on March 5, 1931
which ended the eleven month old civil-disobedience movement. He went to England to
participate in the Second Round Table Conference as the sole representative of the
Congress to negotiate with the British Government but no solution was possible. He was
arrested and imprisoned like several other eminent leaders soon after his return to India.
Civil disobedience movement started once again and continued till July 23, 1933. In
1942 he started another movement which was known as the Quit India Movement. It
seemed that the whole nation was in revolt against the British.Quit India movement and
the earlier civil disobedience movements had made the government realize the intensity
of the feelings of the nation. Events moved very fast thereafter, till India became
independent on the- 15th August, 1947 and British really quit India.Gandhi was opposed
to the partition of the country but he had to yield, though unwillingly and the country was
divided into two parts. Due to this issue he came to be misunderstood. Soon after India
achieved her independence, on January 30, 1948 he was shot dead by Godse in his ''
PrathnaSabha at Delhi.
Political Ideas of Gandhi
Briefly put Gandhi's political philosophy is based on certain moral principles.
Truth, religion and non-violence form the central theme of his teachings- Describing the
modem civilizations as 'diseased' in the sense that it takes note neither of morality nor of
religion, he stands to radically reform it into a society where in everyone conscious of his
own self-realization, works for the greatest good of all; The society that he would like to
set up will be classless and stateless society' composed of autonomous village
communities. This objective would be achieved in a peaceful manner through non-
violence, 'ahimsa' and Satyagraha. Mahatama Gandhi can thus be described as a
philosophical anarchic.
Mahatma Gandhi does not present his philosophy in any systematic manner. It
is, in fact, full of contradictions and incoherence. These are two reasons responsible for
this. First, he seldom struck to one view. He would change his ideas every now and
then, in accordance with the needs of the situation. Hehimself would say, 'The opinions I
have found and conclusions I have tried at-are not final. I may change them tomorrow".
He used to argue that no dynamic person can ever afford to stick to one opinion or view.
Hemust change by his experience. Secondly he tried to apply the moral truths to politics
which, by its nature, is ever-shifting. He, therefore, could not help taking different stands
at different times. Hence there are contradictions in his philosophy.
He says, "I would like to say to the diligent reader of my writings and to others
who are interested in them that I am not at all concerned with appearing to be
consistent. In my search after truth, I have discarded many ideas and learnt many new
things. Old as I am in age, I have no feeling that I have ceased to grow inwardly or that
my growth will stop at the Dissolution of flesh. What I am concerned with is my readiness
to obey the call of the Truth, my rod, from moment to moment, and therefore, when
anybody finds any inconsistency between any two things of mine, if he has still faith in
my sanity, he would do well to choose the later of the two on the same subject ". T.K.
Mahadevan in one of the rare books on Gandhi, says that most people use Gandhi's
inconsistencies as a much needed alike to allow them to "tailor Gandhi to their size and
shape..., he continues further, to understand Gandhi the normal yardsticks are worse
than useless. It is because most writers on him have used these yardsticks.... that he
seems such a bundle of contradictions, inconsistencies and paradoxes." But Gandhi by
himself and on one strength of what he says is a, "Whole ... a complete thinker ". Those
who make a hue and cry about his inconsistencies, only have an inherent disloyalty to
this .vision and his approach. As for the following to his creed, Gandhi went along with
his ideas unmindful whether he had people toeing him or not.
 Let us now discuss the Political Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi at some length.
9.2 DETERMINANTS OF GANDHIAN PHILOSOPHY TO THE STATE BASIS
6. Man and Society:The convenient point from where we can begin our
description of the political philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi is his views
about man and society. Beinga saintly man he felt very much tormented
over the materialistic trends that have crept in our society. The dawn of
the machine age and the bewildering speed with which modem
technology has advanced have deprived man of his basic-moral values.
His whole outlook and approach to life stands fully surcharged with
materialism. He is mad after materialprogress and has completely
forgotten his true moral end. The result is that modern civilization is now
thoroughly diseased. It is a 'nine day wonder.' It isbound to meet its
disaster soon. It must be saved from its wreck. The only way to do so is to
reshape the whole outlook of man. The old moral values need to be
rehabilitated once again.
7. Religion: Religion is the basis of Gandhi's Political Philosophy. To him
"Politics bereft of religion is a death trap that would entrap and kill the
soul." By religion, he does not mean any particular creed or sect. He
considers religion as something more basic and fundamental, something
which lies at the root of all religions and something which unities all of
them. To quote his own words, "It is the permanent element in human
nature which.... Leaves the soul utterly restless unless it has found itself,
known its Maker and appreciated the true correspondence between the
Maker and itself. In simple words, religion means two things: First, firm
faith in God and secondly active involvement in human activity. Gandhi
himself was a staunch believer in God and had a firm belief in this
Supreme Authority over the Universe. Once he said, "God is the Creator,
the Ruler and the Lord of the Universe and not a blade of grass moves
but by his will". He would recommend everyone to put faith in God and his
goodness. Secondly, by religion he means that everyone must actively
participate in all human activities and must not turn his back against them.
Renunciation from the world is no religion. One can achieve self-
realisation which is the goal of every one's life only when working for
others and that one can do only if one vigorously indulges in human
activities. That is why he says that religion and politics cannot be
separated from each other. Since politics is one of the most important
human activities and through it one can serve one's fellow beings in an
ideal manner, the substance of religion should apply in thisdomain too.
Religion for Gandhi was not a particular sector faith. It signifies certain
universal values which are enshrined in all the religions of world. He
believed in the essential unity of all the religions, since they are one at the
core. The faiths of men to Gandhi were like rivers which eventually wend
their way to ocean, wherein all of them lose their separate identities.
8. Truth: The second moral principle whichheeulogized was 'truth'. He
described 'truth' as the pole-star of his life. To him, truth implies two
things. First, truth is God, it is, thus universal, absolute and infinite. It
transcends space and time. It pervades everything and reigns supreme. If
we want to know God, we should practice, and preach truth. This brings
 us to the second aspect of truth. Truth is also a relative concept,
something that we understand in relation to some particular set of
thoughts or circumstances Truth, conceived as such, is a means to an
end, a means to know God, to achieve lasting peace and happiness. In all
our actions, in all our pursuits of life, says Gandhi, we should be truthful. It
should be a matter of principle with us. Truth does not imply truth only in
speech. But it also implies, and perhaps in a greater degree, truth in
thought and actions. We should not only speak truth but should also be
truthful in our thoughts and actions, which means that we should not
harbour ill-will, malice or hatred against anyone nor should we have in a
manner that is not warranted by truth. That is the reason why Gandhi
commends everyone to be a satyagrahi, onewhoworships and practices,
truth. Unless one does so one cannot achieve the true end.
9. Non-violence: Truth can be realized only through non-violence. Violence
implied anger, selfishness, lust, conflicts, and clashes. To practice
violence is to employ all those mean weapons. Their use would obviously
precipitate crisis and bring about chaos. This will lead us nowhere. It will
rather distract us from our goal. These consequences apart, violence
basically conflicts with the principle of truth. As hinted in the foregoing
paragraph, truth also implies the purity of action. Violence, on the
contrary, is based on conflicts and chaos. Pursuit of truth does not,
therefore, admit of violence. There is still one more reason why violence
is denounced. This is that violence attacks not only the sin but the sinner
also, the latter perhaps in a greater measure. To harm the sinner is not
our goal. We should reform him instead of harming him. That explains
why Mahatma Gandhi used to say, "I hate the British imperialism and not
the British." You may differ with a man over his actions but not over his
personality. Based on such reasoning, Gandhi commends to everyone to
be non-violent in all his actions and deeds. Non-violence will neither
conflict with the basic tenets of truth nor will it harm the wrong doer or the
sinner. It will only strike deep at the sin and will thus try to eradicate it.
Non-violence is a positive creed. It not only implies a negative
view of avoiding the use of violence but also puts responsibility on
everyone to face injustice in a positive manner. True, 'satyagrahi' who
practices non-violence cannot tolerate any injustice. He must boldly face
it and fight against it in a non-violent manner. The positive means by
which non-violence can be practiced are fasting, peaceful picketing,
demonstrations and civil disobedience. We shall discuss them in detail at
a later stage.
Sometimes, it is argued that non-violence is the creed of a
coward. One who cannot physically or otherwise face force and violence,
resorts to non-violence. Mahatma Gandhi says such is not the case. Non-
violence is the creed of a strong and bold person. He strongly deprecates
the tendency of such persons who would adopt nonviolence should not
be practiced on utilitarian principle according to the need of the particular
situation but is to be adopted as a complete philosophy of life in all
circumstances. Otherwise it is the nonviolence of the weak or the passive
non-violence helpless. To quote him "There is no such thing as
 nonviolence of the weak. Nonviolence and weakness was a contradiction
in terms".
10. Satyagraha: 'Satyagraha' is a term associated with Gandhi and its
philosophy 'is said to be a great contribution of the Mahatma to the
political thought. This term was coined by Gandhi in his SouthAfrican
crusade. In common parlance, "Satyagraha" means direct action in a
nonviolent way.' If we take the literal meaning, then it implies, 'insistence
on truth'. To Gandhi Satyagraha means much more than what the term
implies. It is a relentlesspursuit of truth in a nonviolent manner. "It is the
vindication of truth, not by infliction of suffering on the opponent but on
one's own self. It is, thus, a penance or tapasayaforthwith. It is a soul
force with the help of which one ceaselessly strives in all walks of life to
achieve one's end, i.e. truth. It is, thus, not a weapon which may be
occasionally used to one's convenience for the achievement of those
ends which one thinks proper or expedient. It is a lifelong philosophy to
be permanently cultivated and employed at every step.
As regards methods of 'satyagraha', the most important and effective method is
that of fasting. One writer describes it as "the most potent weapon in the armoury of
satyagraha." Fasting with which we are familiar today is totally different from that of
Gandhian concept. The second method of 'satyagraha' is non-cooperation. It was
Gandhi's firm belief that no wrong could ever endure unless the wrongdoer and wronged
cooperated with each other. Government can exploit the people and can perpetuate
affictions upon them only if they cooperate with it. If they refuse to lend cooperation to
the government and voluntarily abstain from all its activities, and also refuse to avail of
the benefits that accrue from it government would be compelled to mend its ways. Final
form of 'satyagraha' which Gandhi eulogised was prayer. A true 'Satyagrahi' must also
practise prayer which is nothing but meditation. His conviction was that when one
performs a prayer, one tries to develop a communion with God and thereby tries to draw
nearer to truth which is the true end of a "Satyagrahi". That conviction made Gandhi hold
daily mass prayers where everyone was welcome. Prayer is also a method by which one
can lift his outer self to the level of the inward self and thus imbibe the qualities of a man
of morals which every 'Satyagrahi' ought to be.
9.3 GANDHIANVIEWPOINTOF THE STATE AND IDEAL STATE, ITS
CRITICISM
Gandhi is often described as a philosophical anarchist because he stands to
abolish the existing state not by means of a bloody revolution as the communists
suggest, but by means of a peaceful, disciplined technique of 'Satyagraha'. His
opposition to the state is based on certain arguments. First state, based on power wields
a compulsive and coercive character. Such a power complex makes the life of individual
suffocating and hence not worth living. To lead the life happily, an individual needs to be
left to him, to be guided by his morality and conscience. There isabsolutely no scope for
compulsion and dictation. Let him function independently and voluntarily. That way alone
he can get the maximum of happiness and satisfaction. Secondly, state is rooted in
violence. He said that even if a state is organized on a democratic principle, it cannot
shun violence. Violence implied coercion and exploitation. Generally, the hammer falls
on the poor and on the helpless. "The state represents violence in a concentrated and
organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the state is a soulless machine, it can
never be weaned away from violence to which it owes its very existence". Anything
based on coercion and violence cannot enhance the moral aspect of one’s personality.
Finally, in a society based on voluntary cooperation, there is absolutely no room
for an organization based on the concept of power and coercion. "To me, political power
is not an end but one of the means of enabling people to, better their condition in every
department of life. Political power means capacity to regulate national life through
national representations. If national life becomes so perfect as to become self-regulated,
no representation is necessary. There is then a state of enlightened anarchy. In such a
state, everyone is his own ruler. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a
hindrance to his neighbour. In the ideal state, therefore, there is no political power,
because there is no state."
Gandhi, thus, stands to abolish the state and to establish in its place a stateless
and classless society. What would be the shape of things in the society that will
ultimately emerge after the abolition of the state? Gandhi never pronounced his final
word because he would always consider his views as something in a state of flux,
always subject to change and modification. However, he did give expression here and
there about what he visualised as the finest state of society.
In brief, Gandhian viewpoint of state can be divided into following headings:
7. State is a soulless machine: Gandhi, “State represents violence in a
concentrated and organized form; the individual has soul whereas state is
soulless machine. It can never be weaned away from violence to which it
owes its very existence”.
8. State cannot claim sovereignty over individual: According to Gandhi,
State is corrupt institution. Many of the law of the state are inhuman in
nature, therefore the soul of the individual which is divine in nature,
cannot be controlled by the state.
9. The state has limited functions: According to Gandhi, the increasing
function of the state could prove dangerous to the freedom of the
individual. In the words o the Gandhi, the government is best which
governs the least. This will provide more freedom to the individual and he
will be able to make more progress in his life.
10. State is the means not the end: The state has no supreme will of its
own and its objective is to work for the fulfillment of the needs of the
individual. Gandhi, to me, political power is not an end but one of the
means of enabling people to better their conditions in every department of
life. Political power means capacity, to regulate national life through
national representative.
11. State hinders the envelopment of individual personality: Gandhi, an
individual can develop his natural qualities only ion free environment. But
the state with the use of its power tries to regulate the total life of the
individual as a result of which it becomes an obstacle in the way of the
growth of the individual.
12. Supporter of enlightened anarchical state: According to Gandhi, when
the people become eligible to run their administration on their own and
are able to regulate their own life, such a state can be known as
 enlightened state. In such a state, everybody will be his own ruler will not
become an obstacle in the life of the other.
Gandhi's Ideal State
Gandhi, in. fact, believed that the ideal society will always remain an ideal
unrealized and unrealizable in its entirety. Yet the importance of one lies in pointing the
direction in which one can move. Gandhi admitted thatfor time being, "my Swaraj is the
parliamentary government of India in the modem sense of the term." That was the only
way available to him which led to Ram Rajya and Sarvodaya.
8. Gandhi's ideal state will be based on democracy: "Democracy to be
genuine must provide adequate opportunity to the weakest and the
strongest. This cannot happen except through nonviolence." That state
will be a genuine democracy, in which exploitation and coercion will be
minimized. The state will, no doubt, continue to exist, as there will be
some individuals and groups with anti-social tendencies and the absence
of external restraint will lead to anarchy.
9. Proper adjustment between law, freedom and social restraint on the
basis of Dharma:He, in fact, believed that, government is the best which
governs the least. He said, "I look upon any increase in the power of the
state with greatest fear, because although while apparently doing good by
minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by
destroying individuality which lies at the root of all progress." But this does
not mean that he believed in the theory of individualism. His views were
far progressive than individualist. He said, "I value individual freedom, but
you must not forget that man is essentially a" social being. He had vision
to present status by learning to adjust his individualism to the
requirements of social progress. Unrestricted individualism is the law of
the jungle. We have learnt to strike the mean between individual freedom
and social restraint. Willing submission to social' restraint for the sake of
the well being of the whole society, enriches both the individual and the
society of which one is a member."
10. Decentralization of power both in political and economic spheres:
He said. "Centralization as a system is inconsistent with the non-violent
structure of society. I suggest that if India is to evolve along non-violent
lines, it will have to decentralize many things. Therefore, Gandhi
suggested a decentralized political and economic structure for
independent India. His ideal society will be a sort of federation of a
number of villages which will be more or less self sufficing. Those will be
self governing republics whose total affairs will be guided by the
"Satyagrahis". "Society based on non-violence can only consist of groups
settled in village in which voluntary co-operation is the condition of
dignified and peaceful existence." The village republic of the ideal society
will have its own Panchayat. Voluntarilyorganised by the residents of the
village. The villages will then be united in a common organization, again a
panchayat will be more "comprehensively organised and its sphere of
functioning will also be wider. The organization will gradually go up till the
whole country is brought into one fold. Elaborating this view, Gandhi,
says, "In this structure composed of innumerable villages, life will not be a
 pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic
circle whose centre will be the individual always ready to perish for the
village and the village ready to perish for the circle of villages. The
outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle but
will give strength to all within and derive its own strength from it.
11. The system of representative democracy for his ideal society: it is
essential to know the method of representation. According to him the
qualifications for franchise are neither property nor position but manual,
labour. Moreover, he advocated that his candidates would contest the
elections not in the spirit of self-interest but with the aim of service to the
community. He should not regard the office as a regard but should
believe in the concept of bread-labour.Gandhi did not believe that the
ideal state should be based on majority view. The majority has no right to
impose upon the minority their view or decision. The majority should try to
understand the point of view of the minority and to consider it respectfully
even when they are unable to accept it. An individual's opinion should
have greater weight than the opinion of many, if that opinion is sound.
12. No need either for police or military: according to Gandhi, there should
be any need either for police or military in a nonviolent state because they
are the signs of the imperfections of nonviolence. But perfect nonviolence
is impossible in this world. Therefore the police and the military would
continue in a Gandhian state as would crime and punishment. But Gandhi
wants to change the character of the police and military. They will be
servants and not masters to the people. Their police work will be confined
to robbers and dacoits. In the same way Gandhi held a very progressive
and reformatory view of crime, jails andpunishment. "Crime is disease like
any other malady and is a product of the prevalent social system."
Therefore, society is as much at fault, if not more, as the individual where
a crime is committed. Therefore, more emphasis should be as on the
prevention, than cure of crime as done in case of disease but the society
should not have the right of death sentence. He, also proposed certain
changes regarding the administration of justice. He said, "Administration
of justice should be less costly, parties to civil suits must be compelled in
the majority of cases to refer their disputes to arbitration, the decision of
panchayats should be final except in cases of corruption or obvious
misappropriation of law. Multiplicity of intermediate courts should be
avoided. Case law should be abolished and the general procedure should
be simplified." Lawyers should not consider themselves as superiors.
They must depend for their living on some form of bread-labour and serve
people free.
13. Secularism: Gandhi wanted his ideal state to be a secular state he was
of the view that there should not be any state religion and each religion
should be given equal respect. Religion is the personal affaire of the
individual, Secularism means “Sarva Dharma Samaj.”
14. Trusteeship system: He was of the view that the rich people should
have the freedom to earn wealth. But he was not in the favour of the
forcible confiscation of their property. They were not the owner of their
property rather they were the trustee of it and it should be used for the
 welfare of the general public.
Gandhi did not lay down foreign policy for his ideal state but the nonviolent state
should try to promote international relations as it is based on the principles of service
and cooperation. Thus he wanted that the nonviolent state should remain on friendly
terms with its neighbours whether they are great or small powers and will work for total
disarmament. Nonviolence and Dialogue were to be the methods to resolve not just
individual, group national and international strikes too. In international relations Gandhi
was for open diplomacy.

Criticism of the Gandian viewpoint of the state

The Gandhian viewpoint about the nature of the state can criticize on the
following headings:
8. State is the natural institution, it cannot be abolished: Anarchy and
chaos will prevail in the absence of the state. The life, liberty and property
of the individual cannot be protected with ought the existence of the state.
9. Centralization is the need of time: In the contemporary world of
international competition, the need of the hour is centralization because
only a strong central government can face the present situation.
10. Only violence cannot be the base of the state: Gandhi, the force I the
only basis of the state, is not right because a state based on violence
cannot subsist infinity. T.H Green, “Will not the force is the basis of the
state.”
11. Ideal state is impracticable: Morality and non violence are high ideal but
real national and international problems and disputes cannot be solved
with the application only of ethics and non-violence. In cotemporary world,
might is the right is more often applicable and weak states are not able to
preserve even their identity.
12. Functions cannot be limited of the state: Today, the state is
considered to be the best which undertakes more and more functions for
the welfare of the people. The functions of the state are, therefore
increasing day by day.
13. Alongwith the small-scale industries and cottage industries: The
development of the big industries is also essential: The progress of the
big industries is very essential because without their development, no
state or the society can progress.
14. Enlightened anarchical state is myth: Gandhi thinks of a state in which
everybody will be ruler of himself and the social life will be regulated by
the inner-conscience of the individual and not by the laws. But such a
state can be established only in mythical world. Such a state will be a
state of anarchy in which nobody ‘s interests will be state.
9.4 SIMILARITIES AND DISSIMILARITIES BETWEEN GANDHIAND MARX
3. Marx and Gandhi both stood as the crusaders of social redemption of an
exploited bulk of humanity, Gandhi took up the cause of the down-trodden
 peasants and that mass of humanity which is considered to be the
garbage by our social system the untouchables. Marx was also a great
protagonist of the interests of wage earners in western Europe.
4. Both Gandhi and Marx opposed vehementlythe capitalistic process of
"Social and economic exploitation and stood for social change. State to
both of them was an instrument of exploitation and tyranny at the handsof
the capitalist and it incurred their wrath. Both of them thus were
apprehensive of state playing a constructive role in the sphere of human
welfare. Their cherished goal was a stateless and classless society. But
whereas, Gandhi believed in the essential unity and cohesion of various
classes,Marxrecognizedthe gulf between haves and have nots. Their
methods were also different. Gandhi advocated non-violent methods to
be the vehicle of social change and Marx commended revolution for this
purpose.
The difference between Gandhian and Marxian approach
The difference between Gandhian and Marxian approach lies in their varying
emphasis on the place of individual in society. Individual is the focal point of
Gandhianthought whereas Marx stands for collectivism. Gandhi was a spiritual and
moral individualist. He wanted to induct the values of religion even into politics; the purity
of means to attain a worthy end was on the other hand alien to Marxian thinking. How
different sounds Gandhi from Marx when he says, "I do not want to rise on the ashes of
the blind, the deaf and. the dumb."Marxian thought does not show any accommodation
or compassion for those whose misery and anguish, cements the revolution. Alittle
misery here and there is a very small price for them for fomenting revolution. The
ultimate goals of Marx and Gandhi may be the same but Marxism lacks that human core
which is precious to a Gandhian.
9.5 SUMMARY
In the wake of Indian independence, the Gandhian critique of the state and the
program of village swarajwere quickly sidelined, leaving little imprint on the Indian
Constitution and political culture of the postcolonial state. The state freed from British
control, for both elite and subaltern groups, could assume its historic role as the
legitimate and unfettered agent of social and economic modernization. Nehruvianstatism
thus appeared as best answer to growing concerns about inequality both within India
and in the global arena. One of Gandhi’s sharpest critics, B.R. Ambedkar, argued that
the exploitation and inequality entailed by the caste system could only begin to be
seriously remedied through the active intervention of a centralized state, both through
legislation banning of the most egregious forms of exclusion and governmental
programs for social, economic, and political advancement. The superiority of truth over
false heard, continuity between ends and means, love for non violence are an old' as
hills, where Gandhi is distinctive, is he when the choice came and decision had to be
taken, gave credence to these age old beliefs. Truth non violence and priority of ends
and means were not cherished assets of books with him but calling for their adoption in
the daily living this is what gives Gandhi a venerable status.
9.6 GLOSSARY
1. Soulless – lacking character and individuality.
2. Ideal – a person or thing regarded as perfect.
 3. Restraints – something under control.
9.7 FURTHER READINGS
1. O.P Guaba (2005). An Introduction to Political Thought. Delhi: Mayur
Publications.
2. Ramashray Roy (1996). Understanding Gandhi. Delhi: Ajanta
Publications.
3. Bhikhu, Parekh (1995). Gandhi’s Political Philosophy: A Critical
Examination. Delhi: Ajanta Publications.
4. Amar Singh (2003). Religion in Politics: Gandhian Perspective in the
Present Context. Deep and Deep Publications PVT.LTD.
5. Raju, P.A (2000). Gandhi and his Religion. New Delhi: Concept Public
Company.
6. Pani, Narendar (2002). Inclusive Economics: Gandhian Method and
Contemporary Policy. Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd.
7. Weber, Thomas (2006). Gandhi, Gandhism and the Gandhians.Roli
Books Pvt. Ltd.
8. Mashelkar, Ramesh (2010). Timeless Inspiration-Reliving Gandhi.Sakal
Papers Ltd.
9. Fischer, Louis (2002). The Essential Gandhi: An Anthology of His
Writings on His Life, Work, and Ideas. Vintage: New York.
9.8 MODEL QUESTIONS
1. Discuss the various determinants of Gandhian Philosophy which provides
basis to the State Structure
2. Critically discuss the various characteristics of the Gandhian Ideal State

---00---
 Lesson-10

WELFARE STATE: A LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE

Structure
10.0 Objectives
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Meaning of Welfare State
10.3 Origin of an idea of Welfare State
10.4 Developments in the idea of Welfare State
10.5 Welfare State: A Liberal Perspective
10.6 Objectives of the Welfare State in Liberal Perspective
10.7 Functions of the Liberal Welfare State
10.8 Criticism of the Liberal Perspective of the Welfare State
10.9 Limitations in the Sphere of Welfare State
10.10 Summary
10.11 Glossary
10.12 Further Readings
10.13 Model Questions
10.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able :
 to understand the Liberal perspective in context of Welfare State.
 to explain the idea of welfare state
10.1 INTRODUCTION
What is a Welfare State and what type of functions it should perform? State and
its role in governance is a controversial issue to an extent that different scholars at
different times have expressed their different viewpoints on the State. Some says that
the State is a ‘Divine Institution’, some consider it as a ‘Power Institution’ and others take
it as ‘Natural Institution’. On the basis of different viewpoints, various Liberal, Marxian
and Gandhian perspectives have emerged. At this point MacIver has rightly said, “The
State has no finality; can have no perfect form. The State is an instrument of social
man.”
In this Chapter, we will discuss the Liberal perspective in context of the Welfare
State.
10.2 MEANING OF WELFARE STATE
 A ‘Welfare State’ is a State that provides various types of social services to its
citizens like social security (financial assistance in case of loss of job or any other source
of income, death of the bread-winner, prolonged illness or physical disability or any other
calamity), free education, public health, supply of essential goods and services and
transport to the needy at subsidized rates. It undertakes the protection of cultural
heritage including monuments, museums, libraries, art galleries, parks and gardens etc.
It also promotes higher education and scientific research, etc. to bring intellectual and
cultural development of society.
A Welfare State- Various Definitions
1) According to T.W. Kent, “A welfare state is a state that provides for its
citizens a wide range of social services.”
2) Adopting rather narrow and restricted view, Abrahamdefines the Welfare
State as “a community where State power is deliberately used to modify
the normal play of economic forcessoas to obtain a more equal
distribution of income of every citizen, a basic minimum irrespective of the
market value of his work and his property”.
3) According to Hobman, “Welfare State is a compromise between
Communism on the one side and unbridled individualism on the other.”
4) According to G.D.H. Cole, “The Welfare State is a society in which an
assured minimum standard of living and opportunity becomes
thepossession of every citizen.”
5) According to Arthur Schlesinger, “The Welfare State is a system wherein
government standard of living and opportunity becomes the possession of
every citizen.”
10.3 ORIGIN OF AN IDEA OF WELFARE STATE
Every State today would like to call itself a Welfare State almost to the end of
the19thcentury. Earlier, the objective of the State was merely to provide the law and
orderand the promotion of welfare was left to individual and groups of individuals.
Among political thinkers, Laski was the first to turn the attention of the world from the
police State idea to the Welfare State idea. The idea of Welfare State has its strong root
in England where the Trade Unions and other types of socialists played an important
part developing the ideal. During the Prime Ministership of Mr. Atlee, a series of
measures were passed resulting in the nationalization of railways, coalmines and
steel,nationalization of the Bank of England and nationalization of transport. A vast
social insurance scheme was in operation in Britain alongwith the retirement benefits,
widow’s benefits, unemployment benefits, family allowances for families with two or
more children, milk for school children and special food for expectant and nursing
mothers, free medical service, free secondary education and liberal scholarships for
higher education.
We also find the idea of Welfare State in our old scriptures- One cannot deny the
fact that Aristotle, a famous Greek philosopher, was in favour of the Welfare State but
the idea become quite dear during 19 thcentury due to the bad results of theindividualism.
According to individualism, the functions of the State was only to establish peace,
protect life and liberty of the people and to save the country from external invasions and
it should do nothing to provide education, medical facilities, economic security etc. In this
type of situation, the rich people started exploiting the poor. In other words, the poor
were left at the mercy of the rich. As a result, the people started asking for the
interference of State so that the labourers could be saved from exploitation.
Finally, Karl Marx stood against, the exploitation of the poor labourers and as a
result, Socialism became popular Further, J.S. Mill, Laski, MacIver, Green, Cole, Barker,
Lindsay etc. also supported the welfare functions of the State.
10.4 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE IDEA OF WELFARE STATE
In the 19thcentury, KarlMarxpropagated Marxism. He was of the opinion that the
State should interfere in economic field and it should fix the wages as well as the
working hours of the working labourers. He wanted the State to provide all type of
security to these people. Thus, he promoted the social interests rather than the
individual interests. As a result of Karl Marx views, Socialism became popular. Socialism
focused on the end of the exploitation of the poor and to establish economic equality
which finally gives birth to the idea of the Welfare State Now, the focus was laid down on
the welfare of the individual.
10.5 WELFARE STATE: A LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE
The word ‘Liberalism’ of English language has its origin in the Latin word
‘Liberalis’ which means ‘Free Man’. The principle of Liberalism evolved in the West in
late 16thCentury. The basic objective behind the emergence of Liberalism was to
liquidate the feudal privileges of the land-owning class and to create favourable
conditions for the new entrepreneurial class to enable them to contribute to social
principle. The principle emphasized more on ‘Liberty’ of an individual as the first and
foremost goal of public policy. In other words, it is libration from restraints which are
imposed by the authoritarian State. According to EnyclopaediaBritanica, the Liberalism
is ‘Liberty’ and in brief, Liberalism believes in the freedom of expression, freedom to
formassociations, faith in secularism, democracy, Constitutional government, pluralistic
society and internationalism etc. Focusing on these features, in 20 thcentury, the concept
of Welfare State become popular as a middle way between liberal idea of Individualism
and Marxism.
Now the focus of the Welfare State is maximum on performing a large number of
functions for the individual and always keeps trying to make his life more and more
comfortable. The objective of Welfare State is to give maximum freedom and great
respect to the liberty and dignity of an individual. At present, the countries like India,
England, USA, Canada, Italy etc. are the example of the Welfare State.
10.6 OBJECTIVES OF THE WELFARE STATE IN LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE
The views of the Liberalists regarding the objectives of the Welfare State can be
divided into the following headings-
1) State is not an End but a Means- According to Iiberalists, the State was
created by the individualfor the fulfillment of his needs. Thus, the State is
not an end rather it is a means for the over-all development and welfare
of the individual. According to Laski, the State exists to protect the rights
and liberties of the individual. The State is for the welfare of the individual,
the later is not for the former.
2) Maximum Sphere of Stale Activity- The contemporary liberalists
consider the State as a welfare institution and thus, they are in favour of
 providing more and more functions to it.Benthamsupports the State to
work for spreading education and to bring reforms in jails and
administration. J.S.Milljustifies the interference of the State in the socio-
economic field in order to better the condition of the weaker sections of
the society.Laski supports the nationalization of production and
distribution for the sake of the welfare of the people.
3) State establishes the Coordination and Reconciliation among the
Conflicting Interests- There is no doubt that each individual has different
interests. The variations in the interestsgivebirthtoconflicts in the State.
Due to the scarcity of many things in the State, each individual tries to
establish his control over the maximum numberof goods which leads to
many conflicts. So the Liberalists look upon the State as a public
institution which looks after the interests of all and tries to reconciliate
their interests.
4) State provides the Economic Security- The basic needs of an
individual is — food, cloth and shelter and the welfare State fulfill these
needs by providing sufficient eat to every individual. In case of old age,
sickness, unemployment etc. the State provides the security by offering
the old age pensions, sickness allowances and unemployment
allowances etc. It has framed many provisions to protect individual from
any type of discrimination on basis of caste, colour, creed and religion
etc.
5) State serves the Common Interests- The modern Liberalists consider
the State as a welfare institution for the fulfillment of the interests of all.
According to Charles E.Merriam, “The ends and purpose of the
Government be simply stated as follows; external security, internal order,
justice, general welfare and freedom”. Thus, the welfare State is not only
to maintain the law and order rather to do maximum functions for the
people because it is a welfare institution.
6) To provide Political Security-The Welfare State provides the rights to
people to take part in the political activities without any discrimination.
Each individual has been provided equal status before law. The provision
of independent and impartial judiciary has been made to protect the rights
and liberties of an individual and equal opportunities are provided to all in
the government services.
7) Promotes International Cooperation- A welfare State looks upon the
welfare of the people not only residing in its own country but also the
people living in all the countries of the world. It avoids conflicts and
focuses to solve issues in peaceful, harmonious and prosperous
atmosphere.
8) Provide Social Security- In order to provide the social equality without
any discrimination on basis of caste, religion, colour and creed etc; the
objective of the welfare State is to provide everybody an equal status
before law. In case of any threat from an individual, the State can take
proper legal action against him. In brief, the rights and dignity of each
individual cannot be sacrificed for the happiness of others because every
individual has right to lead a happy life.
 9) Supports the Democratic Government- The liberalistsemphasise on
the importance of the democratic form of Government. They favour the
institutions of Representative Democracy which should be elected on the
basis of Universal Adult Franchise. In case, if the elected representatives
fail to do public welfare, the electorates can elect their new
representatives in next elections. Thus, the liberalists believe in the
Constitutional and peaceful methods of the welfare State.
10) State as a Supreme Association-Liberalists considers the State as a
supreme association. According to them, the welfare Stats establishes
the cooperation among various institutions existing in the State. The State
looks for the interests of all the people and claim for allegiance from them.
11) Seeks Public Welfare- The objective of the welfare State is to seek the
welfare of all. It focuses on providing the physical, intellectual, economic,
political and social development of the individual. The State opens
theeducational institutions to provide the education and hospitals to
provide the medical aid to the people. It creates employment
opportunities, fixes wages and working hours for the labourers. It provides
the transport and communication as well as opens the post and telegraph
offices. The objective of the Welfare State is also to provide the clean
drinking water and the cleanliness and sanitation to the people.
12) Will not Force is the basis of State- According to Liberalists like
Hobbes, though the people have given the right to rule over themselves
to the ruler, yet the State was made by the people. Similarly, according to
John Locke, the people possess the right to oppose the unjustified orders
of the State. Rousseau was of the opinion that if the State failed to protect
the right of people, the peoplehave every right to raise their voice against
such State.
10.7 FUNCTIONS OF THE LIBERAL WELFARE STATE
On the basis of the above said objectives Prof. Willoughby and Prof. Gettel have
divided the functions of the liberal welfare State as follows; however, the Positive
Liberalists make distinction between these two categories of functions.
a) Compulsory Functions
b) Optional Functions
A) Compulsory Functions of the Liberal Welfare State- These are those
functions which the State has to perform. These functions include the
maintenance of law and order, protection from foreign invasions, building
the diplomatic relations, establish thesocial equality and provide justice to
the people.
B) Optional Functions- All the functions which are not mentioned in the
Compulsory functions of the State, are included in the list of Optional
functions. According to T.H. Green,“The business of the State is not
merely the business of policeman arrestingwrong doers or of ruthlessly
enforcing contracts but of providing for men an equal chance, as far as
possible, or realizing what is best in their intellectual moral nature.”
 According to the Positive Liberal State, the modern Welfare State has to perform
the following functions.
1) To establish a Healthy Society- In order to set-up the healthy society,
the Welfare State makes provisions to eradicate the social evils like
dowry, sati, untouchability, misbehavior with women and caste system. It
is the responsibility of the State to check discriminations on the basis of
caste, colour, creed, religion and race and to frame provisions against it.
The State also creates awareness among the people through spreading
of education and relays of radio and television programmes against
superstitions.
2) Protection to the Life and Property- Aristotle was of the opinion that the
State has come into existence for the protection of life In case, the life
and property of an individual is not secured then he will be worried about
security throughout his life. Thus, the protection of life and property
should be the prior concern of the welfare State.
3) Maintenance of Law and Order- It is the duty of the State to maintain
law and order within its territory. The State makes adequate
arrangements for curtailing crimes and punishing the criminals.
4) Protection from external invasions- The State has to maintain a strong
standing army in order to protect its identity and external sovereignty. In
case, it is unable to do so then the State shall not be able to protect the
liberty and property of its citizen Therefore, protection of the country from
the internal and external threats is important.
5) Building the diplomatic relations with other Countries- No State can
live in isolation in the world of globalization. Therefore, it is important for
each State to establish the diplomatic relations with other States.In order
to set-up the export and import with the foreign States, the diplomatic
relations among various States are essential.
6) To establish appropriate Judicial System- In order to provide free and
impartial justice to its citizens whether high or low, rich or poor, the State
establishes the appropriate Judicial System. An independent and
impartialjudiciary is a requisite of a modern Welfare State.
7) Spread of Education- Earlier, the deliverance of education was not
included in the functions of the State and later, the education was started
spreading by the autonomous religious bodies. At present it is the duty of
the State to spread education among its citizens in order to raise the
efficiency of the State administration. To fulfill this objective, the State has
established many schools, colleges universities and technical institutions.
It provides training to the capable teachers. To provide education to the
poor, the State has framed provisions of Free and Compulsory Education.
8) Eradicate Poverty- It is the responsibility of the State to eradicate
poverty and to provide free food to the persons living below the poverty
line. Poverty is a curse becauseno State can progress if its citizens are
poor and are not able to meet the bare necessities of their lives.
9) Frame Provisions regarding the Social and Economic Security-The
modern state had made many arrangements for economic and social
security of its citizens. The provisions like old age pensions, allowance to
the crippledand unemployed and pensions after retirement of service are
granted by the State.
10) Protection of the Environment- It is a function of the State to provide
congenial environment for the living of the people. It frames policies
regarding the protection of the environment from its degradation. With the
overuse of pesticides, day by day increase of the poisonous gases in the
air, not only the land has become poisonous and vegetables and
foodgrain also become unfit for human consumption The diseases like
cancer are spreading fast due the impure drinking water in the state like
Punjab. Therefore, the welfare State is making all efforts to deal with such
problems and it has become an essential function of the State.
11) To provide the Utility Services-The State makes arrangements of
railways, post offices, television, production and supply of electricity and
radio etc. for the public. The other arrangements like road transport, air
transport, water transport and railway transport etc. are also made by
State because an individual alone is not competent to do all this by his
own.
12) To set up the Political Equality in the State- In order to establish the
political equality in the State, the welfare State provides equal political
rights to all. All the citizens have right to vote, right to contest election,
right to hold public office, right to criticize the government, right to petition;
right to information etc. without any discrimination.
13) Impose and Collect Taxes-It is the duty of the Welfare Stateto undertake
various welfare projects to stabilize the monetary position and control the
inflation. The State regulates the banking system, fixes interest rates for
borrowing and lending and prints currency according the needs.
14) Provides Recreational Facilities- In order to provide the recreational
facilities to its citizens, the State makes arrangements of cinema houses,
theatres, play- grounds, parks and gardens, art galleries, radios and
television etc.. The State educates the people regarding its new policies
and laws through the use of mass-media in the form of arranging dramas
and shows for the recreation of the people.
15) Develop and Preserves the Natural Resources- Due to the high
consumption of the natural resources due to the increase in the
population, it becomes the essential function of the State to develop and
preserves the forests as well as the water resources of the land for the
benefit of people. The State explores the venue and makes arrangements
for the extraction of gold, silver, mica, oil and coal etc.
16) Regulate the Industries and Trade- It is the prime duty of the State to
set-up trade as well as industries for the development of the Nation. The
workinghours of employees are fixed in order to encourage the small
 cottage industries, the government provides loans through various banks
and corporations.
17) Protect the Interests of the Labourers- in order to protect the labourers
from their exploitation, the State fixes the working hours and wages. The
State also provides them the facilities of rest, insurance and health. It is
the duty of the State to provide an appropriate environment to its
employees and the facility of free medical aid has been also incorporated.
18) To Promote Progressive Agriculture-The State sets-up various
Agricultural Universities to promote the research in the field of agriculture.
Better seeds, chemical manure, better implements and proper electric
and water facilities are provided to the farmers by the State. The State
also sends groups of farmers and scientists to foreign countries to
personally assess the progress of agriculture in other States and to
promote the same in their own land. The provisions like establishing the
ideal farm houses provide loans on easy terms as well as setting up of
the Minimum Selling Prices (MSP) are the steps essential for a modern
Welfare State to undertake.
19) Framing Laws for the over-alldevelopmentof the Individual-
According to Classical Liberalists, the laws limit the freedom of an
individual but the contemporary Liberalists takes the laws as a medium to
create the proper environment for the enjoyment of freedom. According to
them, the laws are the guardian of the freedom and every individual living
in the State is bound to respect the laws. In case, if an individual violates
the law and freedom providedto him, he gets punishment.

Self Assessment Questions

1. Give any two definitions of Welfare State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Mentions any two functions of Welfare State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.8 CRITICISM OF THE LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE WELFARE

STATE
No doubt, the liberal perspective of the welfare State has achieved popularity
inthe modern world but one cannot deny the fact that it has also been criticized at
various points. The points of criticism have been given below.
1) Lack of Consistency- Some critics calls the liberalists the opportunists
who changes with the time.Earlier, these liberalists consider the State as
a ‘Necessary Evil’ but the contemporary liberalists calls it an essential
institution of public welfare. Similarly, some consider the State as a
natural and ethical institution whereas others consider it as an artificial
 institution. This shows that there is no consistency in the views of liberals
regarding the State.
2) Criticism by Marxists-The Marxists consider the State as an instrument
in the hands of dominated people. For them, the State cannot play a role
of welfarism. For them a State is an institution which comes into existence
for the ruling class. The rich class controls the production and its means.
They utilize the supreme power of State to protect and promote their own
interests. According to them, the force and violence is the essential
means for bringingabout the change in society.
3) State is burdened with Infinite number of Functions- With the
increase in the needs of people the responsibilities of State have also
increased. This has adversely affects the efficiency of the State.
4) Man is not able to become self-dependent- The State does not enable
the individual to become self-dependent because the individual expect
each andevery work to be done by the State. As a result, he is not able to
stand on his own feet.
5) Costly Administration- The welfare State has to perform large number
of functions, therefore, the more expenditure it will have to incur. Also,
with theincrease in the population and raise in the needs of people, the
State has to impose higher rates of taxation in order to meet the
increased expenditure.This also increases the burden on the people
under heavy taxes.
6) Influence of Bureaucracy Increases- In order to tackle the increased
needs of the people and to cope with the increased work of the
government, theinfluence of trained bureaucracy has also increased. This
can make the bureaucracy, dictatorial and act against the public interest.
7) Curtailment of Liberties of the citizens on the name of welfare- The
liberties of the citizens in a welfare State are curtailed because
whileperforming a large number of functions, the State interferes in the
liberties of the individual. As a result, anindividual has become deprived
from his liberties.
10.9 Limitations in the Sphere of Welfare State
Though, MacIver, Green and Barker were in favour of assigning a large number
of functions to the State but they were also against the absolutism of the State.
According to MacIver, the welfare State should not undertake certain function. These
functions are described as under.
1) Interference in Religion- Religion is the personal matter of an individual
and to believe or not to believe in it depends on the personal wish of an
individual.The State should not interfere or impose any religion on the
individual. All the religions should be equal in the eyes of the State.
2) Interference in Culture- Every society has its own culture and the State
should not interfere in the freedom of individual in promotion of his
culture. The people should give freedom in its protection and promotion.
 3) Suppress the Public Opinion- The public opinion holds a great
significance in the democratic country and the State should not suppress
its citizens to build and express public opinion. It is the duty of the State to
promote maximumopportunities to individual to express himself.
4) Avoid hindrances in Moral Values- Moral values are part and parcel of
the life of the people. The moral values teach the people how to be
civilized and cooperative with each other. Therefore, the State should
neither to interfere nor should try to destroy the values of society rather it
should try to remove the hindrances in the way of moral values.
5) Interference in the personal life of an individual- The State should not
interfere in the personal life of an individual besides the State should try
to regulate his life in an effective manner. At the same time, the non-
interference of the State does not mean that an individual has been given
unusual freedom to act against the society and State
6) Obstacle in the Art and Literature- Art and literature signifies the social,
economic and political conditions of a country, therefore, it is a prime duty
of the State to create the proper conditions for the promotion of art and
literature. The State should not create obstacles in the way of their
development
7) Right of the State only to change orthodox and backward customs-
Customs enjoy the social recognition and regulate the social life of the
people. People follow these customs during birth, death, marriages etc. In
order to follow the customs, people even violate the laws of the State.
Therefore, it is the duty of the State not to interfere in these customs
irrelevantly rather the State has the right to change the orthodox and
backward customs.
8) Regulate the Vulgarity promoted through Fashion- According to
MacIver, fashion is a personal matter of an individual and the State
should not interfere in it. But the welfare State has right to laid down
restrictions on the fashion which creates vulgarity. An individual should
also adopt fashion which is according to the social and moral values of
the society.
10.10 SUMMARY
In brief, we can say that the modem liberal perspective of the welfare State got
more popularity in the 19 thcentury against the bad results of classical liberal perspective
propagating - ‘Individualism’, ‘Laissez Faire’ and Negative Freedom. At present, a large
number of countries are adopting the democratic liberal perspective in its
governingsystem. Though the modern liberal ideology assigns a large number of
functions to the State for the welfare of individual and also has a great respect to the
freedom and dignity of an individual but it is also the prime duty of the State not to
interfere in the social and personal freedom of an individual irrelevantly.
10.11 GLOSSARY
1. Laissez Faire – the policy of leaving things to take their own course,
without interfering.
 2. Bureaucracy- A system of government in which most of important
decision are taken by state officials rather than by elected
representatives.
10.12 FURTHER READINGS
1) Bhagat, R.M. (2009). Political Thought: Plato. To Marx New
AcademicPublishing Co.
2) Guaba, O.P. (2009), An Introduction to Political Theory, Magic
International Pvt. Ltd.
3) Heywood, Andrew (1997), Politics, Machmillan Press Ltd., London.
4) Jain, M.P.(1979), Political Theory,Mahajan Printers, Maujpur, Delhi.
5) Johari, J.C. (2002), Comparative Politics, Sterling Publishers Pvt.Ltd.
New Delhi.
6) Nath, A.V. Prem, Sudhir Kumar Mishra, N.NabigarabandKranthi J.
Sebastian (2009), Political Science - Spectrum’s Rapid Revision Study
Pack, Spectrum Books (P)Ltd., New Delhi.
10.13 MODEL QUESTIONS
1. Define the liberal perspective of Welfare State and write down its
functions.
2. What do you mean by the Welfare State? Discuss its important functions.
3. Make a critical evaluation of the modern liberal perspective of the Welfare
State.
4. “Welfare State is a middle way between Individualism and Marxism.” In
the light of this statement discuss the emergence, of the idea of Welfare
State and its functions.
5. Define the Welfare State in context of liberal perspective? Explain the
Compulsory and Optional functions of this State.
6. What functions a Modern Positive State-performs these days?
---00---
 Lesson-11

WELFARE STATE: ASOCIALIST PERSPECTIVE

Structure
11.0 Objectives
11.1 Introduction
11.2 State in two Forms
11.2.1 The State in Capitalist Society
11.2.2 The State in Socialist Society
11.3 Origin of State in Socialist Society
11.4 Meaning of Socialism
11.5 Definitions of Socialism
11.6 Features of a State in Socialist Perspective
11.7 Functions of Welfare State in Socialist Perspective
11.8 A Critical Estimate of Marxian Theory related to the State
11.9 Summary
11.10 Glossary
11.11 Further Readings
11.12 Model Questions
11.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able
 to learn about the Welfare State in a Socialist perspective.
 to evaluate the perspective andanalyze the importance of Socialist State
in the present scenario.
11.1 INTRODUCTION
By the end of19th and beginning of the 20 thcentury, there had been a general
reaction against attempts to maintain self-regulating systems of markets. This reaction
has been described as the “doctrine of liberalism”which led to the advent of Collectivism
and Socialism. In 19th century as a reaction against the bad results of ‘doctrine of
liberalism’,the Marxian ideology became popular. The ideology was propounded by Karl
Marx. In his two world famous books- Das Capital and Manifesto of the Communist Party
and after him, his friend Fredric Angels, and other scholars like Lenin, Stalin, Plakhnov,
Gramsci, G. Lucas, Mao-Tse-Tung and Deng Xiaopingetc.analysedthe Marxian identity
according to the changed situations of the society. Marxism does not consider the State
as natural institution. It firmly believes that State cannot perform any welfare role in the
capitalist society until unless the classless and Stateless society emerges. According to
Karl Marx, the welfare State has its roots only in Socialism.
11.2.1 State in two Forms
 Before reaching direct to the concept of Socialist perspective of the welfare State
we must know that Marxism has divided the State in two forms.
3) The State in Capitalist Society.
4) The State in Socialist Society.
1. The State in Capitalist Society :
Marx believes that the civil society represents the State itself. It recognizes
individual as a citizen and conceded equality of all individuals in the eyeS of law. But,
since the economic power in the contemporary civil society is in hand of capitalists class,
the State has to serve the interest of this class.
Features of Capitalist State
i) Focus on industrial set up : The industrial production is carried on a wide
scale in big factories through machines set up with the help of capital.
j) Cut-throat Competition : There is cut-throat competition among capitalists
which leads to more production in context of gaining profit and the
exploitation of the poor workers.
k) Dependence on Capitalism : In the capitalist State, the resources are in
hands of capitalists, therefore, the production is entirely based on their
system.
l) Inequality : Very few section of capitalist society has control on wealth
and a arge section is devoid from it. It leads to a great gap between the
rich and poor.
m) Profit oriented Production : Instead of utility of resources according to the
demands, the resources are used as the means of achieving profit.
n) Existence of two hostile classes : Every system of production within
capitalist society has given rise to two principle mutually hostile classes
for example- freemen and slaves, feudal lords and serfs, capitalists and
labourers.
o) Class Struggle : The existence of hostile classes lead to the class
struggle. According to Marx, the class antagonism centered round the
prevailing mode of production with its economic system.
p) Mode of Production involves a Base and Superstructure : The mode of
production i.e. the economic structure of society constitute the base, while
legal and political structure, religion, morals and other forms of social
consciousness constitute the superstructure. Together “they form
“Structure of Dominance”.
Functions of State in Capitalist Society:
7) Economic Functions : The focus of the State within capitalist society was
on free trade and open competition. But the role of State in this society is
changing now. It is adopting the ‘mixed economy’ and the private sector is
also regulated by the state laws. The provisions are made for the
regulated working hours of workers and their salaries are fixed.
 8) Focus on National Interest in International Sphere : The Capitalist State is
imperialist in nature. In order to promote its national interest, the State
builds treaties with other countries and sell their goods on profitable
terms.
9) Protection of Capitalist Interests : The priority of the State in capitalist
society is to protect the interest of the capitalists. The State provides
assistance to them to produce surplus values and provide them the
protection through agencies of police, army, judiciary etc.
10) Welfare Functions : In present scenario, the State is providing allowances
to old age, umemployed, diseased and dis-abled people. The supply of
clean drinking water, education, health and sanitation is the objective of
the State.
11) Boost the Capitalists : There is complete freedom in production and
utilization of resources in capitalist society. The State has initiated various
schemes and plans which boosts the interests of capitalists.
12) To Maintain Law and Order : The primary duty of the State is to maintain
law and order and to protect the Right to Life, Liberty and Property of the
citizens.
Criticism of Marxists to the Capitalist State:
8) State in favour of Capitalists : Marxists argue that the Capitalist State
helps the rich section of society. The State gives them the protection
through agencies of police, army and judiciary.
9) Oppression of Proletariat : The State on one hand protects the interests
of the capitalists but on the other hand, it overlooks the interests of the
working class. With the increase in the power of State, the cruelty and
exploitation of the working class also increases.
10) On the consent of subordinate classes, State secures the interests of
Capitalists : The State is undertaking its welfare role with an objective to
secure the consent of subordinate classes whereas the reality is that it is
an attempt to save the capitalist society from dis-integration.
11) State in the Economic Sphere : According to Marx, the State enters the
economic sphere for protecting the interests of capitalists. It boosts their
monopoly and increases the exploitation of subordinates.
12) Imperialist Tendency : According to Marx, the capitalist State captures the
foreign market to channelize their goods or capital . It strengthens their
imperialistic tendency.
13) Suppression of Rights and Liberties of Subordinate Classes : The State
protects the rights and liberties of the capitalists. It suppresses the
freedom of speech and expression of weak and keeps them away from
the opportunities.
14) State not maintaining Law and Order : Marxists believe that State is not
maintaining Law and Order of the state properly. The capitalist state
always tries to promote the interest of rich and suppresses the
movements launched by the poor section of society.
11.2.2The State in Socialist Society
According to Karl Marx, in Socialist State the ruling power will be in hands of
proletariat and they use the State to suppress the capitalists. All the means of production will
be under the control of State. The resources will be used according to the needs of society.
11.3 ORIGIN OF STATE IN SOCIALIST PERSPECTIVE
The State in Socialist perspective came into being as a result of conflict between
feudalists and capitalists. It came into existence when the proletariat class established
its dominance on the capitalists. The proletariat section of society then holds the State in
their own hand and uses it to destroy the order of capitalists. All this will be done through
Revolution.
11.4 MEANING OF SOCIALISM
The term ‘socialism’ is understood and defined by various thinkers and schools of
thoughts. ‘Socialism’ stands for an economic system under which the major instruments
of social production (that is the instruments by which production is carried out for
consumption by the larger society) are placed the ownership and control of public
authority in order to ensure that they are properly utilized to secure the public interest. In
this society, all the privileges are put to an end and to get a work in the socialist society
is not a matter of right, but a sacred duty. Therefore, the Socialist State is based on the
dictum “One who does not work, neither shall he eat”.
11.5 DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM
3) According toJoseph Schumpeter, “Socialism is that organization of
society in which the means of production are controlled, and the decisions
on how and what to produce and on who is to get what, are made by
public authority instead of by privately- owned and privately-managed
firms.”
4) According to Oxford English Dictionary, “It is a theory or policy that aims
at or advocates the ownership or control of the means of production-
capital, land, property, etc.- by the community as a whole and their
administration in the interests of all”.
11.6 FEATURES OF A STATE IN SOCIALIST PERSPECTIVE
8) Dominance of Proletariat :The power of the government is in the hands of
the proletariat section of society.
9) State use to crush Capitalism :The proletariats use supreme power of the
State to crush the capitalists.
10) State control on all Means of Production:In socialist society, the State
regulates all the means of production.
11) Utility based Production : The State does not produce to gain profit. The
production is made according to the needs of the society.
12) Re-distribution of Wealth by State :The wealth resulted from the
production is re-distributed among its citizens on equitable basis by the
State.
 13) Equal Wages for Equal Work: The workers in this State get equal wages
for equal work without any exploitation.
14) Existence of Mutual Cooperation : The open competition is ended and a
sense of mutual cooperation is encouraged among its citizens.
Marxists are of the view that the capitalists will die one day and the Welfare State
in Socialist State will be set up. When the working class establishes its dominance upon
the State, it will destroy the capitalist order through Revolution. Thereafter, the Socialist
Statewill also be abolished and a stateless and classless society will be established. In
this society, each individual will work according to his capacity and will be paid according
to his needs.

Self Assessment Questions

1. What do mean by Capitalist State ?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Define Socialism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Give any two features of State in Socialist Perspectives.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11.7 FUNCTIONS OF WELFARE STATE IN SOCIALIST PERSPECTIVE

According to Marxist Theory, the functions of the State in Socialist Perspective
are as under.
13) Abolition of Class based Society :There should be abolition of classes in
Socialist State. To achieve this objective it is very much necessary to
abolish the control of capitalists on the resources, private property, socio-
economic and cultural institutions. According to Karl Marx, the Socialist
State has not to set up the harmony between the opposite classes. The
objective of the State is to destroy the dominant class and to establish a
classless society.
14) Socialist State in International Sphere :Karl Marx wants to establish the
communism not only at the national level. He wants to spread it in the
whole world. That is why, all the Communist countries promote
cooperation with each other. In this perspective,Karl Marx also raised the
slogan “Workers of all lands unite”. With this slogan he wanted to set up
cooperation between the workers of all countries and thus established
Communism in all over the world.
15) Welfare Functions : The objective of State is to provide the Right to Work
with fixed working hours. The State ensures the economic security,
houses for living, free medical aid, equal wages for men and women and
the upbringing of the children etc.
16) Ensures Social Equality : The State ensures the social equality in the
Socialist society. Opportunities are provided to citizens to develop
themselves. No special privilege should be provided and discrimination
and exploitation is completely abolished.
17) Maintenance of Socialist Discipline : To strengthen the Socialism in State,
it is the duty of State to maintain the socialist discipline. The citizens of
the State are being told not to harm the government property and to
maintain the peace and harmony within the State.
18) Economic Functions : The objective of the State in Socialist Society is to
set-up the exploitation free classless society. It, therefore, ensures the
common ownership on the means of production. It is the prior duty of the
State to abolish the private property and to regulate the means of
production. In order to achieve progress, systematic planning should be
done to increase production, bring land reforms and use of scientific
techniques.
19) Educational Functions : In order to spread Communism among the
citizens and in whole world, the State has made compulsory education for
each child. The religious education in schools and colleges is prohibited.
The purpose behind is to prepare a class of people dedicated to Socialist
State.
20) Cultural Functions : The duty of Socialist State is to end the discrimination
based on race, religion, colour and creed. People are not free to
propogate their religion and the citizens are taught to prefer the public
interest over the individualistic interests.
21) Judicial Functions : In Socialist States, the people’s Courts are
constituted which listen to the cases related to the conflicts, theft of public
property, attacks on the dignity of citizens etc. In socialist State, no place
is given to the high ideals like independent judiciary etc..
22) To Maintain Law and Order : In order to obtain the law and order in
Socialist society, the Marxists are of opinion that the State should adopt
the policy of suppression and terror and give severe punishments. In both
Russia and China a person working against the socialist system are
severely punished by the State.
23) Religion : In principle, the citizens in Socialist States are given religious
freedom but in practice these States are against religion. In these States,
religious education in schools and colleges is prohibited and people are
not given freedom to propagate their religion.
24) To prepare conditions for the withering away of the State – The ultimate
goal of Marxists is to establish classless and Stateless society. In order to
achieve this goal, the State should prepare the conditions in which the
State becomes an unnecessary institution and withers away
 automatically. Everybody will work according to his capacity and will get
according to his needs. Then, the State will be replaced by the voluntary
associations of the people.
11.8 A CRITICAL ESTIMATE OF MARXIST THEORY RELATED TO THE
STATE
1) One-Sided Interpretation :Marxism materialistic interpretation of history is
one sided. Marx ignored the fact that spiritual and other elements also
play an important role in the historical development of society.
2) State is not an Evil : The Marxists regards the State as an instrument in
the hands of capitalists. Therefore, they want to destroy it. After its
destruction, they favour the Stateless Society without any class.
3) Marx Proves to be False :According to Karl Marx, the classes
willdisappear when the Socialist society establishes. But this prophecy of
Marx has not come out to be true. Rather, a new middle class is emerging
now. Neither the class struggle leads to organise the Socialism nor the
capitalism weakens itself and changed into the classless state.
4) Ignore the interests of other classes : The whole attention of Marxism is in
advocating the interests of the working class. They forget the Middle
Class, the Lower Middle Class, the Upper Middle Class. Marxism ignores
the interests of these classes.
5) No place for the Individual Freedom : Although, the Constitution of
Socialist States has granted many freedoms to the citizens but in practical
all these freedoms are nominal. The individual should always ready to
sacrifice the interest for the betterment of Socialism.
6) Invalid dichotomy between Sub-Structure and Super-Structure :Marxism
regards economic sub-structure- the mode of production- as the basis of
socio-political, cultural, ethical and ideological superstructure. This has
been criticized on the ground that the dichotomy between sub-structure
and super-structure is invalid and both influence each other.
7) Criticism of RevolutionaryMethod:For qualitative change, Marxism
maintains that revolution is essential. This view has been criticized by
revisionists and liberals alike. They maintain that reforms and
evolutionary methods are better methods of change.
8) Dominance of Bureaucracy : No doubt, Marxism is against the dominance
of bureaucracy but yet we find that bureaucracy has gained dominance in
Socialist State. The specialists have their control over the administration
and industries of the state and in this manner they have grabbed the
surplus value of this system. One cannot deny the fact that in Socialist
State the bureaucratization in place of nationalization takes place.
9) Rise of Elite Class : Instead of the governance in hands of the working
class, an elite class has emerged in the Socialist States. The elite class is
ruling in the State in the form of Communist Party and the participation of
workers in the political activities is nominal.
 10) Private Property encourages Individual : The Marxists are of opinion that
private property is bad and therefore, they intend to destroy this
institution. But it is also true that private property develops good qualities
in the individual. It encourages him to work hard and it results in the
emergence of feelings regarding spirit of patriotism.
11.9 SUMMARY
No doubt, the Marxist ideology has many shortcomings in itself but one cannot
ignore its contribution also. In 1917, the Soviet Union and in 1949 China has accepted
this ideology and even the capitalists states cannot ignore its impression over the minds
of common people. Whatever be the means of this ideology are, its objectives cannot be
under-estimated and this ideology has given birth to new Socialist State.
11.10 GLOSSARY
1) Elite – The richest most powerful, best educated or best trained group in
the society.
2) Withering away – to slowly disappear, lose importance, or become
weaker.
11.11 FURTHER READINGS
1) Badyal, J.S. (2012), Political Theory, Raj Publishers, Jalandhar.
2) Bhagat, R.M. (2009), Political Thought: Plato To Marx, New Academic
Publishing Co.
3) Dduggal, R.N. (2014), Political Theory, Duggal Publishing House,
Jallandhar.
4) Guaba, O.P. (2009), An Introduction to Political Theory, Magic
International Pvt. Ltd.
5) Heywood, Andrew (1997), Politics, Machmillan Press Ltd., London.
6) Jain, M.P.(1979), Political Theory, Mahajan Printers, Maujpur, Delhi.
7) Johari, J.C. (2002), Comparative Politics, Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi.
8) Nath, A.V. Prem, Sudhir Kumar Mishra, N.Nabigarab and Kranthi J.
Sebastian (2009), Political Science- Spectrum’s Rapid Revision Study
Pack, Spectrum Books (P) Ltd., New Delhi.
11.12 MODEL QUESTIONS
1) What do you mean by the Socialist State? Discuss the functions of a
SocialistState.
2) “The purpose of Socialist State is to establish classless and
statelesssociety.” In the light of this statement discuss the functions of
State with Socialist perspective.
3) “Socialist State is a Totalitarian State? Discuss.
4) Make a critical evaluation of the functions of Socialist State according
toMarxist Theory.
---00---
 Lesson-12

SOVEREIGNTY DEFINITION ATTRIBUTES

AND TYPES

Structure
12.0 Objectives
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Definitions of Sovereignty
12.3 Attributes of Sovereignty
12.4 Different Kinds of Sovereignty
12.4.1 Legal Sovereignty
12.4.2 Political Sovereignty
12.4.3 De-Jure and De-facto Sovereignty
12.4.4 Theory of Popular Sovereignty
12.4.5 Dustin’s Theory & Sovereignty
12.5 Summary
12.6 Glossary
12. 7 Further Readings
12.8 Model Questions
12.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able :
 to understand the attributes of sovereignty
 to locate different kinds & sovereignty
 to understand the theory of popular sovereignty
 to understand Austin's Theory of Sovereignty
 to understand the Pluralist theory of sovereignty.
 to understand the concept of legitimacy and its relationship with
sovereignty in the context of modern state.

12.1 INTRODUCTION
You would recollect that in our discussion of the concept of the state, we pointed
out that if state is different from other associations it is all due to the fact that it
possesses sovereignty, while others do not possess this unique feature. Sovereignty is
that power by virtue of which state exercises absolute authority overall the individuals
who reside within its bounds, over all their associations and over their entire property. It
is thus the most essential element of the state. The term sovereignty is derived from the
Latin word "Superanus" which means supreme. Sovereignty is that quality of the state
which differentiates it from other associations and subordinates them to it. Let us now try
to define to concept of sovereignty.
12.2 DEFINITIONS OF SOVEREIGNTY
The word 'sovereignty’ has been derived from the Latin word 'Superanus' which
means supreme.
This, sovereignty means supreme power or the state against which neither an
appeal can be made, nor an argument can be made nor a lawyer can be engaged. With
the use of this power, the stage gives order to everybody who comes under its control
and all of them are bound to obey these orders. In this connection Prof. Laski says, "It
(state) issues orders to all men and all associations within that area it receives orders
from none of them. Its will is subject to no legal limitation of any kind. What it proposes
is right by mere announcement of intention." Laski further says, "It is by possession of
sovereignty that the state is distinguished from all other forms of human associations."
Sovereignty has been defined by different writers. Aristotle refers to "Supreme
Power" which nearly means the same thing as sovereignty. Romans have called it as
'fullness of the power of state. Bodin defines it as "the supreme power over citizens and
subjects, understand by law." Giotius defines it as "supreme political power vested in
him whose acts are not subject to any other, and whose will cannot be over ridden."
Blackstone, an English jurist, defines it as supreme, inesistible, absolute, uncontrolled
authority in the authority in the state. Jellinech defines it as "that characteristic of the
state is virtue of which it cannot be legally bound except by its own will, or limited by any
power than itself." Burgess defines sovereignty as "original, absolute, unlimited power
over individual subjects and over all associations of subject" Pollock regards it as 'that
power, which is neither temporary nor delegated, nor subject to particular, rules which it
cannot atter.' Willoughby calls it" the supreme, will of the state. "Duguit regards it is
"commanding power of the state." Austin's definition is widely accepted and defines it in
this way. "If a determine human superior not in the habit of obedience to a like superior
receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society that determine superior is
sovereign in that society, and the society including that human superior is independent
and political."
The definitions given in the foregoing paragraphs throw light on the meaning of
the terms 'sovereignty' and all imply that the state has the final and absolute power to
make laws, and also to compel obedience of the nationals of that state to those laws.
This power is unlimited and unrestricted. The only limitation can be self-imposed
limitation.
12.3 ATTRIBUTES OF SOVEREIGNTY
After defining sovereignty, now we proceed to discuss the various attributes of
sovereignty which are given below :
(i) Permanence : Sovereignty is permanent because state is also permanent
and the death of the one leads to the death of the other. If a ruler dies or
a government is dissolved, even in that case, sovereignty does not
disappear. In Britain it is said, "The King is dead; long live the king". It
 means that the king as a man has died but kingship as an institution
continues. Interpreted in terms of sovereignty, it implies that sovereignty
is Permanent and does not die with the death of a king.
(ii) Universality : When we say that sovereignty is universal, we mean that the
authority of state is comprehensive and extends without exception to all
individuals, to all groups and associations that exist within the territorial
limits of the state. However, one exception may be considered and that is:
the concessions and immunities enjoyed by the foreign diplomats in a
state. All the foreign embassies in a country enjoy certain concessions
are reciprocal and are based on international courtesy. But these
concessions can be abrogated by the sovereign with one stroke of the
pen and the foreign diplomats can be expelled from the country.
Therefore, even this exception does not cut across the limits of
sovereignty and it remains universal.
(iii) Inalienability :The state cannot allenate or give away its sovereignty just
as a free can not give up its rights to sprout or just as a man cannot
transfer his life or personality without self destruction. No state can give
up its sovereignty and even then remain a state. In case a state loses a
portion of its territory still retaining sovereignty over the remaining portion
of its territory.
(iv) Indivisibility :Sovereignty is one and it cannot be divided. To divide
sovereignty is to destroy it. The powers relating to the exercise of
sovereignty can be divided among different organs of government but this
does not mean that sovereignty has been divided. Pluralists oppose the
idea of indivisibility and the idea of oneness of sovereignty. According to
them a state is no more sovereign than association. A state cannot
command full obedience from a man because he is obedient to many
associations which contribute to the development of his multifaceted
personality. A worker is more loyal to his trade union than to the state. In
the days of strike, he obeys the orders of his union and defies the orders
of the state. Again, in case of a federation, both the federation and its
units are sovereign in their own spheres, as demarcated by the
constitution of the federation. In this case, therefore, it seems that two
sovereign make laws for the same people on different subjects. The other
view is that even in the above illustration, it is not the sovereignty that is
divided but is the exercise of powers that is divided or that certain organs
government exercise sovereignty on behalf of the state.
(v) Absoluteness :Sovereignty is regarded as absolute and unlimited. The
sovereign power can impose restrictions on itself but no other power
internally or externally can impose any restrictions on sovereignty of the
state. In reality, sovereignty cannot be absolute either internally or
externally. Nature, customs, religion and constitutions are some of the
limitations over the internal aspect of the sovereignty of a state. Externally
also, international law, international behaviour of other states, treaties and
the decisions of the U.N.O. are some of the limitations on the sovereignty
of the state. If a state tries to cross these limitations the state has to face
its own destruction and hence the destructions of its sovereignty. Let us
examine the internal limitations as mentioned above. If a state interferes
 in the customs of the people or their religion or morality. It invites a crists,
a chaos and a possible revolution of the people against itself which might
lead to its own destruction.
Similarly, if a state in relation to other states does not observe international code
of morality and does not obey international law, it might lead to international anarchy
which ultimately might lead, to the total destruction of the world. The modern science
and technology and the invention of atom bombs and the intercontinental rockets have
created such a situation in the world that the states must live in harmony and must
maintain everlasting international peace if they want to exist. Thus, national and
international harmony is most essential for the existence of a state and such a harmony
is possible only if they sovereignty is regarded in a limited sense. Modern states cannot
exist if the conventional concept of the absolute nature of sovereignty is relied upon.
12.4 DIFFERENT KINDS OF SOVEREIGNTY
It is a wrong notion that there are different kinds of sovereignty. The truth is that
when the sovereignty is used in different contexts, its different aspects come to light. To
these different aspects we describe as different kinds of sovereignty. They are internal
sovereignty, external sovereignty legal sovereignty, political sovereignty,dejure
sovereignty and de-facto sovereignty, popular sovereignty. Let us now consider each
aspect of sovereignty in detail.
12.4.1 Legal Sovereignty : In every state there is supreme law-making authority which
is called the legal sovereign. This authority is definite, determinate and organized and is
vested in an individual or a set of individuals. It alone has the power to issue final
commands in the form of laws. This authority is not limited by divine laws, moral
principles public opinion, ancient customs or even international agreements. The courts
recognize only the legal sovereign and the laws made by it. Disobedience to the legal
sovereign involves punishment. In Britain, the legal sovereignty belongs to the 'King in
Parliament' which is the supreme law-making authority. According to Dicey, the British
parliament is so omnipotent that it can adjudge an infant as of full age and it may declare
an illegitimate child and legitimate child. The only thing it cannot do is that it cannot
make man a woman or woman a man.
12.4.2 Political Sovereignty :The modern age is that age of democracy in which
people are sovereign. They elect the parliament and vest authority in it. They constitute
the political sovereign. The legal sovereign is born out of it and carries out its will.
Woodrow Wilson has rightly said that the legal sovereign i.e. electorate. Dicey also
supports the idea of Wilson. He says, "Behind the sovereign which the lawyer
recognizes, there is another sovereign to whom the legal sovereign must bow. This is
the political sovereign.
It is not easy to define or to find out the political sovereign. The political sovereign
means the sum total or influences in state which lie behind the law. Some people identify
political sovereign with the community at large, some with the mass of people, some with
the general will and some with public opinion. Some people think that the electorate
constitutes the political sovereign but others who did not have the right to vote also
contribute a lot in the formation of public opinion which ultimately affects the opinion of
the electorate. Crores of people in India, who are under 18 years of age and who cannot
vote, play a vital role in influencing the opinion of the voters. Again it is difficult to say
which factor is more supreme in influencing the voting behaviour of the voters. In
dictatorship there is no electorate and if at all it is there then it has no power to influence
the dictator such as in Pakistan. The will of the electorate as expressed in the general
elections could not influence the military dictator. Yahya Khan. In direct democracy, the
legal sovereign and the political sovereign coincede but in an indirect democracy or in a
representative democracy, it is difficult to locate the political sovereign. Some writers,
therefore perefer to abandon it. The political sovereign is, therefore, not as determinate
and organized as the legal sovereign is, but it is none the less real because after at
public opinion, general will and the various wishes of the electorate do affect the
decisions of the legal sovereign and also political sovereignty leads to legal sovereignty.
Gilchrist observes, "the two are two aspects of one sovereignty of the stat. The
constantly react on each other."
In fact the legal sovereignty belongs to the legislature, whereas the political
sovereignty belongs to the electorate. The problem of democracy is, therefore, to
establish proper relationship between the two. While making laws the legal sovereign
must take into consideration the opinion of the political sovereign and the political
sovereign cannot make its will prevail, except through the legal sovereign. The political
sovereign cannot make laws the courts do not recognize such laws. The political
sovereign must act through the legal sovereign and the sovereign must consider the
opinion of the political sovereign.
12.4.3 De-Jure and De-Facto Sovereign :Sometimes a distinction is made between
the de-jure (legal) and the de-fact (actual) sovereign. The basis of de-jure sovereignty is
law. The de-jure sovereign is competent to make laws and compel obedience to such
laws. It is the legal authority to rule. The de-facto sovereign is the real sovereign which
the people obey. Such a distinction becomes clear at the time of revolution or foreign
aggression when a new authority challenges the authority of the legal sovereign. If this
new authority is able to secure the obedience of the bulk of the people and is able to
actually exercise power. It becomes the de-facto sovereign. The de-facto sovereignty
rests on force rather than on law. This force may be physical, or spiritual and the
sovereign may be a usurping king, a self constituted assembly, or military dictator or
even a priest or a prophet. There are many examples of de-facto sovereigns. To quote
one example, Sheikh MujiburRehman's followers 'MuktiBahini' declared the secession of
their part of the county from the Pakistan and embarked upon a war of liberation.
Legally, East Bengal was a part of Pakistan and hence the latter was the de-jure
sovereign and the MuktiBahini became the de-facto sovereign because the bulk of the
population assured allegiance to it. When Pakistan was defeated in the war, it ceased to
be a de-jure sovereign also. A free country, called Bangla Desh, took birth.
Writers, like Austin, who believe in the legal Concept sovereignty refuse to
accept the distinction between di-facto and de-jure sovereignty. He says government
may be de-facto or de-jure, but these terms do not apply to sovereignty.

Self Assessment Questions

1. Define Sovereignty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What do you mean by Popular Sovereignty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.4.4 THEORY OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY
According to the theory of popular sovereignty the ultimate authority be in the
modern-democratic state belongs to the people whereas the theory of the political
sovereignty believes that it belongs to the, electorate. In ancient democracies popular
sovereignty was identified with the direct democracy in which people participated directly
in law-making.
Writers like Mariglio, William of Ockkam, Althusius and Rousseau who were
against monarchy put forward this theory. Rousseau clearly said that the sovereignty
belongs to the people and that the general will of the people is the supreme power in the
state and constitutes the sovereign authority. With the growth of democracy the idea of
popular sovereignty also gained ground. Accordingly, the people are superior and can
over throw the legal sovereign. The laws of the legal sovereign are valid only if these are
obeyed by the people and have the consent of the people. In modern states where every
adult has the right to vote, it is difficult to distinguish between political and popular
sovereignty. The only point of difference is that the political sovereign in a state may be
a class, the landlord, the capitalists, the army or the church but popular sovereignty
vests ultimate powers in the hands of the masses or the majority of the people. Popular
sovereignty, therefore, refers to the powers of the masses as against the power of an
individual ruler or a class.
Criticism of Theory
4. The people obey the legal sovereign : The masses are ill-organised and ill
equipped and can be suppressed by and be made to obey the legal
sovereign.
5. All people do not have the right to vote :How can people be sovereign ?
Nearly half of the people do not have, the right to vote. They there is quite
a large number of them who do not care to vote. Then they vote
according to Party dictates. Besides, elections take place after along
intervals.
6. Sovereignty of People is nothing more than a public opinion :People
cannot make laws except through the legal sovereign. They can only
assert through revolutions and revolutions usually destroy, both state and
sovereignty.
12.4.5 AUSTIN'S THEORY OF SOVEREIGNTY
John Austin (1790-1859) in his bock 'Lectures on Jurisprudence' published in
1832 gave an exposition of the legal theory of sovereignty. His theory is based on his
conception of law in general decline as a "command given by a superior to an inferior."
He defines sovereignty in the, following words."
"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, the determinate superior is
sovereign in that society, and the society (including the superior) is a society political and
independent."
Let us try to analyse the above definition and find out its implications :
vii. The Sovereign is a determinate human superior :The sovereign is either
a person or a body of persons, who can be determined. An abstract thing
 like the general will of Rousseau, can never be sovereign. The type of
government in the mind of Austin was either monarchy or aristocracy.
viii. The determinate human superior does not obey a like superior :The
sovereign is absolute and unlimited. The sovereign receives obedience
to his commands from the bulk of the people but himself is not subject to
any authority. It means also that a sovereign, while dealing with another
sovereign, is not to obey him and he is absolutely free to act in the sphere
of inter state relations.
ix. The sovereign receives habitual obedience from the people :It means
authority of the sovereign within the limits of the territory of the state, is
unlimited and absolute and extends overall individuals, all their groups
and associations. All the commands of the sovereign are obeyed by the
people, as a matter of habit not by compulsion. This obedience is not
accidental or occasional but regular and continuous.
x. The Sovereign power cannot be divided : Sovereignty is a unity and it
cannot be divided. There is no other power equal to the sovereign
because he is superior or supreme and that can be only one. Thus, in
one state there can be only one sovereign who is indivisible.
xi. Law is the command of the sovereign.
xii. Every independent and politically organized society has a sovereign. In
other words sovereignty is an essential attribute of independent and
political society i.e. the state.
Critical examination at the theory
1. Contradictory to modern concept at legitimacy : Austin theory of
sovereignty does not fit into the modern concept of legitimacy. Austin justifies sovereign
as an absolute in all respects. The ruler is not subject to any limitation and is obeyed
because of fear and coercion. But this view cannot be accepted in the modern times.
Now, under the present political system leaders or rulers try to ensure that whenever
governmental authority is used to deal with conflict, the decisions arrived at are widely
accepted in because of fear or coercion but from a belief that they are morally right and
proper. According to the modern opinions, the government or the ruler is said to be
legitimate if the people to whom its orders are directed, believe that the structure,
procedures, acts, decisions policies, officials or leaders of the government possess the
quality of rightness', property or moral goodness which is the sanctity to make rules
binding on the people. Therefore, in the modern age leaders in a political systems try to
endow their actions with legitimacy which cannot be reconciled with Austin's theory of
sovereignty. To make the point clear, it may be added, as Max Weber puts it, that the
leaders of a political system might claim legitimacy for their rule, and members might
accept their claim on either of the following grounds :
d) Tradition : Legitimacy rests on an established belief in the sanctity of
immemorial traditions and on the need to obey leaders who exercise the
authority according to the traditions, Max Weber held that this was "the
most universal primitive" case of authority.
e) Exceptional personal qualities :Legitimacy is based on "devotion to the
specific and exceptional" sanctity, charismatic personality, heroism or
 exemplary character of an individual person and the moral or political
order he has revealed or ordained.
f) Legality : Legitimacy rests on the belief that power is wielded in away that
is legal e.g. the constitutional rules the laws and the powers of the
officials are accepted as binding because they are legal. What is done
legally is regarded as 'legitimate'. Generally speaking, in the present
context we can say that Austin's views on sovereignty do not fit in the
concept of legitimacy.
2. It is opposed to the idea of popular sovereignty :Austin's theory has
become obsolete in view of the fact that the modern states are democratic in which
sovereignty vests with the people Austin does not take into consideration public opinion
or general will. If the determinate human superior does not represent the general will,
how people can obey him habitually. Austin's superior enjoys the support of force alone
and not of the will of the people. In the modern age people, are not satisfied even with
representative democracy and the tools of direct democracy such as initiative
referendum, plebiscite and recall are being extensively used by the people to assert their
will. But this objection can be answered by saying that even if the people are sovereign.
They act through the legal sovereign only and the courts recognize only those laws
which are passed by a legal sovereign and ignore public opinion or general will.
Sovereignty legally belongs to a definite number of persons and not to the common
mass of people.
3. The theory is unhistorical :Henry Maine attacks Austin's theory from the
historical point of view. History does not support Austin, because in the earlier ages,
sovereignty has been lodge in the hands of such persons who were not determinate. He
refers to customs in India, which controlled the people and the rulers alike. A customs is
the outcome of ages and not the command of a determinate superior. Maharaja Ranjit
Singh of Punjab though a despot, never disregarded the customs of the people of
Punjab. Moreover, it is difficult to spot out 'determinate human superior's of Austin's
conception in modern federal states like the U.S.A. Therefore, we cannot believe that the
sovereign has always been and is always determinate.
4. The theory is not applicable to the modern states :The days of
monarchy or aristocracy are over. It is the age of democracy and the large federal
states stand out of Austin's conception of sovereignty. Austin's theory was applicable to
monarchical England only and not to the England of today where sovereignty does not
belong to the king alone but to King in Parliament. Infact neither the king is sovereign not
the Parliament is sovereign. People are sovereign only on the eve of elections. After
elections parliament becomes sovereign and this sovereign parliament is nor permanent,
it can be dissolved any time. Hence sovereignty in England is neither permanent not
determinate or indivisible.
Similarly in America, one cannot witness sovereignty according to Austin's
conception. Neither the American Constitution is sovereign as it can be amended, nor
the President is sovereign as he can be impeached, nor the American Congress is
sovereign as it cannot along pass laws; nor the people are sovereign as after elections
their sovereignty is suspended till the next elections. Moreover, sovereignty is not a unity
as it is divided between the center and the component units (states). Thus, it impossible
to locate sovereignty in the modern states if we remain confined to Austin's conception
of sovereignty.
 5. Backward states also remain outside Austin's sovereignty :In the
theocratic states of the Muslims, the sovereign is subjected to the preachings of Koran,
in all the backward communities customs and usages are superior to the sovereign.
6. Theory does not properly represent nature of law :According to Austin,
law is the command of the sovereign but is reality courts follow not only the laws made
by the legislatures but also the customary law. Austin was conscious of his weakness,
therefore, he said. "What the sovereign permits, he commands." So according to this
statement customary law is law because it has been permitted by the sovereign. Duguit
says that the sovereign does not create law but is itself created by law. Austin lays more
stress on force when he calls law as command and thus ignores the utility of law and the
consent and willingness of the people to obey.
7. Sovereignty cannot be absolute :Austin's theory of absolute sovereignty is
absolute. There are both external and internal limitation on sovereignty. Sovereignty
suffers from serious limitations within the state itself.
For instance no sovereign can go against the laws of nature, the ways of nature
and the force of nature. The whole culture of man including customs, usages and
fashions, religion and morals lie outside the sphere of the state activity and no sovereign
can afford to have a clash with it. Similarly, a written constitution it also a big limitation on
sovereignty of state. In case the sovereign power tries to cross these limits, the only
logical conclusion is that it might lead to chaos or a revolution which may destroy the
state and its sovereignty. Therefore, a rigidly legal concept of Austin's sovereignty is not
practicable in modern world and no modern state can exit within the frame work of
Austin's theory of sovereignty.
The modern age is the age of international co-operation and co-existence. No
state can live in isolation. Every state has to deal with every other state and while doing
so it has to observe a certain code of behaviour or some code of conduct or say
international law and has to observe bilateral or multi-lateral treaties and has to obey the
decisions of the U.N.O. or its various Agencies. Every sovereign power has, therefore, to
adopt an attitude to give and take or of compromises. Austin rules out the possibility of
any such policy of mutual co-operation. He expects his sovereign not to obey like a
sovereign. If this absolute and rigid attitude is adopted by all the sovereign states then
the only logical conclusion is that of a world war which today means the total death and
destruction of the whole of mankind.
We find that the external limitations on state sovereignty protect sovereignty
rather than destroy it as Austin thinks. Thus, we conclude that the strict application of
Austin's conception of sovereignty would bring an end not to the state but to the world at
large.
8. Austin ignores the right of associations to exercise sovereignty :The
modern society is increasingly being considered as federal in structure in which groups
and associations. Play a very important part in the development of human personality
and in serving the human interests. Man is loyal to such groups and associations and
obeys them. All occasions when these occurs a clash between an association and the
state, man shows more loyalty to the association than to the state. A worker during the
days at strike is more loyal to his trade union that to the state. Such a modern man and
such a modern society is not possible within the four-walls concept of sovereignty where
association have to obey the state.
12.5 SUMMARY
Austin has only depicted on aspect of sovereignty namely, its legal aspect. He
has made it too abstract to be real in the least no sovereignty can enjoy unlimited
powers and its all he still tries to do so, the result is either a revolution or the
establishment safeguards against absolutism. Austin ignores the social and political
force, behind the legal sovereign and also the fact that the purpose of law is not merely
to command but also to act as an instrument of social welfare. But one must-admit that
Austin's theory is a clear and logical exposition of the legal nature of sovereignty.
12.6 GLOSSARY
1. Legitimacy – conformity to the law or to rules.
2. Sovereign – A supreme ruler.
12.7 FURTHER READINGS
1. M.P. Joan (1990.) Political Theory, Authors Guild Publications, Delhi.
2. A.C. Kapoor (2009) Principles of Political Science, S. Chand & Company,
New Delhi.
12.8 MODEL QUESTIONS
1. Explain the different kinds of Sovereignty.
2. Critical Examine the Austin’s Theory of Sovereignty.

---00---
 Lesson-13

SOVEREIGNTY :MONISTIC AND PLURALIST

Structure
13.0 Objectives
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Factors Responsible for the rise of Pluralism
13.3 Pluralism
13.4 Criticism of Pluralism
13.5 Value of the Theory
13.6 Summary
13.7 Glossary
13.8 Further Readings
13.9 Model Questions
13.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson, you will be able to understand :
 pluralist conception of sovereignty.
 factors responsible for the rise of Pluralism
 value of the Theory
13.1 INTRODUCTION
The pluralistic theory of state is opposed to the monistic theory. Mabbot
distinguishes between two types of monism - absolute monism and concrete
monism.AbsoluteMonismrefers to the theory according to which, state is the only
legitimate association and all others are suppressed by the state if necessary. This
theory does not have many supporters.Concrete Monism, on the other hand,
recognizes the need of functional association, but wants to subordinate them to the
state. This theory of state sovereignty has many followers.Pluralism, in a strict sense,
argues that state and other associations are on a par with each other and that the state
does not have a superior status in comparison to other association. Expressive
pluralists world go a step further. According to them, the state should be abolished
alltogether and all of its functions should be transferred to other associations. In this
respect, pluralists are similar to anarchists. Hence from above one can say that monist
state is one 'which possesses, or should possess, a single source of authority that is
theoretically comprehensive and unlimited in its exercise.' This is in accordance with
Blackstone's description of Parliamentary sovereignty. According to him, 'What
parliament doth, no authority on earth can undo'.In contrast, pluralistic state is one is
which there exists no single authority which is all competent and comprehensive, no
unified system of law, no centralized organ of administration and no generation of
political will.Several factors gave rise to the theory of pluralism as apposed to monism.
Some are discussed below.
13.2 FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RISE OF PLURALISM
1. It is generally believed that pluralism grew as a reaction to the absolute
conception of state as held by Hegal in the nineteenth century and as it
influenced the Marxists and fascists. According to legel the state is 'march
of God on earth' and therefore it is not only supreme and legel but also it
has supreme moral authority.
2. The legal view of sovereignty is often regarded by pluralists as the
principal factor responsible for the rise of pluralism.
3. Besides the legal approach to sovereignty is the conception of law as laid
down by analytical jurists. Pluralists such as Duguit and Krakke object to
the legal approach of sovereignty and held that law as such (or spirit of
law) is both superior and prior to the law laid down by the state.
However, it may be pointed out that Austin's view of sovereignty is
concerned only with positive law or legal and not directly concerned with
the concept of moral law or natural law.
4. The fourth factor responsible for the rise of pluralism is the spread of
federalismin the field of constitution. Federalism which resulted from
either centripetal forces or centrifuged forces in the state gave rise to the
concept of plural state thereby giving impetus to pluralism.
In states which have multiplicity of ethnic identities, castes, religion and
language, pluralism is an ideal method for smooth administration.
13.3 PLURALISM
The traditional theory at sovereignty which vests in the state absolute and
unlinked power. Putting all individuals and all organizations, located within the territorial
boundaries of the state under its complete subjection, as in recent years became a
target of severe criticism. One of the school of thought that has been very vocal in its
attack on sovereignty is that of the pluralists. They want to snatch away from the state its
traditional, absolute authority and vest in number of other socio-economic organizations
a large number of which exist in all states. Since these people want to distribute
sovereignty or authority, presently held by the state, among a number of groups. Their
theory is called the pluralist theory. The most important among them are Laski, G.D.H.
Cole, Macliver, Lindsay etc.
The pluralists say that man is a social animal. Living in society with his fellow
beings, man is confronted by a variety of wants-social, economic cultural, political and
the like. To meet all these wants man sets up associations with the result that multitude
of them come into existence. State is one of the many associations. Since each want is
as much important and pressing any other, man cannot single out any associations more
useful than the rest. Working on this analogy, the pluralists question the authority of the
state. They argue that if state serves only one single want of the individual, namely,
political want; and is thus limited in its utility, why should it manopolise the entire
authority of the society? Why should not other associations which equally solve the
needs of man, be also given authority commensurate to their service to him? They
therefore, wish to pull down the state from its high throne of power and then to merge it
with the rest of the associatiors. The rise of industrialism has made the pluralists all the
more vocal in their criticism of the state. They want to see an end to the state's
monopoly of power with the added reason of saving the individual from its too impinging
a character and to grant him a greater degree of autonomy.
Garner explains the concept of pluralism in the following words: "in consequence
of the enormous multiplication of voluntary associations and groups for the promotion
and care of industrial, political and other interests, society has become more and more
an aggregation of groups and less an association of individuals. These groups should be
recognized as possessing distinct natural corporate personalities independent of any
creative act on the part of the state."
A word of caution may be added that the pluralists, however opposed they might
be, to the overloading impact of state's authority, do not stand to abolish it and substitute
in its place the authority of other groups. They are as much loyal to the state as any one
else is. They simply want to curb its too much domineering authority. They would allow it
to retain the role of an umpire only, which may settle the inter association disputes, and
would certainly not like it to have an absolute command over their destinies. The pluralist
philosophy must, therefore, be properly distinguished from that of the anarchists who
stand not only to snatch away the authority from the state but also to abolish it
altogether.
The pluralist point of View has been best presented by Harold Laski who says
that groups, classes and associations, have definite purposes and ends just as state has
purpose and an end. State does not develop the whole personality of man, then how can
it claim the whole obedience from men who are loyal and obedient to all these groups
and associations at the same time. If state has the monopoly of sovereignty then it might
not allow all these groups to grow and without these groups human personality might
remain dwarf. The state itself has a class character and when we say that the state
alone is sovereign it almost amounts to this that a particular class is sovereign, so
sovereignty is nothing but a mere struggle for supremacy between the classes. If the rich
have the power of the state it means that the rich are sovereign, naturally, the poor who
are also organized in their groups and associations, constantly struggle to break the
monopoly of the rich and to capture the power of the state and if they succeed then the
working class becomes sovereign over the class of the rich. Thus the Monistic
conception of sovereignty is nothing but an instrument with which the ruling class can
perpetuate its domination over other groups and classes and associations. They regard
state as a mere association so that other groups and associations like the state may
share sovereignty with it and thus may be able to serve the purpose for which they exist.
Pluralists also attack Austin's conception of law. They say law is not a mere
command and is not created by the state alone. Krabbe is of the opinion that law is an
ethical rule of conduct which men have observed ever since the state was born. Needs
and demands of the society not the fear of punishment by the state compel us to obey
laws. If state passes immoral laws, we do not obey these, no matter what the
punishment is.
In the sphere of inter-state relations also pluralists believe that the state is not
sovereign in Austin sense. It is subject to international law and the various treaties and
the decisions of the U.N.O. Externally, therefore, sovereignty is limited and not absolute.
They say, today is the age of limited sovereignty and not absolute sovereignty both in
the national as well as in the international sphere.
 Self Assessment Questions
1. What is Pluralism ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Explain the Characteristics of Pluralism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13.4 CRITICISM OF PLURALISM

5. Association exist owning to the state : Associations are a part of the state.
These constitute the state and function within the state but that does not
mean that these should share sovereignty with the state. Divided
sovereignty is weak and a weak sovereignty cannot protect these
associations.
6. State must be supreme to settle inter-associational disputes : If we
presume that each and every group and association is sovereign like the
state then who will settle the Inter-group and inter-associational disputes
and conflicts. It might lead to social anarchy. The pluralists say that the
state should not be given supreme status but it may be regarded as a co-
ordinator. The monists reply to this argument that co-ordination and
conciliation is the same thing as sovereignty because only a superior
authority can perform this job.
7. Group rivalry will lead to chaos : Just like inter state rivalry there is inter
group or inter-associational rivalry which might lead to chaos and
destruction of the state it self. Thus this theory is full of dangers.
8. It weakens sovereignty : Pluralists are against unity of sovereignty and
the unlimited sovereignty. As a reaction, they shift their emphasis on the
groups and the associations which no doubt enhance the importance of
groups but at the cost of sovereignty.
13.5 VALUE OF THE THEORY
There is no denying the fact that pluralism has rightly recognised and
emphasized the importance of the various associations in the modern society. They
serve useful purpose in the development of human personality and in the fulfillment of
human interests. So these must be allowed a large amount of autonomy. They should
have paternal control over them. Pluralists do regard that state is superior to other
associations but they do not accept that state sovereignty is absolute. In international
relations also pluralists very rightly point out that international law has become more
binding upon the modern state for maintaining international peace and harmony among
states. According to Garner to talk of the absolute sovereignty of a state in international
relations is only a legal fiction. It is a dangerous dogma, and the sooner it is given up the
better it would be. No modern state can live in isolation because of the increasing inter-
dependence among states and victory over time and space by means of science and
technology which has brought the states very close to each other. International behavour
of state is possible only on the basis of pluralism.
Prof. Duguit is critical of Austinian conception of law. He says neither law is
command nor it has the backing of force nor it is created by the state. According to him
laws are the rules of conduct which men obey forgetting benefits from societies.
Obedience to laws is not because of the state but because of special needs and social
necessities. The sanction behind laws is the social approval or disapproval and not the
fear of the state. Law limits the state. The State does not limit law. Law serves a social
purpose, therefore it is obeyed. Thus Prof. Duguit argues in favour of pluralism and
condemns Austinism.
4. LEGITIMACY ARGUMENT WHY PEOPLE SHOULD OBEY THE STATE
In one of the proceeding paragraphs we pointed out of the characteristic features
of authority is that it evokes a willing obedience from those towards whom it is directed.
Question arises why should people show obedience to authority? The traditional
thinking, as rooted in law was that state possesses sovereign power and as such we
must obey its command and those who refuse to do so, can be compelled to show
obedience to it. That power theory is still valid even today in the sense that state does
extract obedience from its citizens. But modern political theories point out that state
which put its main reliance on the barrel of the gun, is a structure standing on sand and
is bound to collapse any time, to ensure stability and strength to a political order, it is
highly imperative that it should be based on legitimacy rather than on power.
13.6 SUMMARY
We have examined both concepts of sovereignty and we find that both of them
have merits and demerits. None of these is flawless, sovereignty of Austin suffocates
sovereignty both internally within the state. And externally-outside the state. On the other
hand, rigid pluralism reduces the influence of sovereignty, weakens it and encourage
group life and social life but at the same time increase chances of social contradiction
between various groups and associations which might lead to anarchy or revolution,
endangering the sovereignty of the state. A correct view about sovereignty is, therefore,
a healthy synthesis of pluralism and Austinism. It is a question of adjustment or of co-
ordination between the sovereignty of the state and the autonomy of various groups and
associations within the state. Earnest Barker maintains that, whatever rights, the groups
may claim or gain, "the state will still remain a necessary adjusting force."
13.7 GLOSSARY
3. Federalism – A system of government in which the same territory in
controlled by two levels of government.
4. Moral law – Moral law is a system of guidelines for behavior.
13.8 FURTHER READINGS
 Easton, David (1953). The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of
Political Science,AlfredA.Knopf, New York.
 Dahl A.Robert (1963). Modern Political Analysis,PrenticeHall,USA.
13.9 MODEL QUESTIONS
3. Critically evaluate Pluralist theory of Sovereignty?
4. Explain the fields responsible for the rise of Pluralism.

---00---
 Lesson-14

THE POLITICAL SYSTEM: MEANING AND

CHARACTERISTICS
Structure
14.0 Objectives
14.1 Introduction
14.2 Meaning of Political System
14.3 Definitions of Political System
14.4 Main Characteristics of Political System according to David Easton, Almond &
Robert A. Dahl
14.5 Main Structures of Political System according to David Easton
14.6 Political System as Input & Output process with feed-back Mechanism according
to David Easton
14.7 Summary
14.8 Glossary
14.9 Further Readings
14.10 Model Questions
14.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this lesson you will be able to :
 understand the meaning of political system.
 understand characterstics of political system.
14.1 INTRODUCTION
The Concept of political system is central to the modern Political Science. The
concept was propounded for the first time by David Easton in his book, ‘The Political
System,’ published in 1953. Later, the Americanpolitical scientists which
includedLasswell, Kaplan, Almond, Powell and Robert A. Dahl used the concept as
an analytical tool for the study of ‘Comparative Politics’.
The political system is a comprehensive concept. In the traditional political
terminology terms as ‘State’, ‘government’, ‘legislature’ etc. were commonly used. But,
the modern political thinkers prefer to use the word ‘Political System’ in place of ‘State’
and ‘government’. The term political system is a more comprehensive concept. It
includes not only the government structures and legal institutions but all those informal
and formal groups which in one way or another participate in political process and
influence the political authority. In the political system, we include not only formal legal
institutions like electorate, legislature, executive, bureaucracy, courts etc, but also
various kinds of political parties, pressure groups, caste groups, religious groups, tribal
groups and their institutions and also anomic phenomenon like violent riots and
demonstrations. The concept of political system takes into its purview entire gamut of
political activities, no matter the activities may be happening anywhere in the society.
14.2 MEANING OF POLITICAL SYSTEM
The term political system consists of (a) Political and (b) System.
3. Political: The word ‘Political’ connotes ‘power’ and ‘authority’. Since Aristotle’s
time the idea that political relations are to a great extent based on rule and
authority has been largely accepted. According to the German political scholars
Max Weber, a group should be called political “if and in so far as the
enforcement of its order is carried out continually within a given territorial area by
the application and threat of physical force on the part of administrative staff.”
5. The American Political Scientist David Easton has defined political life
“as a set or system of interactions defined by the fact that they are more
or less directly related to the authoritative allocation of values for a
society.”
6. Both Lasswell and Kaplan speak of ‘severe deprivations’ while talking
about the word ‘political’.
7. Robert A. Dahl talks of ‘Power, Rule and Authority’ in its context.
8. Almond and Powell associate the political system with the use
‘Legitimate physical coercion’.
4. System: Theconcept of system has been borrowed from the natural sciences.
The word system is used for a set of clear interactions which have definite
boundaries.
3. According to Collin Cherry, “System is a whole which is compounded of
many parts.”
4. According to Almond and Powell, “A system implies interdependence of
parts and boundary of some kind between it and its environment.”
From the definitions given above, it is clear that system is such a unit which is
composed of several parts or elements put together. These parts or elements are
interdependence and influence each other. If one part of the system changes, all
other parts will get affected. Besides, each system has its own boundaries which
differentiate it from the other systems. The social, economic, political and cultural
systems have their own individual boundaries which differentiate one from the
other.
According to David and Lewis, the chief characteristics of social system are a)
integration, b) regularly, c) wholeness, d) organization, e) coherence, f)
connectedness or what is calledinterdependence of parts. It is also essential that
each part must maintain its identity for sometime at least.
14.3 DEFINITION OF POLITICAL SYSTEM
1. According to David Easton, “Political system is a set of interactions
abstracted from the totality of social behaviour through which authoritative
values are allocated for a society.”
2. According to Almond and Powel, “When we speak of political system we
include all interactions which affect the use of threat of legitimate
coercion.”
 3. According to Lasswell and Kaplan, “Political system is a process of
effecting policies with the help of (actual or the threatened) severe
deprivations”.
14.4 MAINCHARACTERISTICS OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM
Upon a study of different definitions given above we derive the following
characteristics of the political system:-
1. Persistent pattern of human relationships: Political system is
composed not of men but of human relationships. It is the gross total of
their roles in the political process. The roles of men in difference systems
differ, but the political system definite pattern of their roles. This pattern of
human relationship is based on power, rule or authority.
2. Use of legitimate force: Every political system is related to the use of
legitimate physical coercion. In every social set up, force is used to
maintain peace and order and to punish the law-breakers. But the use of
force must be just and legitimate.
3. Comprehensiveness: The political does not include only the
governmental structures, but also those formal and informal
organizations, which take part in one way or other in political process and
influence the political authority.
4. Interaction: There is a regular interactions going on among the member
or units of the political system. Their interaction is constant and multi-
faced. All the members of the political system are in contact with each
other on individual or group level and try to influence each other’s actions.
5. Interdependence: It mean that the sub-system within the political system
depend upon the each other. Any change in any sub system is bound to
affect the functioning of other sub-system.
6. Existence of boundaries: Each political system has boundaries which
separates it from economic, social and cultural systems. It means that in
a society there are several such points where political system come to
anend and from where other systems begin. The boundaries of the
political system are not territorial boundaries; these boundaries relate to
human relationships and their activities.
7. Open system: The political system is an open system. Being so, it can
absorb effects on changes in environment and circumstances and adept
itself accordingly.
8. Environment:David Easton is of the view that political system is
surrounded by various kinds of environment and it works within the circle
circumscribing it. The economic, cultural national character, circumstantial
and demographic environments particularly influence the political system.
The inputs in a political system are drawn from the environment and then
by converting them into outputs go back into the environment.
Besides the characteristics mentioned above, Almond has mentioned five more
characteristics in addition.They are:-
 9. Universality of the political system: It means that political exits in all
types of societies. Any society, whether developed or under developed,
whether conventional or modern must have the political system.
10. Universality of political structures: Every political system must have
political structures. The different political structures fulfill the different
functions of political system. Conventionally, the legislature, executive,
bureaucracy, judicially were taken as the main political structures. But
according to the modern view the political system also included all
informal groups which take part in the political process and influences the
political authority e.g. (a) the political parties, (b) pressure groups, (c)
religious organizations etc.
11. Universality of political functions: According to Almond every political
system has to perform certain functions. These are of two kinds:
(1) Input functions and(2) Outputs functions
1. The input functions included political socialisation and recruitment,
interest, articulation, interest aggregation and political
communication.
2. The output functions are rule making, rule application, rule
adjudication.
12. Multi-functionality of political structures: It means that each political
structure is multifunctional, that is it performs more than one type of
function. Legislature, for example does not merely formulate laws, it also
exercises control on the executive and national exchequer.
13. Culturally mixed character of political system: According to Almond,
still another characteristicsof political system is their mixed cultural
character. Culturally, no political system is totally modern, nor totally
conventional. The political system often include modern as well as
conventional structures.

General Characteristics of a Political System according to Robert A. Dahl.

The characteristics of modern political system mention by Robert A. Dahl are
empirical regularities which are always present in all large political systems. There
characteristics are commonly seen in most of the political system. They are:-
9. Uneven control of political resources:Political resources are such
resources by which an individual exercises influence on the behavior of
other individuals. Such resources include items as money, power,
educational standard, social background, friendships, services and
several kinds of commodities. It is Dahl’s views that the uneven control of
political resources among people is due to four chief reasons.
(1) differences due to functions
(2) basic differences among people inherited by birth
(3) difference in their aims and objectives and
 (4) difference in spirit of enterprise and initiative among people.
10. Quest for political Influence: Some members in a political system seek
to gain an influence over governmental policies, rules and decisions. In
other words, they seek political influence because control over the
government helps them to achieve their goals. Influence can be
instrumental in fulfilling their interests. The members of political system
tried to gain political influence-depending upon their own resources,
circumstances and opportunities.
11. Uneven distribution of political influence: The political influence is
unevenly distributed among the members of political system. Those who
have access to large political resources can exert more influence over the
government and those who have more influence over the government can
in turn use their influence to gain control over more political resources. In
a democratic political system there can be equality in rights, but not in
political influence. Assome have more political influence than others,
there are two classes consequently, the rulers and the ruled.
12. Resolution of conflicting aims: In a political system, people with
different interests and objectives live together. Conflicts and consensus
are two important aspects of a political system. The conflicting interests
and objectives can be often resolved through non-political means like
negotiations, adjudication and mediation. But when conflicts are sharp
and cannot be resolved through non-political means, the government of
the political system has to intervene.The government has got the power
of taking binding decisions. By using this power the government can
resolve conflicting aims and interests.
13. Acquisition of legitimacy: Accordingly to Robert Dahl, a government is
legitimate only when the people to whom its orders are directed, believe
that the government’s structures, procedures, acts, decisions, policies,
officials or leaders of the government possess the quality of rightness,
propriety or moral goodness, the right in short to make binding rules. In
order to rule over others through authority less political resources are
used. That is why in a political system the leaders attempt to convert their
influences into authority.
14. Development of an ideology: Dahl is of the opinion that in a political
system the leaders often develop some kind of ideology in order to
acquire legitimacy of their leadership. An ideology is a set of more or less
persistent integrated doctrines. Some popular leaders, highest
governmental officials and their allies often espouse and ideology that
justifies not only their own leadership, but also the political system to
which they belong. Such an ideology then becomes the official or reigning
ideology.
15. Impact of other political system: Dahl says that other political systems
essentially influence the behavior of a particular political system. In the
modern age, no political system can exist in isolation. Due to the
technological and scientific progress, it is natural that one political system
comes in contact with the other political systems no single political system
can perform its functions all by itself. Every political system conducts its
 foreign relations and an interactions between various political systems is
constantly going on.
16. Inevitability of change: According to Dahl, the last important
characterizes of political system is their changeability. It is essential for all
political systems to undergo change. No single political system can
remain unchanged for ever. The social and economic circumstances go
changing and the political system has to fall in line with the changes.
Similarly, old roles wrap up and up and new ones take their place. A
political system has to keep itself alert to all these changes. It has to
acquire the virtue of adaptability. Without adaptability there is likelihood of
the political system of breaking under stress.

Self Assessment Questions

1. What is the meaning of Political System ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What are the characteristics of Political System ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14.5 MAIN STRUCTURES OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM

Accordingly to David Easton, the main structures of political system are:-
(4) The Political Community
(5) The Regime
(6) The Authorities

POLITICAL COMMUNITY
REGIME

AUTHORITIES

1. The Political Community:Whenever a group of people gather and exhibit some

measure of will to resolve problems of a political system, we call it a political
community. The community is organized on the principle of political division of
labour in order to make the system workable. The political community is an
 important part of the system. Because whenever there is a decline in the support
given by political community, the probability of a tension into the political system
also increases.
2. Regime: Regime is the second structure of the political system. The regime can
also be called constitutional order, It is a set of those (a) ideas, (b) laws, (c)
conventions and (d) aspirations which indicates that there exists a regular way to
resolve political problems. In Eastons’s view, regime is not a mere structure, It is
a body of (a) certain values, (b) norms, and (c) several structures put together.
3. The Authorities:TheAuthorities is that group of people who take up the
responsibility of taking an official decision at any particular time. It is this class
which has to convert inputs from internal and external environment into outputs
(decisions and policies) in a political system. They have to face thoseinformation
(by way of new demands or supports) which may result from the original outputs.
14.6 POLITICAL SYSTEM AS INPUT AND OUTPUT PROCESS
3. According to David Easton, the political system is chiefly an input out
mechanism related to activities concerning political decisions. Primarily
the political system is only a means by which some inputs are
transformed into outputs.
4. Almond is also of the view that political system is a structure into which
inputs enter from environment or from within the political system and then
they get converted into outputs and go back to environment. As outputs
they again influence the political system.
Inputs:Easton mentions two kinds of inputs in the political system. They are:
3. Demands
4. Supports
1. Demands: According to Almond, the demands arise from three main
sources (a) from the elites in the political system (b) from social groups in
the environment (c) from other political systems. The demands can be as
follows:
(i) Demands for allocation of goods and services:(a) These
include demands for laws for fixed working hours and (b) for
fixation of minimum wages, (c) educational facilities, (d) provision
of recreational facilities, (e) facilities for roads and
communications etc..
(ii) Demands for regulation of behavior:These demands include (a)
public security, (b) control over markets, (c) rules convening
marriages, (d) health and sanitation.
(iii) Demands for participation in the political system: These
demands include (a) the right to vote, (b) to hold public offices,(c)
to send petitions to the government bodies and (d) officials to
organize political associations etc.
(iv) Demands for communications and information: These
demands included (a) affirmation of values, (b) the
communications of policy intent from policy elites or (c) the display
 of the State Authority in times of threats or (d) on ceremonial
occasions.
2. Supports: Accordingly to Easton, supports are those processes or
structures which lend a capability to the political system to face demands
the support can be classified as follows:
(i) Material support:These include (a) payment of taxes or (b) other
levies participations in public functions and (c) recruitment in army
or military services.
(ii) Law Obedience support: These include (a) obedience to laws
and (b) other rules and regulations
(iii) Participatory support: These includeactivities like
participations(a) in voting (b) political discussions and (c) to take
part in other political activities.
(iv) Respect support: These include attention paid (a) to government
information (b)manifestation of respect to the symbols of public
authority.
The Conversion Process
It means the conversion of demands of the people and their support or inputs into
decisions or policies of the government i.e. out puts.
The method and the process by which the political system converts inputs into
outputs and answers to the reactions of social environmentis called the conversion
process. The conversion process depends upon the capabilities of the political system.
1. It includes capability of the political system to acquire means.
2. Capability to regulate men and materials.
3. Capability to maintain and development such symbols or signs which
maintain people’s loyalty to the political system.
4. It also includes the capability to cope with demands in time.
Outputs:Outputs are the result of those activities which originate in a political system
from demands and supports. Normally they are an answer to the demands and
supports. The outputs can be in conformity with the demands and supports, or
even against them, much will depend upon the nature of the political system. The
outputs can be of the following kinds:
(v) Extractions: It can be in the form of (a) taxes, (b) booty, (c) penalties, (d)
leaves and (e) in the form of personal services.
(vi) Regulation of behaviour: It can take many different forms and can
influence whole human behaviour and relationships
(vii) Allocation of goods, services and officers: One form of outputs can be
the allocation of goods services and offices
(viii) Symbolic output: It includes (a) affirmation of values (b) display of
political symbols, (c) declaration of policies etc.
Feed-back Mechanism
3. The political system has got feed-back capacity or such mechanisms
which give positive or negative information to the system.
4. They provide the information about reactions to decision emanating from
the political system and is useful to the system because it enables the
system to stand upto those reactions and that in turn lends strength and
stability to the system.
According to Easton, there is a circulation between the environment and political
system. As a subsystem of social system, political system receives the demands and
support from the environment, which we can call input system. On the other hand,
binding decisions are made for all members of society in the form of laws and policy and
other forms known as public product, which we call output system. In the center of
political system, a kind of conversion process happened, the input was processed, and
output was delivered, which we call central processing system.
The interaction between environment and political system goes on and on along
with the path from input system to central processing system, output system, feedback
system. Now, we can see the structure and process of the political system. Firstly, inputs
of various kinds keep the system going. Secondly, these inputs are converted by the
processes of the system into outputs and these, in turn, have consequences both for the
system and for the environment in which the system exists. The formula here is very
simple and illuminating: inputs—political system or processes—outputs.
According to Easton, political system has certain properties including properties of
identification, inputs and outputs, differentiation within a system and integration of a system.
(1) Properties of identification.
To distinguish a political system from other social systems, we must be able to
identify it by describing its fundamental units and establishing the boundaries that
demarcate it from units outside the system.
(a) Units of a political system. The units are the elements of which we say a
system is composed. In the case of a political system, they arc political
actions. Normally it is useful to look at these as they structure themselves
in political roles and political groups.
(b) Boundaries. Some of the most significant questions with regard to the
operation of political systems can be answered only if we bear in mind the
obvious fact that a system does not exist in a vacuum. It is always immersed
in a specific setting or environment. The way in which a system works will be
in part a function of its response to the total social, biological, and physical
environment.
(2) Inputs and outputs.
Most of the political system must have continuing inputs to keep it going. Without
inputs the system can do no work; without outputs we cannot identify the work done by
the system. The specific research tasks in this connection would be to identify the inputs
and the forces that shape and change them, to trace the processes through which they
arc transformed into outputs, to describe the general conditions under which such
processes can be maintained, and to establish the relationship between outputs and
succeeding inputs of the system.
(3) Differentiation within a system
The members of a system engage in at least some minimal division of labor that
provides a structure within which action takes place.
(4) Integration of a system
David Easton hypothesize that if a structured system is to maintain itself, it must
provide mechanisms whereby its members are integrated or induced to cooperate in
some minimal degree so that they can make authoritative decisions.
14.7 SUMMARY
 From the analysis from above, we can draw some conclusions of the properties
of a political system as follows:
 Politics involves a persistent pattern of human relationships, as Robert
Dahl puts it. There is some continuity.
 A political system exists within the framework of some sort of collectivity,
an organization, a community, a state.
 There will be agreed procedures for making decisions binding upon the
collectivity.
 A political system makes binding decisions and promulgates them. Where
there is disagreement politicians are indispensable.
 A political system by no means makes all the decisions in a state. Many
decisions are made in markets, social institutions and so on. The political
system has a general supervisory capacity for regulating such decisions
and the way they are made. Therefore, as David Easton says, it allocates
values in society.
14.8 GLOSSARY
1 Enviornment – the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal
or plant lives or operates
2 Ideology – A system of ideas or ideals especially one which forms the
basis of economic or political theory and policy.
14.9 FURTHER READINGS
• Easton, David (1953). The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of
Political Science,AlfredA.Knopf, New York.
• Dahl A.Robert (1963). Modern Political Analysis,PrenticeHall,USA.
• Lasswell, H. (1962). The future of Political Science.
14.10 MODEL QUESTIONS
1 Define Political System & discuss its main characteristics?
2 Define Political System and discuss its functions according to David
Easton?

---00---
 Lesson-15

POLITICAL SYSTEM: ALMOND AND POWELL’S

STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

Structure
15.0 Objectives
15.1 Introduction
15.2 Almond’s Analysis of Political System
15.3 Characteristics of Political System
15.4 Functions of Political System
15.5 Critical Evaluation
15.6 Summary
15.7 Glossary
15.8 Further Readings
15.9 Model Questions
15.0 OBJECTIVES:
After reading this lesson you will be able to:
 understand functions of Political System according to Almond & Powell’s
Structural-Functional Model.
 discuss and critically evaluate Structural-Functional Analysis
15.1 INTRODUCTION
Political system is the set of formal legal institutions that constitute a
“government” or a “state.” This is the definition adopted by many studies of the legal or
constitutional arrangements of advanced political orders. It is also called a system of
politics and government. It is usually compared to the legal system, economic system,
cultural system, and other social systems. It is different from them, and can be generally
defined on a spectrum from left, e.g. communism, to the right, e.g. fascism. However,
this is a very simplified view of a much more complex system of categories involving the
views: who should have authority, how religious questions should be handled, and what
the government's influence on its people and economy should be.
More broadly defined, however, the term comprehends actual as well as
prescribed forms of political behaviour, not only the legal organization of the state but
also the reality of how the state functions. Still more broadly defined, the political system
is seen as a set of “processes of interaction” or as a subsystem of the social system
interacting with other nonpolitical subsystems, such as the economic system
The discussion of political System is closely related to both Functionalism of
Gabriel Almond and System analysis of David Easton based on conception of political
phenomena as a “system of interrelated and reciprocally regulated patterns of actions
and orientation, pattern that cluster together in equilibrium and that have certain needs
of maintenance and survival. Almond in his functional approach, utilizes the concept of
the political system instead of the more traditional “state,” limited by its legal and
institutional connotations. Almond distinguishes the political system in terms of particular
set of interactional properties: comprehensiveness, interdependence, and existence of
boundaries. In the work of David Easton, However, the system approach is most fully
articulated.
15.2 GABRIEL ALMOND’S ANALYSIS OF POLITICAL SYSTEM:
Gabriel Almond, the professor at Yale (1947–1950) and (1959–1963), Princeton
(1950–1959), and Stanford University (1963–1993) and the chair of the Social Science
Research Council's Committee on Comparative Politics has made a "distinguished
scholarly contribution" regarding the analysis of political System . In his analysis, first he
designed the characteristics of political system and then outlined the functions of the
system.
In the 1970s, political scientists Gabriel Almond and Bingham Powell
introduced a structural- functionalist approach to comparing political systems.
They argued that, in order to understand a political system, it is necessary to understand
not only its institutions (or structures) but also their respective functions. They also
insisted that these institutions, to be properly understood, must be placed in a
meaningful and dynamic historical context.
This idea stood in marked contrast to prevalent approaches in the field of
comparative politics-the state-society theory and the dependency theory. These were
the descendants of David Easton's system theory in international relations, a
mechanistic view that saw all political systems as essentially the same, subject to the
same laws of "stimulus and response"-or inputs and outputs-while paying little attention
to unique characteristics.
The structural-functional approach is based on the view that a political system is
made up of several key components, including interest groups, political parties and
branches of government.
In addition to structures, Almond and Powell showed that a political system
consists of various functions, chief among them political socialisation, recruitment and
communication: socialisation refers to the way in which societies pass along their values
and beliefs to succeeding generations, and in political terms describe the process by
which a society inculcates civic virtues, or the habits of effective citizenship; recruitment
denotes the process by which a political system generates interest, engagement and
participation from citizens; and communication refers to the way that a system
promulgates its values and information.
15.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF POLITICAL SYSTEM
As described by Almond in The Politics of Developing Areas, All political System
has four characteristics in common and in terms of which they may be compared.
 First of all, political systems, including the simplest ones, have political
structure (executive, judiciary and legislature etc.).
  Second, the same functions are performed in all political systems, even
though these functions may be performed with different frequencies, and
different kinds of structures.
 Third, all political structure, no matter how specialized, whether it is found
in primitive or in modern societies, is multifunctional.
 Fourth, all political systems are mixed systems in the cultural sense.
There are no ‘all- modern’ cultures and structures, in the sense of
rationality and no all primitive ones, in the sense of traditionality.1 All
political systems, in this sense, are transitional.

Self Assessment Questions

1. What do you mean by Political Socialization ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What are the ‘Input Functions of a Political System ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15.4 FUNCTIONS OF POLITICAL SYSTEM:

Although Almond nowhere offers a specific definition of function, he postulates
seven functional requisites which must be fulfilled by any political system. On the
political or “input” side functions are:
5. Political Socialization and Recruitment,
6. Interest articulation,
7. Interest aggregation, and
8. Political communication
On the governmental or “output” side the other functions of political system are:
4. Rule making,
5. Rule application and
6. Rule adjudication.
The functions are not of an equivalent nature, in that political communication is a
mechanism by which the other functions are performed- output as well as input, not to
mention feedback. All adequate analysis of a political system must locate and
characterize all of these functions and not simply these functions performed by the
specialized political structure. His functional categories were developed for the purpose
of comparing whole political systems- Western and nonwestern, modern, transitional and
traditional.
 The input functions are performed by the non-government structures, and by the
society and general environment, (a) like families, (b) schools, (c) political parties, (d)
pressure groups, (e) independent newspapers etc.
The output functions are functions of the governmental structures. These are (a)
legislature, (b) bureaucracy, (c) judiciary etc. which (a) frame laws, (b) enforce them and
(c) adjudicate in case of disputes or conflicts arising. The output functions resemble to a
large extent the functions of government as per traditional theory of the separation of
powers.
INPUT FUNCTIONS
1. Political Socialization and Recruitment: Political socialization is that process
by which individuals are inducted into the political culture of the country and their attitude
towards the political system are formed. Political socialization is a training process
through which an attempt is made to inculcate into the minds of individuals, in particular
the members of the younger generation, the political values, attitudes and beliefs so that
their loyalty to the political system may develop and in turn they may be able to become
good active citizens. Political socialization is a continuous process and goes on all till the
end of one’s life. The function of political socialization is performed through family,
schools, peer groups, political parties, voluntary associations and media etc.
The political recruitment is closely associated with political socialization. Political
socialization trains members of the society for different offices and roles in the political
system. Political recruitment means the function through which the offices or roles in the
system are fulfilled. The process of recruitment never ends; it is continuous. The
recruitment to the political offices or roles may be on a general basis or on a specific
basis. On what basis and with what competency recruitment is accomplished has a
powerful effect on the working and capability of the political system.
Interest Articulation: The political decisions may benefit or harm individuals or
groups of individuals living in society. That is why it is necessary to put forth demands
before the decision makers before they take decisions, or formulate policies. The
process through which different individuals and groups of individuals put up their
demands before the decision or policy makers is called Interest Articulation. This
function is performed through different structures. According to Almond and Powell,
these structures are of found kinds:-
1) Institutional Interest Groups:- (a) like legislature, (b) bureaucracy, (c)
army etc.
2) Associational Interest Groups:- (a) as labour unions, (b) traders
union etc.
3) Non- associational Interest Groups: (a)as caste-groups.
4) Anomic Groups:- (a) as group of demonstration, (b) rioters etc..
It is through interest articulation that the conflicts present in the various political,
economic, cultural and social structures of society come into the open.
2. Interest Aggregation: In order to further their interest the demands are made by
different individuals or groups of individuals upon the political system. To fulfill these
demands the political system cannot formulate separate laws and policies for each of
them. Interest aggregation or combination is achieved by the formulation of general
policies based on reconciliation and combination of various interests. Accordingly to
Almond and Powell, “The function of converting demands into general policy alternatives
is called interest aggregation.”
The function of interest articulation in the political system is performed by political
parties as well as by the government structures, like legislature, the executive and the
bureaucracy.
3. Political Communication: Communication means to give information. Each
citizen and official depends upon the information which he receives and then he
accordingly regulates his activities. In the modern democracies specialized
communication structures like television, radio, newspapers etc. can be visibly seen
working. Huge amounts are invested for their upto date maintenance.
The communication function can prove helpful in the accomplishment of other
activities or it may also hinder the activities. It is necessary for interest articulation that
the people must be provided with proper facilities for exchange of views so that their
capacity for organizing themselves in groups presenting demands upon the political
system may increase.
OUTPUT FUNCTIONS
Rule Making Function:- If men have to live together in society, if is necessary to
determine their responsibilities and to lay down rules to prevent their mutual conflicts. In
today’s political system, the work of making rules or laws is performed by legislatures
which are specialized structures.
The Rule Application Function: The function of the political system is not only
to frame rules but also to enforce them in a proper way. To a large extent, the spirit of
rules lies in their application. If they are not enforced properly the rules lose their
importance.
In a modern political system on the enforcement work is done by officials or
bureaucracy. They are an important instrument. In the words of Karl Frederick,
“The vast bureaucratic structure with ten thousand of officials make them the core of
modern government.”
4. The Rule Adjudication Function: The rules made by political system naturally
bring some responsibility or some kind of discipline upon individual or groups of
individuals. There is always an apprehension of the rules being breached or violated. It
is necessary, therefore, to punish those violating or not obeying the rules. Normally a
provision for punishments for violation of rules is made while formulating the rules. But
sometimes there can be dispute regarding the violation of rule and the extent of violation
and then what punishment it calls for. The adjudication function seeks to resolve the
dispute.
In today’s political system, the rule adjudication functions is performed by the
specialized structures like courts, judicial tribunals etc.
The functions are offered as a preliminary proposal and are modified in the
development of Almond’s work. In Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach,
Almond and Powell distinguished between three levels of functions, described as
‘activities’3. These levels are:
 Capability functions (Regulative, extractive, distributive and responsive functions
determine the performance of the system in its environment) ;
Conversion Functions (Interest articulation, interest aggregation, political
communication , rule making, rule application and rule adjudication are internal to
the system and involve the input-output flow as the system meets demands with
authoritative decisions. );
System maintenance and adaptation functions, specifically political socialization
and recruitment.
The theory of political system will consist of the discovery of the relations
between these different levels of functioning- capabilities, conversion functions
and system maintenance and adaptation functions- and of the relation of the
functions at each level.
Functional analysis of political system has been criticized in many ways. Some
argues that it no more enables us to predict than it enables us to explain the occurrence
of a particular one of the items by which given functional requirement met.4 According to
some other critics, the key terms of functional analysis are rarely given operational
definitions and thus cannot be put to an objective test.5 One of the most serious
problems lies in the meaning of ‘maintenance’, ‘persistence’ or ‘survival’. In biology, as
Hampel notes, survival of an organism has a fairly clear meaning, but social systems are
another matter altogether.
15.5 CRITICAL EVALUATION
Almond's functionalism has been critics of been ideological and conservative.
I.C. Jawic criticize that functionalism is limited as it leak explanatory power and
satisfactoriness.
Sociologist Don Martindale noted four drawbacks.
 The conservative ideological bias and preference for status quo
 Lack of methodological clarity
 An over emphasis on the role of closed system in social life does not
amount for the processes of change
 A failure to deal with social change
 Campbell argues that functionalism is illogical, while
 Mackenzie said it was based on old concepts and traditions.
 C.A. Powell terms it non operational and non functional.
 C. Wright Mill criticized it as been as ethnocentric in its emphases on
stability in the light of the Anglo-American norm and political traditions.
 Holt and Turner said it had operational difficulties in particular, the
difficulty in refining, operationalizing and testing hypothesis.
 Two quote S. E. Finer, "What Almond has to say could have been said without
using the system approach and it would have been said more clearly." He referred
Almond concept as "modish concept"(Modern sounding but actually not modern).
15.6 SUMMARY
After discussing the above mentioned aspect, we can conclude by saying that
Almond theory gave the much needed connivance in the study of comparative politics. It
has indeed played an important role in development of the function and structure in the
political system. Even though, as rightly brought by his critics he had a lot of problems
but we cannot denied the very fact that he has contributed enormously in comparative
politics and plays an important role in the study of this field of study. By saying that
Almond structural functional analyses gave much needed connivance and adjustable
role through the study of political system in the field of comparative politics, even his
worse critics will not have second opinion on this.
From the above, it is clear that the modern political thinkers prefer to use the
word ‘Political System’ in place of ‘State’ and ‘govt’ as this concept takes into its purview
the entire gamut of political activities, no matter the activities may be happening
anywhere in the society.
15.7 GLOSSARY
1. Hypothesis- A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any
assumption of its truth.
2. Adjudication – A formal judgment on a disputed matter
15.8 FURTHER READINGS
 The Political System: An inquiry into the State of Political Science by
David Easton (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953)
 The future of Political Science: By Harold Lasswell, 1962
 Modern Political Analysis: By Robert A. Dahl, 1963
 Structure functionalists approach to comparing Political Systems: By
Gabriel Almond & Bingham Powell 1966.
 On the Modern Political Theory : By S.P. Verma
 Plurality of worlds – David Lewis, 1986.
 Jain, M.P.(1979), Political Theory, Mahajan Printers, Maujpur, Delhi.
15.9 MODEL QUESTIONS
Q.1 Define Political System & discuss its main characteristics?
Q.2 Define Political System and discuss its functions according to Almond?

---00---