Sovereignty: Meaning and Characteristics of

Sovereignty

Meaning:
The term “Sovereignty” has been derived from the Latin word “Superanus” which means
supreme or paramount. Although the term “Sovereignty” is modern yet the idea of
“Sovereignty” goes back to Aristotle who spoke of the “supreme power of the state”.
Throughout the middle Ages the Roman jurists and the civilians kept this idea in their
mind and frequently employed the terms “Summa” potestas and “Plenitudo potestatis” to
designate the supreme power of the state.

The terms “Sovereign” and “Sovereignty” were first used by the French jurists in the
fifteenth century and later they found their way into English, Italian and German
political literature. The use of the term “Sovereignty” in Political Science dates back to
the publication of Bodin’s “The Republic” in 1576.

“The word sovereign”, says J.S. Roucek and others, “entered the vocabulary of political
theory from the feudal order, wherein it designated a relationship between persons. The
term sovereign had been applicable to any feudal overlord with authority over subjects in
his own dominions”.

Two Aspects of Sovereignty:

There are two aspects of sovereignty: internal sovereignty and external sovereignty.
Internal Sovereignty means some persons, assembly of group of persons in every
independent state have the final legal authority to command and enforce obedience.

This sovereignty exercises its absolute authority over all individuals or associations of
the individuals within the state. Professor Harold Laski has very aptly remarked in this
connection: “It issues orders to all men and all associations within that area; it receives
orders from none of them. It will is subject to no legal limitation of any kind. What it
proposes is right by mere announcement of intention”.

We mean, by External Sovereignty, that the State is subject to no other authority and is
independent of any compulsion on the part of other States. Every independent state
reserves the authority to renounce trade treaties and to enter into military agreements.
Each estate is independent of other states.

Every independent State is at liberty to determine its foreign policy and to join any bloc
of power it likes. Any other state does not reserve any right to interfere with the external
matter of an independent state. Thus, by external sovereignty we mean that every state
is independent of other states.
In other words, External Sovereignty means national freedom. Professor Laski has very
correctly observed in this regard, “The modern state is a sovereign state. It is, therefore,
independent in the face of other communities.

It may infuse its will towards them with a substance which need not be affected by the
will of any external power”. This statement of Professor Laski makes it very clear that the
State possesses both external and internal sovereignty.

Definitions of Sovereignty:
(1) “That characteristic of the state by virtue of which it cannot be legally bound except
by its own or limited by any power other than itself. -Jellineck

(2) “Sovereignty is the sovereign political power vested in him whose acts are not subject
to any other and whose will cannot be over-ridden”. -Grotius

(3) “Sovereignty is the supreme power of the State over citizens and subjects
unrestrained by law”. -Bodin

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(4) Sovereignty is “the common power of the state, it is the will of the nation organised in
the state, it is right to give unconditional orders to all individuals in the territory of
state”. -Duguit (Droit Constitutional Vol. 1, page 113)

(5) Burgess characterised sovereign is the “Original, absolute, unlimited power over the
individual subjects and over all associations of subjects”.

(6) “Sovereignty is that power which is neither temporary nor delegated, nor subject to
particular rules which it cannot alter, not answerable to any other power over earth”. -
Pollock

(7) “Sovereignty is the supreme will of the state”. -Willoughby

(8) “Sovereignty is the daily operative power of framing and giving efficacy to the laws”. -
Woodrow Wilson

(9) Sovereignty is “the supreme, irresistible, absolute, uncontrolled authority in which

the ‘jurist summi imperi’ reside”. -Blackstone

(10) The sovereignty is “legally supreme over an individual or group, says Laski, he
possesses “supreme coercive power”.

After closely studying and carefully examining the definitions of sovereignty, given above,
we arrive at the conclusion that sovereignty is the supreme political power of the state. It
has two aspects: internal and external. Sovereignty is an unlimited power and it is not
subject to any other authority.

Characteristics or Attributes of Sovereignty:

According to Dr. Garner, following are the characteristics or attributes of
Sovereignty:
(1) Permanence.

(2) Exclusiveness.

(3) All-Comprehensiveness.

(4) Inalienability.

(5) Unity.

(6) Imprescriptibility.

(7) Indivisibility.

(8) Absoluteness or illimitability.

(9) Originality.

(1) Permanence:
Permanence is the chief characteristics of sovereignty. Sovereignty lasts as long as an
independent state lasts. The death of the king, the overthrow of the government and the
addiction of power does not lead to the destruction of sovereignty.

We should keep in mind the basic fact that the king or the ruler exercises sovereign
power on behalf of the state and, therefore, sovereignty lasts as long as the state lasts.
The death of the king or the overthrow of the government does not affect sovereignty.
This is the reason why people in England used to say “The King is dead, long live the
King”.

Dr. Garner has beautifully summed up this idea in the following manner:
“Sovereignty does not cease with the death or temporary dispossession of a particular
bearer or the re-organisation of the state but shifts immediately to a new bearer, as the
centre of gravity shifts from one part of physical body to another when it undergoes
external change”.

(2) Exclusiveness:
By exclusiveness we mean that there can be two sovereigns, in one independent state
and if the two sovereigns exist in a state, the unity of that state will be destroyed. There
cannot exist another sovereign slate within the existing sovereign state.
(3) All Comprehensiveness:
The State is all comprehensive and the sovereign power is universally applicable. Every
individual and every association of individual is subject to the sovereignty of the state.
No association or group of individuals, however, rich or powerful it may be, can resist or
disobey the sovereign authority.Sovereignty makes no exception and grants no
exemption to anyone. It grants exemptions only in the case of foreign embassies and
diplomatic representatives of foreign countries on the reciprocal basis. This does not in
any way restrict the sovereignty of the state in the legal sense. The state can abolish and
withdraw the diplomatic privileges granted to foreigners.

(4) Inalienability:

Inalienability is another characteristic of sovereignty. Sovereignty is inalienable. By

inalienability we mean that the State cannot part with its sovereignty. In other words, we
can say that the sovereign does not remain the sovereign or the sovereign state, if he or
the state transfers his or its sovereignty to any other person or any other state.

Sovereignty is the life and soul of the state and it cannot be alienated without destroying
the state itself. Lieber has very aptly remarked in this connection: “Sovereignty can no
more be alienated than a tree can alienate its right to sprout or a man can transfer his
life or personality to another without self-destruction”.

(5) Unity:
Unity is the very spirit of Sovereignty. The sovereign state is united just as we are
united.

(6) Imprescriptibility:
By imprescriptibility, we mean that if the sovereign does not exercise his sovereignty for
a certain period of time, it does not lead to the destruction of sovereignty. It lasts as long
as the state lasts.

(7) Indivisibility:
Indivisibility is the life-blood of sovereignty. Sovereignty cannot be divided state,
American statesman Calhoun has declared, “Sovereignty is an entire thing; to divide it is
to destroy it. It is the supreme power in a state and we might just well divide it is to
destroy it.

It is the supreme power in a state and we might just well speak of half square or half a
triangle as half a sovereignty”. Gettell, has also very aptly remarked in this regard, “If
sovereignty is not absolute, no state exists. If sovereignty is divided, more than one state
exists”.
(8) Absoluteness:
Sovereignty is absolute and unlimited. The sovereign is entitled to do whatsoever he
likes. Sovereignty is subject to none.

(9) Originality:
By originality we mean that the sovereign wields power by virtue of his own right and not
by virtue of anybody’s mercy

Power and Authority: Definition,

Nature and Theory
Definition of Power:
Power and authority are perhaps the most vital aspects of all organisations in general
and political organisations in particular. Power is related to taking of decisions and for
the implementation of those decisions. No organisation, whatever may its nature be, can
do its duty or achieve objectives without power.

Robert Dahl in many of his works has defined power and analysed its various aspects. In
his A Preface to Democratic Theory Dahl calls power a type of relationship in respect of
capability and control. Take a very simple example. There are two men—A and B. If A
possesses the capability to control B then it will be assumed that A has the power. So
power involves a successful attempt to do something which he could not do otherwise.

In any society there are diverse interests and all are alike. When there are conflicts
among them one interest proceeds to dominate over the other and the interest which
prevails upon the other the former may be called powerful interest.

Karl Deutsch says that power means the ability to be involved in conflict, to resolve it
and to remove the obstacles. Though Deutsch defines the concept in the background of
international politics, its relevance to national politics is, however, undeniable. In
domestic politics or pluralistic societies there are many competing groups and all
struggle to capture power or to influence. The group which succeeds finally will be called
powerful. D. D. Raphael (Problems of Political Philosophy) has analysed power from
various aspects. He believes that generally power means the ability. Raphael says that in
French there is a word “Pouvoir”. In Latin “Potestas” is commonly used. Both these
words (these are verbs) mean “to be able”.

Raphael is of opinion that the English word power is derived from these two words and
naturally power may be used to mean ability and hence his definition of power is specific
kind of ability. Why specific kind? Let us quote him: “The ability to make other people do
what one wants them to do”.

Some political scientists want to mean that there is a special type of power which may be
designated as political power. For example, Alan Ball feels that power may generally be
used in political sense. Hence political power may broadly be defined as the capacity to
affect another’s behaviour by some form of sanction. Leslie Lipson (The Great Issues of
Politics) thinks that power is nothing but the ability to achieve results through concerted
action.

Hague, Harrop and Breslin’s definition is slightly different: “In a broad sense the power
is the production of intended effects”. A sociologist’s definition of power is: the possibility
of having one’s own decision, select alternatives or reduce complexities for others. Thus,
power means the capacity to make decisions binding and ability to discharge
responsibilities and perform certain functions.

Nature of Power:
From the definitions of power noted above we can get certain features and the first such
feature is it is used in relational sense. When there is only one actor or element the issue
of power does not arise. It is because power implies ability to influence or control others
or to get things done by others. Naturally power relates to the relationship or interaction
between two or among more than two elements or actors. So power is always viewed in
the background of relationship.

In the second place, “power is disaggregated and non-cumulative it is shared and

bartered by numerous groups spread throughout society and representing diverse
interests”. In any pluralist society there are numerous groups and they all compete
among themselves at various levels to capture political power or to influence the
agencies who exercise their influence.

Hence it is observed that power is not concentrated at any particular centre. Again, all
the centres of power do claim to have equal or almost equal amount of power. In other
words, there is an unequal distribution of power like an unequal distribution of wealth.

Thirdly, in a class-society there are diverse interests and each power centre represents a
particular interest. This point may further be explained. In any capitalist society there
are several classes, both major and minor, and each class strives for the realisation of its
own interests which are generally economic.

But there may be political interests. However, the conflicts among the classes sometimes
lead to the other conflicts and this is the general characteristic of capitalist society. But
the advocates of the capitalist system argue that this conflict does not create an
atmosphere of class struggle. There are processes of peaceful resolution of all conflicts.
At least Talcott Parsons and many sociologists think so. According to these persons the
capitalist system is so structured that the conflicts do not create any impasse.

Fourthly, Maclver is of opinion that power is a conditional concept. Power, Maclver says,
is an ability to command service from others. But this ability, he continues, depends in
some measure upon certain conditions and if the conditions are not fulfilled properly
power cannot function. Power is not something which is permanently fixed. It is subject
to change and it has source.

If the source dries up power generation or enhancement will stop. Again, mere existence
of sources cannot cause the rise of power. The holder of power must have the ability to
use or utilise the sources of power. All these conditions establish the fact that power is
conditional.

Fifthly, power (used in political science) is a very complex notion. How it is used, what
consequences it produces, how it is to be achieved-all are in real sense complex. No
simple analysis can unearth the various aspects of power. Different people use different
terms to denote power. For example, Dahl uses the term ‘influence’ to mean power.

Power and Authority:

The readers, I am sure, have acquired preliminary ideas about two vital concepts—
power and authority. It is now high time to go through the relationship between them.
Power, in its broadest sense, is the ability to achieve desired results. Power also means
the ability to do something.

These are the common interpretations of power. But this ability may not be legitimate.
An individual or a military general may by physical force seize political’ power but
behind that there may not be sanction of law or constitution. In that case, the person’s
ability to force others to do something is also not authorised by law. So it is held that
power is not legitimate, the authority is always legitimate. Behind every act or decision of
the authority there shall be approval of law. Law and constitution always stand behind
an authority.

A person having power may demand obligation from other persons. But if they refuse to
act accordingly the holder of power legally or constitutionally cannot force him to show
obligation. Behind power there lies coercion or application of coercive measures or
physical force. But people show obligation to the authority on the ground that it is
legally entitled to claim obligation.

In explaining authority we have seen that the holder of authority is empowered to do

something or claim something. It means that authority, whatever may its nature be, is
always based on law or legitimacy. So it is said that the authority is not only legal but
authorities claim is based on right. In other words, authority has full freedom to demand
something. We can say that authority has freedom.

But this conception is not applicable to power. This relation between power and
authority has been stated by Leslie Lipson in the following words. “What demarcates
authority from power is that the former is power recognised as rightful. Authority is
government that all accept as valid. Its exercise is, therefore, sectioned by those who
approve the particular act or agent and is tolerated by those who disapprove. …
Authority is power clothed in the garments of legitimacy”.

The relationship between the two can be explained still from another angle. Raphael
observes that authority can exist without power. This may be illustrated in the following
way. A man may be invested with authority of an office in accordance with law or formal
rules. Naturally he can take any decision. But he fails to exercise his authority on the
ground that majority men do not support or recognise him.

This may be due to the popular mass upsurge. On the other hand, power can exist
without authority. This frequently happens in many countries. The military rulers
demand obligation from citizens though he has not that authority. But people, out of
tear, obey the order of the person who holds and exercises power. This is a very common
feature of many Third World states.

Law: Meaning, Features, Sources and Types of Law

Law: Meaning, Features, Sources and Types of Law!
State is sovereign. Sovereignty is its exclusive and most important element. It is the
supreme power of the state over all its people and territories. The State exercises its
sovereign power through its laws. The Government of the State is basically machinery for
making and enforcing laws.
Each law is a formulated will of the state. It is backed by the sovereign power of the
State. It is a command of the State (sovereign) backed by its coercive power. Every
violation of law is punished by the State. It is through its laws that he State carries out
its all functions.
I. Law: Meaning and Definition:
The word ‘Law’ has been derived from the Teutonic word ‘Lag, which means ‘definite’. On
this basis Law can be defined as a definite rule of conduct and human relations. It also
means a uniform rule of conduct which is applicable equally to all the people of the
State. Law prescribes and regulates general conditions of human activity in the state.
1. “Law is the command of the sovereign.” “It is the command of the superior to an
inferior and force is the sanction behind Law.” —Austin
2. “A Law is a general rule of external behaviour enforced by a sovereign political
authority.” -Holland
In simple words, Law is a definite rule of behaviour which is backed by the sovereign
power of the State. It is a general rule of human conduct in society which is made and
enforced by the government’ Each Law is a binding and authoritative rule or value or
decision. Its every violation is punished by the state.

II. Nature/Features of Law:

ADVERTISEMENTS:
1. Law is a general rule of human behaviour in the state. It applies to all people of the
state. All are equally subject to the laws of their State. Aliens living in the territory of the
State are also bound by the laws of the state.
2. Law is definite and it is the formulated will of the State. It is a rule made and
implemented by the state.
3. State always acts through Law. Laws are made and enforced by the government of the
State.
4. Law creates binding and authoritative values or decisions or rules for all the people of
state.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
5. Sovereignty of State is the basis of law and its binding character.
6. Law is backed by the coercive power of the State. Violations of laws are always
punished.
7. Punishments are also prescribed by Law.
8. The courts settle all disputes among the people on the basis of law.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
9. In each State, there is only one body of Law.
10. Legally, Law is a command of the sovereign. In contemporary times laws are made by
the representatives of the people who constitute the legislature of the State. Laws are
backed by on public opinion and public needs.
11. The purpose of Law is to provide peace, protection, and security to the people and to
ensure conditions for their all round development. Law also provides protection to the
rights and freedoms of the people.
12. All disputes among the people are settled by the courts on the basis of an
interpretation and application of the laws of the State.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
13. Rule of law, equality before law and equal protection of law for all without any
discrimination, are recognised as the salient features of a modern legal system and
liberal democratic state.
III. Sources of Law:
1. Custom:
Custom has been one of the oldest sources of law. In ancient times, social relations gave
rise to several usages, traditions and customs. These were used to settle and decide
disputes among the people. Customs were practiced habitually and violations of customs
were disapproved and punished by the society. Initially social institutions began working
on the basis of several accepted customs.
Gradually, the State emerged as the organised political institution of the people having
the responsibility to maintain peace, law and order; naturally, it also began acting by
making and enforcing rules based upon customs and traditions. In fact, most of the laws
had their birth when the State began converting the customs into authoritative and
binding rules. Custom has been indeed a rich source of Law.
2. Religion and Morality:
Religion and religious codes appeared naturally in every society when human beings
began observing, enjoying and fearing natural forces. These were accepted as superior
heavenly forces (Gods and Goddesses) and worshiped.
Religion then started regulating the behaviour of people and began invoking “Godly
sanction”, “fear of hell”, and “possible fruits of heaven”, for enforcing the religious codes.
It compelled the people to accept and obey religious codes. Several religions came
forward to formulate and prescribe definite codes of conduct. The rules of morality also
appeared in society. These defined what was good & what was bad, what was right and
what was wrong.
The religious and moral codes of a society provided to the State the necessary material
for regulating the actions of the people. The State converted several moral and religious
rules into its laws. Hence Religion and Morality have also been important sources of
Law.
3. Legislation:
Since the emergence of legislatures in 13th century, legislation has emerged as the chief
source of Law. Traditionally, the State depended upon customs and the decrees or
orders of the King for regulating the behaviour of the people. Later on, the legislature
emerged as an organ of the government. It began transforming the customary rules of
behaviour into definite and enacted rules of behaviour of the people.
The King, as the sovereign, started giving these his approval. Soon legislation emerged as
the chief source of law and the legislature got recognition as the Legal Sovereign i.e. law-
making organ of the State. In contemporary times, legislation has come to be the most
potent, prolific and direct source of law. It has come to be recognized as the chief means
for the formulation of the will of the State into binding rules.
4. Delegated Legislation:
Because of several pressing reasons like paucity of time, lack of expertise and increased
demand for law-making, the legislature of a State finds it essential to delegate some of
its law-making powers to the executive. The executive then makes laws/rules under this
system. It is known as Delegated Legislation. Currently, Delegated Legislation has come
to be a big source of Law. However, Delegated Legislation always works under the
superior law-making power of the Legislature.
4. Judicial Decisions:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In contemporary times, Judicial Decision has come to be an important source of Law. It
is the responsibility of the courts to interpret and apply laws to specific cases. The
courts settle the disputes of the people in cases that come before them. The decisions of
the courts – the judicial decisions, are binding on the parties to the case. These also get
accepted as laws for future cases. But not all judicial decisions are laws.
Only the judicial decisions given by the apex court or the courts which stand recognized
as the Courts of Record, (like the Supreme Court and High Courts of India) are
recognized and used as laws proper. Lower Courts can settle their cases on the basis of
such judicial decisions.
5. Equity:
Equity means fairness and sense of justice. It is also a source of Law. For deciding cases,
the judges interpret and apply laws to the specific cases. But laws cannot fully fit in
each case and these can be silent in some respects. In all such cases, the judges depend
on equity and act in accordance with their sense of fair play and justice. Equity is used
to provide relief to the aggrieved parties and such decisions perform the function of
laying down rules for the future. As such equity acts as a source of law.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
6. Scientific Commentaries:
The works of eminent jurists always include scientific commentaries on the Constitution
and the laws of each state. These are used by the courts for determining the meaning of
law. It helps the courts to interpret and apply laws.
The jurists not only discuss and explain the existing law but also suggest the future
possible rules of behaviour. They also highlight the weaknesses of the existing laws as
well as the ways to overcome these. Interpretations given by them help the judges to
interpret and apply Laws to specific cases.
The works of jurists like, Blackstone, Dicey, Wade, Phillips, Seeravai, B.Pi. Rau, D.D.
Basu and others have been always held in high esteem by the judges in India. Scientific
commentaries jurists always help the development and evolution of law. Hence these
also constitute a source of law. Thus, Law has several sources. However, in
contemporary times law-making by the legislature constitutes the chief source of Law.

IV. Types of Law:

Broadly speaking there are two main kinds of Law:
(i) National Law i.e. the body of rules which regulates the actions of the people in society
and it is backed by the coercive power of the State.
(ii) International Law i.e. the body of rules which guides and directs the behaviour of the
states in international relations. It is backed by their willingness and consent that the
states obey rules of International Law. It is a law among nations and is not backed by
any coercive power.
National Law is the law by which the people are governed by the state. It stands
classified into several kinds:
1. Constitutional Law
2. Ordinary Law:
It is stands classified into two sub types:
2 (a) Private Law
2(b) Public Law:
It stands again sub-divided into two parts:
2(b) (i) General Public Law
2(b) (ii) Administrative Law
1. Constitutional Law:
Constitutional Law is the supreme law of the country. It stands written in the
Constitution of the State. The Constitutional Law lays down the organisation, powers,
functions and inter-relationship of the three organs of government. It also lays down the
relationship between the people and the government as well as the rights, freedoms
(fundamental rights) and duties of the citizens. It can be called the Law of the laws in the
sense all law-making in the State is done on the basis of powers granted by the
Constitutional Law i.e. the Constitution.
2. Statute Law or Ordinary Law:
It is also called the national law or the municipal law. It is made by the government
(legislature) and it determines and regulates the conduct and behaviour of the people. It
lays down the relations among the people and their associations, organisations, groups
and institutions. The legislature makes laws, the executive implements these and
judiciary interprets and applies these to specific cases.
Ordinary Law is classified into two parts:
2 (a) Private Law and
2 (b) Public Law.
2 (a) Private Law:
Private Law regulates the relations among individuals. It lays down rules regarding the
conduct of the individual in society and his relations with other persons. It guarantees
the enjoyment of his rights. It is through this law that the State acts as the arbiter of
disputes between any two individuals or their groups.
2 (b) Public Law:
The law which regulates the relations between the individual and the State is Public
Law. It is made and enforced by the State on behalf of the community.
Public Law stands sub divided into two categories:
2(b)(i) General Law, and
2(b)(ii) Administrative Law.
2(b) (i) General Law:
It lays down the relations between the private citizens (Non-officials or who are not
members of the civil service) and the State. General Public Law applies to all the citizens
in their relations with the State.
2(b) (ii) Administrative Law:
It lays down the rules governing the exercise of the constitutional authority which stands
delegated by the Constitution of the State to all the organs of government. It also governs
the relations between the civil servants and the public and lays down the relations
between the civil servants and the State. In some States like France, Administrative Law
is administered by Administrative Courts and General Law is administered by ordinary
courts. However in countries like India, Britain and the USA the same courts administer
both the General Law and Administrative Law.
Clarifying the distinction between Public law and Private law, Holland writes: “In Private
Law the parties concerned are private individuals alone and between whom stands the
State as an impartial arbiter. In Public Law also the State is present as an arbiter
although it is at the same time one of the parties interested.”

Liberty: Definition, Nature and Theories

Meaning and Definitions of Liberty:
The word liberty is derived from liber. The root of liberty is another two words libertas
and liberte. Liber means “free”. Many people are accustomed to use freedom. But both
the words mean same thing and they are used interchangeably. In strict sense there is a
difference. We call “freedom movement”, “freedom fighter” etc. but not liberty movement.
Liberty is generally used in the case of individual and freedom refers to greater entity
such as freedom of a country.

But this distinction does not always hold good. For example, we call national liberation
movement of Africa or Latin America. Here liberation is used to denote freedom or
liberty. In political science, however, the interchangeable use is the general practice.

The term liberty is associated with two other words—toleration and liberation. Toleration
means to allow other men to do their duties and even if that creates disadvantage to
some that should be tolerated. It is because the liberty of one is restriction to others, and
vice versa. Naturally if one does not tolerate others’ actions, the people cannot have
liberty. So we can say that liberty cannot be separated from toleration.

Similarly, in recent years we witness the emergence of another word which is a variation
of liberty—it is liberation. Today the words ‘liberation movement’ are very often used.
When a nation is under foreign domination it cannot be called a free nation so also the
citizens (it is used in general sense) are not free.

There is large number of definitions of liberty or freedom. In our day-to-day speech or

conversations we use the term to mean absence of constraints or limitations or
obstacles. When we find that an individual is free to do as he likes it will be assumed
that he is free, that is, he has liberty. Prof. Harold Laski’s definition is well-known and
oft-quoted. “By liberty I mean the eager maintenance of that atmosphere in which men
have the opportunity to be their best selves”.

Heywood says that philosophers and political scientists do not use the term in identical
sense. The philosophers use it as a property of the will. It is primarily a matter of mind
and psychology. By contrast, the political scientists use the term in different senses. It is
connected with values, development of mind and inherent qualities of individuals. It also
denotes a congenial atmosphere in which men will be able to flourish their good
qualities.
Freedom also means the scope to select the required alternative from a number of
alternatives. If this scope or opportunity is not available to the individual that will mean
the absence of freedom. Hence liberty is an atmosphere where individuals will face a
number of choices and they will pick up one or more according to their requirement. D.
D. Raphael views freedom in this sense. He further maintains that freedom is the
absence of restraints. Raphael further says that freedom means to carry out what one
has chosen to do. This sense is generally used in political science.

Nature of Liberty:
After thorough study the political scientists have found out several features of liberty or
freedom.

We note few of them:

1. Freedom to do means the freedom to choose among the alternatives which again
means the freedom of conscience. This is an important characteristic of liberty.
Whenever an individual intends to do something he is supposed to be guided by his
conscience. The conscience is the force that guides the individual. But Raphael says that
conscience is not always the force that guides the individual for action. There may be
other forces.

2. Laski calls liberty an atmosphere. In the atmosphere, the individual will be permitted
to perform such activities that will facilitate the development of the best qualities a man
possesses. We can say that freedom is a material condition of social life.

3. Freedom is understood as voluntary and un-coerced action. Behind every action there
shall exist spontaneity. When man is forced to do a work that will lead to the loss of
liberty. We can say liberty and coercion are antithetical terms. This, however, is not
always correct. Sometimes a man is forced to act accordingly to make way for the
exercise of freedom to others. If a person creates obstacles, authority removes them by
force.

4. Norman Barry pointed out another feature of liberty. He suggests to draw distinction
between “feeling free” and “being free”. According to Barry the following is the
distinction. Feeling free is a state of contentment and “being free” is a state in which
major impediments to making choices have been removed. In his opinion liberty (Barry
uses both liberty and freedom interchangeably) includes both meanings.

The distinction may be illustrated in the following way. A convict may commit a crime
deliberately in order to go to prison for security reasons. Here the condition of “feeling
free” appears, but not the “being free”. He says that “being free” and “being able” are two
terms different from each other. When there are no physical impediments a man may
undertake any work but his ability does not allow him to shoulder the burden of doing
the work. So here we find that a person is free to do the work but he is not able to do it,
and mainly for that reason his ability and freedom stand apart.

Explaining freedom we must take note of this distinction. It can further be illustrated by
another example. A man has the freedom to go to any expensive restaurant and take
choicest dish. But his fund or health condition do not allow him. Or it may be that
doctor has advised him not to take food outside. In our analysis of the nature of freedom
we must consider these subtitles.

5. A plausible distinction can be drawn between political liberty and other types of
liberty. In a democratic state political liberty is especially stressed. Participation in all
affairs of the state is encouraged. But the same individuals are confronted with
dissimilar situation in social and cultural fields. In less advanced societies (these may be
or are democratic) numerous superstitions inhibit the free lives of the individuals.

They are not always free to select their religious ways or to practice any belief or faith: on
the contrary, in many autocratic states political liberty is very limited but religious or
other liberties do exist- Our viewpoint is that for a proper analysis of the concept of
freedom all forms of liberty are not to be mixed or confused. In other words various types
of liberty shall carry their our identity.

6. Liberty is a very comprehensive idea and it changes with the change of time and other
things such as outlook, physical conditions, attitude etc. By liberty one need not mean
only political or any other’ particular type of liberty. The objective of liberty is quite
ambitious—to make feasible the development of good qualities of man and for that
purpose all types of liberty may be required and in this sense it is comprehensive in
nature.

Liberty is, again, a dynamic concept. If attitude and outlook of individuals are changed
the sphere or extent of liberty must also change. For example, women of today’s society
are claiming more jobs or employment opportunities and they deem it as their right and
they claim that they must have the liberty to do job.

Women are also demanding to do job with men in night shift and with full protection. In
Western countries women work in night shifts and India is proceeding to that. The age of
Information and Technology has enhanced freedom.

Liberty is Conditional, Not Absolute:

Prof. Ernest Barker, in his noted work, talks about legal liberty and this type of liberty is
never absolute but always conditional. He says: “legal liberty, just because it is legal, is
not an absolute or unconditional liberty. The need of liberty for each is necessarily
qualified and conditioned by the need of liberty for all”. Let us see what Barker wants to
say.
It is a mistaken idea that liberty need not be restricted to limited number of persons.
When liberty is legal, everybody has an access to it. But in many societies only a handful
of persons have the opportunity to enjoy liberty and on the opinion of Barker this is to
be done away with. How is it to be done? His suggestion is by legal way the state shall
impose restrictions upon the individuals in regard to have access to liberty.

The state will enact laws as to the enjoyment of liberty. Everyone in the society has an
identity and in that background he can claim liberty, Barker beautifully observes:
[Liberty] is not the indefinite liberty of an undefined individual, it is the definite liberty of
a defined personality”.

Liberty in the state, that is legal liberty, is always relative and regulated. When liberty is
regulated, its amount is much greater than the absolute liberty. This is due to the
reason that absolute liberty is the liberty of only few persons but the relative or regulated
liberty is meant for all men. Even men whose liberty is controlled can enjoy liberty.

Conflicts among Liberties:

Barker has drawn our attention to a very interesting aspect of liberty. He says that in
any modern society there are three forms of liberty. These are civil liberty, political
liberty and economic liberty. These three types of liberties may come into conflict. How
does this happen? His analysis runs in the following manner: By virtue of civil liberty an
individual has the freedom to express his opinion through book, article or any other
means. But the parliamentarians by virtue of their political liberty can impose restriction
upon the freedom of expression or speech. Here civil and political liberties clash with
each other and this frequently happens in any society.

Conflict is often found between civil and economic liberties. A worker can claim higher
wages or less working hour and this falls within his economic freedom. On the other
hand the employer has the civil liberty to enter into contract with the workers dictating
the terms of wages, working hours etc. In this way different forms of liberty create
conflict among the citizens and Barker believes that this is inevitable.

Everyone is eager to enjoy liberty to which he is entitled. There is no way of getting out of
this dilemma and remembering this (perhaps) Barker has said that liberty is really a
complex notion, it has the capacity to unite men and, at the same time, it divides or
disunites them—clash of interest is the cause of disunity.

Law and Liberty:

We shall now turn to a very vexed issue—the relationship between law and liberty. There
is a misconception that liberty is antithetical to law, or vice versa. Those who think in
this line believe in the negative character of liberty, which implies that liberty is the
absence of restraints. Law means restraints or regulations. Naturally, more laws will
lead to the curtailment of liberty.
This idea about the relation between the two is erroneous. Liberty is out and out a
positive idea. If liberty is to be made a meaningful concept, regulations are essential.
Unrestricted liberty may cause enhancement of liberty for few persons, but it will result
in the reduction of liberty of the majority. This makes liberty conditional. Liberty, to be
proper, must come under the restrictions of law.

This is the exact relation between law and liberty. But the relationship between law and
liberty must be judged in the proper perspective. Law will not be permitted to interfere
with the freedom of individuals. The purpose of law, in regard to liberty, must be to
protect liberty for all. Mention may be made in this connection that though law makes
the enjoyment of liberty more liberal, blind obedience to law does not do that.

Obedience to law must be based on reason and rationality. Again, a law must be based
on the approval of citizens. This does not, of course, mean that a law is to be approved
by all, only majority support behind a law is enough. A law shall not be used to harass
citizens.

Positive versus Negative Liberty:

In his analysis of positive and negative liberties Berlin wants to raise the following
questions:
(a) Whether the difference he has drawn between positive and negative liberty is specious
or too sharp,

(b) Whether the term liberty can be extended widely. But while doing so care shall be
taken about the retention of significance. In other words, the extension of the meaning of
liberty cannot curb the significance of the concept,

(c) Why political liberty is considered important. Berlin claims that he has slightly
amended his earlier version of the concept of negative and positive liberty. This, however,
does not change the core idea of liberty.

Berlin has discussed some of the definitions given by leading political scientists of his
time. He, in the following way, defines liberty, “The freedom of which I speak is
opportunity for action, rather than action itself. If, although I enjoy the right to walk
through open doors, I prefer not to do so, but to sit still and vegetate. I am not thereby
rendered less free. “Freedom is the opportunity to act, not action itself, the possibility of
action, not necessarily that dynamic realisation of it”. Berlin refers to a very interesting
aspect of liberty.

Normally we say that freedom means when man satisfies his wants. But if he cannot
satisfy his wants he must learn the way as to how and in what way he can meet his
wants. And, by adopting this method, he can contribute to his happiness. In this case
the individuals will have to devise ways of meeting demands.
Positive Freedom:
Definition:
The positive meaning of liberty may be defined in the following words: It means that the
individual is his own master. The life and decisions of one will depend on the individuals
themselves. The individual is the instrument of his own affairs. The positive sense of
freedom is concerned with the question “By whom am I governed?” rather than “How
much am I governed?” “I wish to be a subject, not an object, to be moved by reasons, by
conscious purposes which are my own, not by causes which affect me. I wish to be
somebody, not nobody, a doer deciding not being decided for, self directed and not acted
upon by external nature or by other men as if I were a thing, an animal or a slave
incapable of playing a human role”.

The positive sense of freedom wants to emphasise the following:

“The freedom which consists in being one’s own master and the freedom which consists
in not being prevented from choosing as I do by other men”. The paradox of positive
freedom has been explained beautifully by Heywood, “Indeed a demos that imposes
many restrictive laws on itself may be positively free but negatively quite un-free.

In its other sense, positive freedom relates to the ideas of self-realisation and personal
development”. “I feel free to the degree that I believe this is true, and enslaved to the
degree that I am made to realise that it is not”.

Positive Freedom and Self-realisation:

Berlin has assertively said that there is a close relationship between positive liberty and
self-realisation. The best way of attaining self-realisation (realisation of the best self
which a man possesses) is the positive form of freedom. Every individual has his own
motive, mission and vision; he wants to act to fulfill that mission or vision. He decides
his own method and makes plan. All these he will do as a free man. It means the person
will have freedom. Freedom as he understands. He will utilise the freedom in his own
way.

But the realisation of self will never be possible if congenial atmosphere is not available.
It means that the individual will not feel any obstruction which stands on the way of
self-realisation. Berlin says that self-realisation cannot thrive in vacuum or in an
atmosphere free from all sorts of obstructions.

Berlin maintains, “The notion of liberty is not the negative conception of a field without
obstacles a vacuum in which nothing obstructs me but the notion of self-direction or
self-control”. What a man wants to do, he will have the opportunity and freedom to do.
Berlin says that there is the necessity of obstruction for the realisation of self.

The aim of the restriction imposed by the state of society will be to help the furtherance
of self-realisation. It has been assumed that obstructions are not always harmful. They
have good effects and here lies the fundamental difference between negative freedom and
positive freedo

Equality: Meaning, Aspects and Theories

Meaning and Definition:

Equality originates from aequalis, aequus and aequalitas. These are all old French or
Latin words. These French/Latin words mean even, level and equal. Thus the meaning of
the word equality used in political science corresponds to the meaning from which it
originates.

The term equality used in political science differs from uniformity, identity and
sameness. Some people, of course, want to use it to denote uniformity. But this does not
convey the meaning when it is used by political scientists. Equality does not mean
obliteration of diversity.

Number of political scientists has defined the concept and Prof. Laski is one of them. We
shall mention his definition because of its special approach. According to Laski equality
means “coherence of ideas”.

In the treatment meted out to different individuals there shall persist coherence. While
privileges are distributed among the individuals justice and reason must be maintained
so that no individual can think that he is neglected or is deprived of his due share. In
the distribution of privileges attention shall be paid to the development of personality.

This definition leads us to find out another meaning (definition) of equality. It means the
absence of special privileges. Individual’s claim for the privileges rests on the ground
that without it he cannot develop his personality and because of this reason an
individual’s claim for something is logical and legitimate.

In that case, if some individuals are deliberately made to suffer that will be a gross
violation of equality. Of course, the deprived person must prove that others have been
given more than what is reasonably his due.

Mere providing privileges or opportunities is not all. This does not bear the complete
meaning of equality. Laski further says that privileges provided by the authority must be
adequate. Individuals, with the help of inadequate opportunities, cannot develop
personality. It is difficult to ascertain what is exactly meant by the term adequate. What
is adequate to one may be inadequate to other and we all admit this.

Still we hold the view that adequacy will be determined by the person claiming
opportunities. And at the same time that state must have the capability to provide
opportunities. It may not be possible for the government of a poor country to provide all
the requirements for the research of atomic energy. Again, providing privileges depends
upon the mentality of the party in power.

All these factors enter into the consideration while analysing the term adequate. But this
controversy need not be an obstacle for the authority in charge of distributing
opportunities (we use opportunities and privileges alternatively though there is a very
subtle difference).

We collect three different meanings of equality from D. D. Raphael’s analysis:

The first is equal consideration. There is a second meaning and it is equal opportunities.
Finally, equal satisfaction of basic needs. The term equal considerations is not
satisfactory because it may not always be justified. Equal opportunities, in the opinion of
Raphael, are an acceptable term but it is cautioned here that it should not lead one to
conclude that it is identical opportunity.

Basic needs are a good term and everybody wants its fulfillment. Here the problem is
what is actually basic needs differs from person to person. The criterion of basic needs is
to be determined at first. The different senses of equality designated by Raphael, though
controversial, are meaningful and many subscribe to these meanings.

Instead of attributing any clear meaning to the concept of equality Dorothy Pickles
(Introduction to Politics) draws our attention to the fact that it is used in most of the
cases ambiguously. To the French revolutionaries it was meant equality before law.
Irrespective of any differences all classes and groups of persons are to be treated equally
by law. Nobody is above law and outside the purview of law.

Equality has another meaning and this is everybody can claim equal protection of law.
Law will protect all persons equally and it will make no discrimination. Some people still
hold the view that equality denotes equal economic opportunities. There is still another
meaning of equality which means property should be distributed equally among all
persons. These are the different connotations attributed to the concept of equality.

Analysis of Equality:
We now turn to a detailed analysis of the various aspects of equality:
1. Everybody admits that equality is a very complex notion; there is no single meaning
and no single notion about equality. We here note some well-known meanings or notions
such as political equality, economic equality, social equality, racial equality and sexual
equality or equality in respect of gender. All these forms are important and they have
relevance in the social and political structures.

2. Benn and Peters have said that the concept is more often prescriptive than
descriptive. The exponents of the doctrine, through the idea of equality, want to
prescribe some norms or ideals. For example, they want to say that there shall be
political or racial or economic equality or it is suggested that both women and men shall
be on equal footing. While prescribing something in the form of equality it is generally
addressed to the persons in power, policy-makers and general public that the principle
of equality should be strictly adhered to.

3. In the analysis of equality we very often refer to egalitarianism, and in political theory
both equality and egalitarianism are profusely used. Egalitarianism refers to the belief in
the principle that all men are equal because they are created by God equal and,
therefore, they deserve equal rights and opportunities. No discrimination is allowed.
Particularly Christianity worked behind the propagation of this concept.

It is also defined as a theory or practice based on the desire to promote equality or the
belief that establishment of equality is the primary objective of any society,
Egalitarianism, we can say, aims at extreme or strict equality. It says that in all spheres
of social, political cultural, economic and other fields there shall exist equality.

It thinks of no concession or relaxation of equality principle—viewed thus, equality, at

least in some respects, differs from egalitarianism. It believes that all men are created
equal. But that does not mean that the differences in intelligence, ability etc. cannot be
recognised. It is believed by some that the maximisation of equality will result in
egalitarianism. Egalitarianism has for long canvassed in favour of equalities in income,
wealth, opportunities etc. It has been asserted that without all these equalities the
inherent qualities of men cannot thrive at all.

4. The progress towards attainment of equality has not been uniform in all states. For
example, in the USA the legislature and the judiciary have been found very active in the
fields of social and political equality; it has been less active in economic equality. Not
only the USA, in other liberal democracies more stress is given to political equality and
less to economic equality. Whereas in socialist countries much importance is paid to
economic equality. But egalitarianism calls it a violation that all types of equality are to
be treated adequately.

Formal Equality:
Nowadays a term is frequently used and it is formal equality. The political scientists do
not especially use this term but it is manifest from their analysis that the idea of formal
equality is quite fresh in their minds. It is believed that formal equality is legal equality.
The inner idea is that every citizen is a legal member of the state which is a legal
association.

As a legal member of the legal association every person has certain claims to equality.
There are two very important forms of legal or formal equality. One is equality before law
and equal protection of law. We have already mentioned these two. What is to be noted
here is that the legal member of the legal association (Barker calls a state a legal
association) can legitimately claim that all the citizens (including him) must be treated
equally by law and no discrimination is to be allowed. In the British system of
administration and politics this was especially emphasised and Dicey spoke a lot about
it. Violation of this principle will be treated as violation of equality.

There is another type of formal equality and it is equal protection of law. It is the primary
function of law to give protection to all citizens and while doing this it makes no
distinction between rank, position and wealth. Legal or formal equality, to speak the
truth, constitutes the very core of rule of law. In this sense the formal equality comes to
be associated with equality.

It has been pointed out by Heywood that the formal equality is basically negative
because the state authority takes special care in regard to the distribution of
opportunities. The objective shall always be not to allow awarding special privileges to
few persons.

Naturally to attain this goal the state must impose restriction in one form or other upon
the distributing machinery or the state must take policy to that extent. We have already
noted that Laski has observed that equality means the absence of ‘special privileges.

Formal or legal equality has received almost universal approval from conservatives,
liberals and even socialists. It is absolutely irrational, unjustified and even bigotry to
deprive some persons of their legitimate share in wealth, income and manifold privileges
on the ground of accidental birth in poor families or in so called neglected religious
groups.

The white rulers of South Africa adopted a policy of segregation or apartheid for the
black people who were the original inhabitants of the land. Even in the USA the Negroes
were not allowed to sit with the white students in public schools or to dine in the famous
restaurants.

The blacks were not even allowed to enjoy other privileges which the white people had
the right to enjoy. This type of discrimination was irrational and against equality, liberty
and justice. It is ridiculous to think of the rule of law in a society which gleefully
practices all forms of discriminations.

Equality and Justice:

Equality is the Principle of Justice:
In our analysis of Rawls’ theory of justice we have noted that he treats attainment of
equality in the distribution of rights as a basic principle of justice. He writes “Each
person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties
compatible with a similar scheme of liberties of others”.

Every individual has the right to claim equal liberties with others and when the state
authority can ensure this, it will be assumed that justice will no longer be far away. The
state must see that in regard to the allotment of rights and liberties the principle of
equality has been most scrupulously observed. If equality is violated justice will not be
achieved. Justice is always hand in glove with equality.

Rawls further maintains that for the sake of justice inequalities may be allowed to reign
in society. Rawls writes, “Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that
they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage”. In a state all the
opportunities and position shall be opened to all. There shall be no place of
discrimination. Rawls also says that even the inequalities shall create no disadvantage to
anybody.

In this way Rawls has suggested that equalities and inequalities will build up a
foundation for justice. Distribution of all values, rights and liberties will be based on the
above principles and all institutions shall be modelled on the same principles.

Liberal Equality, Democratic Equality and Justice:

Liberal equality, democratic equality and justice all are closely linked. Rawls says formal
equality, through the distribution of all opportunities to all eligible persons, shall be
ascertained. Rawls admits that in almost all societies there are misdistribution of
opportunities and advantages at the initial stages and that must be rectified through
deliberate efforts.

This should be done in such a manner as it will enable to flourish and utilise their
talents properly. But Rawls points out a condition. Formal declaration of policies or
processes is not sufficient; care should be taken as to the fact that all are capable of
attaining the opportunities. If necessary the structural changes of the society are to be
effected. “Free market arrangements must be set within a framework of political and
legal institution”.

Rawls suggests that democratic equality is achieved by combining the means of the
principle of fair equality of opportunity with the difference principle. Let us explain it. We
have already noted that whatever opportunities are available, that must be fairly
distributed among the legitimate claimants.

In the process of distribution, if necessary, difference is to be accepted. That is, unequal

distribution of opportunities is to be admitted. He says that behind this policy there
shall be consent of the society and it shall aim at the advantage or benefit or welfare of
all. Even the expectations of the least advantaged shall find realisation.

Basis of Equality and Justice:

How justice is related to equality or vice versa will be explained in the following way:
Rawls says that the relation between these two concepts can be explained from various
standpoints. In the first place, the administration of public institutions is to be so
arranged as to ensure both equality and justice. All the rules of the society are to be
applied impartially and the rule of law shall prevail in every sphere of human life and
society.

The rights of persons are to be protected by the rule of law. The citizens will be able to
realise that rule of law is not violated. The rule of law and equality travel side by side
and both help the realisation of justice. We here find that Rawls was immensely
influenced by the British systems of rule of law and he considered it as the basis of
justice and equality.

Rawls mentions about the ”substantive structure” of institutions. He repeatedly

emphasises the restructuring of institutions because of the fact that, in democracy
people’s rights, liberties and equalities are realised mainly through these institutions.
These are not generally controlled by the state. But mere non-interference with the
functioning of institutions is not enough.

The structure must be helpful for equality and justice. The structures of institutions will
have no function for discriminating among the citizens and thereby devaluing justice. It
is the duty of institutions to impart justice and ensure equality. Thus, Rawls concludes
that justice and equality are not separate concepts.

Marxist Theory of Equality:

Part of Marx’s Political Philosophy:
Like his other political concepts, equality is also a part of his entire .political philosophy
which is primarily linked with the unmasking the real nature of capitalist system, its
abolition and emancipation of working class. From the study of various aspects of
society Marx concluded that there were number of inequalities in capitalist system.

For example, social, political, economic etc.; and these were due to the bourgeois
structure. In any capitalist state there were inequalities between men and women, rich
and poor, there were discriminations among various religious groups.

Even the inequalities were institutionalised by the capitalists. Theoretically the

bourgeois scholars and political scientists propagate for equality and strongly argue for
formal or legal equality. Even the bourgeois constitutions (constitutions framed by the
bourgeois scholars to meet the needs of a particular class) pontifically announce the
inclusions of rights, liberties and equalities as parts of the constitution and also make
provision for their protection.

But in actual situation most of the rights, liberties and equalities remain unfulfilled.
Marxists claim that all “these allegations against the bourgeois society are not based on
any concoction or emotion. It is their claim that Marx and Engels studied the capitalist
society from a very close distance.” In the second half of the nineteenth century the
capitalist systems of Britain, Germany and France were matured.

How to Achieve Equality?

On the Jewish Question Marx dealt with several issues and one of these is equality. He
had said that it was mere farce to think of emancipation of all exploited people through
the declaration of equal civil rights and liberties. To Marx such declaration amounted to
political emancipation.

But people’s equal rights and privileges could never be obtained through the
announcement of political emancipation. According to Marx it was merely partial
emancipation. For achievement of all forms of equality (also of rights and liberties)
human emancipation was necessary. By human emancipation he meant emancipation of
all men and women from every type of bondage created and imposed by the capitalists.
Emancipation only of the Jews could not achieve that ambitious objective.

So Marx on the Jewish Question ridiculed the emancipation only of the Jews. Marx
believed that the institution of private property was the chief evil and it always acted for
the creation of inequalities and differences among people. For this reason he
recommended the abolition of private property through the seizure of political power.
Prevalence of market economy was another factor for the growing menace of inequality
and exploitation.

The weaker sections of the body politic were gradually being eliminated from the market
because of money power exercised by the capitalists. Therefore, the abolition of
capitalism was the first precondition for the attainment of universal political values such
as equality, right and liberty, also justice.

Two Principles of Equality:

A serious analysis of Marxist thought reveals that Marx had two types of equality in his
mind though an unambiguous conclusion cannot be drawn. The writer of the essay
published in Dictionary of Marxist Thought has said that the two principles of equality
are—”From each according to his abilities, to each according to the amount of work
performed”.

There is another principle: “Each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs”. This principle indicates that each person in the society will perform his duties as
far as his abilities permit him to do. That is, none will be asked to do any work beyond
his capacity.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

On the basis of these two criteria the remuneration will be decided. It is believed by the
Marxists that if this criterion is strictly adhered to that will lay the foundation of equality
because none will be deprived of his due share of wealth. But the Marxists believe that
only in a post-revolutionary society such an aim can be realised.

In the first stage of the post-revolutionary society, Marx claimed, this objective or
principle could be achieved. Marxists did not treat this stage as the stage of just
equality. It was apprehended that due to differences in ability and talent there might
appear differences among men in many respects. Nevertheless, this principle might be
regarded as the stepping stone to equality.

There is another principle delineated by Marxists: “From each according to his abilities,
to each according to his needs”. Marxists (including Lenin) stressed this principle and
held that only in a communist society this principle could be achieved. Explaining this
principle the author of the above-noted article has said, “This principle corresponds with
the higher communist phase of post-revolutionary society. Under communism will there
be equal treatment of unequal human beings with all their necessarily unequal needs”.

A musician needs musical instruments for the performance of music. A physicist

requires huge amount of money to purchase sophisticated instruments for his research.
All these are not always for the large scale public benefit. However, these expenditures
are to be met. Some people call it Utopian approach to the concept of equality because
all the legitimate and rational requirements cannot be met by the society. Naturally the
system of private property is essential.

But the Marxists do not share this view. They are of opinion that when everybody
in the society is assured of satisfactory activities and requirements there shall not
arise the urge for private property. This will clear the way for the emergence of
equality. A good social relation will develop among all persons in the body-politic.
Marxists have further said that, in communism, when such a situation will arise,
nobody will try to acquire private property because that will appear to them a
useless venture

Rights: Meaning, Features and Types of Rights

Rights: Meaning, Features and Types of Rights!
Rights are those essential conditions of social life without which no person can generally
realize his best self. These are the essential conditions for health of both the individual
and his society. It is only when people get and enjoy rights that they can develop their
personalities and contributes their best services to the society.
Rights: Meaning and Definition:
In simple words, rights are the common claims of people which every civilized society
recognizes as essential claims for their development, and which are therefore enforced by
the state.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

1. “Rights are those conditions of social life without which no man can seek in general,
to be himself at his best.” -Laski

2. “Rights are powers necessary for the fulfillment of man’s vocation as a moral being.” -
T. H. Green

3. “Rights are nothing more nor less than those social conditions which are necessary or
favourable to the development of personality” -Beni Prasad

As such, Rights are common and recognized claims of the people which are essential for
their development as human beings.

Features/Nature of Rights:
ADVERTISEMENTS:

1. Rights exist only in society. These are the products of social living.

2. Rights are claims of the individuals for their development in society.

3. Rights are recognized by the society as common claims of all the people.

4. Rights are rational and moral claims that the people make on their society.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

5. Since rights in here only in society, these cannot be exercised against the society.

6. Rights are to be exercised by the people for their development which really means
their development in society by the promotion of social good. Rights can never be
exercised against social good.

7. Rights are equally available to all the people.

8. The contents of rights keep on changing with the passage of time.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

9. Rights are not absolute. These always bear limitations deemed essential for
maintaining public health, security, order and morality.

10. Rights are inseparably related with duties. There is a close relationship between
them “No Duties Ho Rights. No Rights No Duties.” “If I have rights it is my duty to
respect the rights others in society”.

11. Rights need enforcement and only then these can be really used by the people. These
are protected and enforced by the laws of the state. It is the duty of a state to protect the
rights of the people.
All these features clearly bring out the nature of Rights.

Types of Rights:
ADVERTISEMENTS:

1. Natural Rights:
Faith in natural rights is strongly expressed by several scholars. They hold that people
inherit several rights from nature. Before they came to live in society and state, they
used to live in a state of nature. In it, they enjoyed certain natural rights, like the right
to life, right to liberty and right to property. Natural rights are parts of human nature
and reason.

However, several other scholars regard the concept of natural rights as imaginary. Rights
are the products of social living. These can be used only in a society. Rights have behind
them the recognition of society as common claims for development, and that is why the
state protects these rights.

2. Moral Rights:
Moral Rights are those rights which are based on human consciousness. They are
backed by moral force of human mind. These are based on human sense of goodness
and justice. These are not backed by the force of law. Sense of goodness and public
opinion are the sanctions behind moral rights.

If any person violates any moral right, no legal action can be taken against him. The
state does not enforce these rights. Its courts do not recognize these rights. Moral Rights
include rules of good conduct, courtesy and of moral behaviour. These stand for moral
perfection of the people Legal Rights.

Legal rights are those rights which are recognized and enforced by the state. Any
violation of any legal right is punished by law. Law courts of the state enforce legal
rights. These rights can be enforced against individuals and also against the
government. In this way, legal rights are different from moral rights. Legal rights are
equally available to all the citizens. All citizens enjoy legal rights without any
discrimination. They can go to the courts for getting their legal rights enforced.

Legal Rights are of three types:

1. Civil Rights:
Civil rights are those rights which provide opportunity to each person to lead a civilized
social life. These fulfill basic needs of human life in society. Right to life, liberty and
equality are civil rights. Civil rights are protected by the state.

2. Political Rights:
Political rights are those rights by virtue of which citizens get a share in the political
process. These enable them to take an active part in the political process. These rights
include right to vote, right to get elected, right to hold public office and right to criticise
and oppose the government. Political rights are really available to the people in a
democratic state.

3. Economic Rights:
Economic rights are those rights which provide economic security to the people. These
enable all citizens to make proper use of their civil and political rights. The basic needs
of every person are related to his food, clothing, shelter, medical treatment etc. Without
the fulfillment of these no person can really enjoy his civil and political rights. It is
therefore essential, that every person must get the right to work, right to adequate
wages, right to leisure and rest, and right to social security in case of illness, physical
disability and old age.

Relationship between Rights and Duties

As there is a close relationship between the body and soul, so there is a relationship
between the rights and duties.

Professor Laski finds the following points of relationship between the rights and
duties:
(1) The right of one is related to the duty of the other:
If one has the right, the other has the duty related to that right. If one enjoys the right, it
becomes the duty of the other not to prove an obstacle in the enjoyment of his right. For
example, if I enjoy the right to life it is the duty of others not to cause any harm to my
life.

(2) The duty of the one is the right of the other and vice versa:
If I possess rights, I owe duties also. As we treat others so others will treat us. If the
other has the right to life and security, it is our duty that I should not cause any harm to
his life and security. To give proper respect and regard to the rights of others is our duty.

(3) The state guarantees the enjoyment of certain rights to every individual:
But at the same time, it becomes the duty of the individual that he should make the use
of those rights for promoting the common welfare. For example, if I have the right to
vote, it becomes my duty that I should cast my vote in favour of a deserving candidate.
While casting my vote, I should not allow my prejudice to work. I should not be
influenced by the distinction of caste and creed, rich and poor, black and white, etc.

(4) If the state protects me in the enjoyment of my rights:

It becomes my cardinal duty to serve the state in full spirit. If rights spring to us from
the becomes our duty to perform certain duties towards the state. If the state protects
us, it becomes our cardinal duty that we should pay taxes regularly and s remain
faithful and loyal to the state. Treachery is a crime.

Thus, it is quite clear that rights and duties are so closely related to each other, that
they cannot be separated from each other. If every individual pays ‘ attention only to his
rights and does not perform his duties to others, rights o individual will cease to exist.

There is a close relationship between the rights and duties. They are the same conditions
viewed from different angles. They are the two sides of the same coin. If we have the right
to speech, writing, wandering, running institutions and any religion we like, it is our
duty, at the same time that we should not spread evils in society by our writing work or
by our lectures.

If we have the right to vote, we should make the proper use of this right and cast our
vote in favour of the honest and deserving candidate. If we have the right to make the
use of roads for our vehicles, it becomes, at the same time, our duty that we should keep
to the left so as to avoid accidents.