Graduate Course Paper Ill Comparative Government and Politics Lesson 1: Lesson 2: Lesson 3: Lesson 4: Lesson 5: Lesson 6: Lesson 7: Lesson 8: Lesson 9: Lesson 10: S.M.-1 Contents Methods and Utility of Comparative Study of Government and Politics Modern Approaches to Study of Comparative Politics. Socio-economics Characteristics of the Third World Countries. Classification of States and Governments. Historical Development and Salient Features of The British Constitution. The British Crown, The British Cabinet. The British Parliament. Role of Political Parties and Pressure Groups in British Political System and Emergency of Separatist Nationalism. Socio-economics System of Great Britain, Important- Please read relevant portions after cross checking with the syllabus. Lessons notincluded would be covered in P.C.P.Classes. ey SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING UNIVERSITY OF DELHI 5, Cavalry Lane, Dethi-110007LESSON 1 METHODS AND UTILITY OF COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS ‘Though the origin of comparative government and politics can be traced to the days of Aristotle, it achieved enormous proportions only in modern times. It was Aristotle who, for the first time, made a com- Parative study of the contemporary 158 constitutions. This method was followed by Cicero and Polybius, In medieval times, Machiavelli followed the traditions of Aristotle. In the 16th century France, Bodin contin- ued the above tradition, Montesquieu in the 18th and Mill in the 19th century made a comparative study of the democratic govemments of their respective times. The main defect of the comparative method till then was that the comparison was more theoretical and tess empirital: It was after the World I and with the Publication of Bryce's ‘Modern democractes’, that the tradition of. comparative study of government and Politics Rex-started. This was continued by Herman Finer who published his work ‘The Theory and Practice ‘of Modem Government’ in 1932. In the last few decades, thetcomparative study has assumed new dimen- sions to which David Easton, Robert Dahl, Coleman, Powell, Jgin Blondel etc. have contributed the most. Meaning of Comparative Government a According to Jean Blondel, “Comparative government can be defined in a preliminary fashion as the study of the patterns of national goverment in the contemporary world”, Blondel’s definition, though simple, is incomplete since he has only stressed in it the need for study of ‘governments’ in the contemporary world, Modern political theorists stress the need for study of government systems, alongwith the study of governments, which include not only in institutions but, political behaviour, political culture and the actual working of governmental systems. The main purposes of such a study are (1) to trace some principles which may be applied universally. (2) to acquire more and more knowledge about political institutions; their behaviour and their working: ad (3) to be in a position to predict the future everits and results. In Blondel’s definition, we should take-a wider range of use of the world ‘patterns’. In ‘patterns’, firsily we will have to study the structure of government which besides formal structures includes informal and non-government structures. Secondly, we will have to study political behavior, because Comparative Politics is, infact the study of action, interaction and power. Thirdly, the study of the ‘patterns’ would include the study of the laws which, though theoretically, are enacted by the legislatures, but actually itis the bureau- cracy, executive and judiciary which makes them and takes the final decision about them, These laws are made keeping in view the-class-relations and and class-interests in a given society. Their study is a must because the study of the government machinery without them would remain shallow, - ‘Why Study Comparative Government and Politics The concept of ‘power’ being the focal point of comparative government and politics, its scope has ‘enormously. increased. In comparative government and politics, now, we do not confine ourselves to the Study of govermental structures, but also study the non-governmental structures and theie working many a times, events converse to each other happen in two different countries though a similar sct of circumstances have prevailed there. This calls for coniparative study of these governments. Ideology has also played a very jig i of-a couniry, for example, while the form of democracy in En- gland and America is liberal, itis just the reverse in socialist countries ic., Russia and China, Besides this, why the democratic form of government has succeeded in Europe and why it has utterly failed in most of the countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, also calls for a comparative study. The previous complete faith in Marxism in Russia, the successful working of a constitutional government in England without the pres- nce of a writien constitintion, the bi-party system in democratic states like England, Canada, America and ‘multiparty system in France and Indiatinspite of their being democracies, are some situations where the causes responsible for shese would.have 1o traced. There would, hence, be a need for some generalisations ‘and hypotheses which could-be decided only through comparative study of government and politics.= There are primarily two main purposes of a comparative study. There are : GHTt enable us to understand the course of events occurred in the contemporary world, For example, if democracy ‘has not been successful in a particular country, only through a comparative study of other democracies, the causes of its failure in that particular country can be known and suggestions can be given to improve its working. (@)/The causes and particular historic situations affecting the working of political institutions can be studied through compara- tive government and politics. By this we can determine the essential conditions for the successful working of parliamentary or a presidential form of governnient. Though comparative analysis, the differences in politi- cal behaviours can also be known and explained. Thus, the main purposes of comparative study is to find out the cases of similarities and dissimilarities in various political systems, and to determine some hypotheses which make our study more scientific and true. = Difficulties in the Study of Comparative Government According to Jean Blondel, the difficulties in the study of comparative governments may be classi- fied under the following three heads: (@) Paucity of Information (b) Range of variable and (0) Inter-connection between law and practice, norms and be haviour. (a) Paucity of Information: In modem times, the political institutions and activities have become complex. In a liberal state, one gets almost all information and all facts, required to make a comparative study. But in Socialist states like China, Russia, East Germany, itis difficult to get all information because of their being closed systems. Even with all information available, it is not easy to make a scientific compara- tive study. How much is the role of executive in political decisions, one may find it easier to compare it in terms of ‘quantity’ than qualify. Besides, there are unique institutions e.g., Crown in England, President in ‘America, Direct Democracy in Swiss constitution, and such unique institutions make the study of compara- tive government and politics very difficult. (b) Range of Variable: Many Variable, such as economic conditions, social conditions geographi- cal, leadership, pressure-groups, go into the making of a political system. Sometimes these variable get so closely linked that it becomes almost impossible to distinguish them, Many times, it becomes difficult to account for all the variables while making a comparative study. This leads ‘to the comparative study being mostly unscientific. It would not be a comparative study in the real sense of the term if one attempts to compare the French Revolution (1789) with Russian Revolution (1917) on the basis of some variables, not correctly analysing or accounting for other variables. (©) Inter connections between law and practice, norms and behaviour : There is always a gap between the constitutional structure and political reality which impedes the place of comparative study. For example, the parliamentary form of government as in England, has been these countries with that of En- ‘gland, only on the basis of structure, it would be devoid of political reality. Similarly, there is always a gap between norms and behaviour. The French Revolution of 1789 though procis'med Liberty, Equality and Fraternity as norms, but in practice there norms were never present. It would be clear from the above discussion that the above discussion that the task of comparative study of government is not infact as simple as it appears. However, it docs not mean that we should bid god- bye to comparative study. Accocling to Rostow, “The problem of comparison can indeed be resolved.” It will be correct to remember that comparison presupposes the existence of both differences and similarities. David Easton's Input, Out-put analysis has helped a lot in removal of the above difficulties. (A detailed reference to Easion’s analysis is given elsewhere in this s lesson).Methods of Comparative Study : ‘Though the political theorists have used many methods such as Historical method, Formal or Legal ‘method, Institutional method, and Behavioural method, since the days of Aristotle to modern times, yet for the sake of convenience, these should be grouped under two heads: i) Traditional method and Gi) Modern method, (A) Traditional method Before the advent of Behavioural Revolution in the 20th century, the comparative study of govern- ‘ment and politics has been termed ‘traditional’. In this method, the study of the government is basically institutional and limited in scope. It was primarily dominated by philosophy, history and law. Great philoso- phers such as Plato and Hegel started from some abstract original idea about human nature. conclu- sions therefrom as to the nature of state, its objects and its future. Under the traditional m historical ‘method has its own relevance. It was based on observation and the study of historical facts. Those who made use of this method has its own limitations. As the 19th century advanced formal legal studies treated the state Primarily as afnstitution for the creation and enforcement of law. According to Macridis, ‘Comparative study has thus far been comparative in name only. It has been part of what may loosely be called the study of foreign government, in which the government structure and formal organisation of state institutions were teated in descriptive, historical or legalistic manner.’ Thus the traditional method was basically a-non- comparative method. Even the modern writcrs of this method like Ogg, Munro etc., have merely described the constitutions, political parties, executives etc. of various countries in a formal and institutional manner, This method of study has Been mainly descriptive with almost no analysis. This method has ignored a systematic study of the govemmental structure of countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and Third-World countries. This method also does not take into account the dynamic variables which go into the making and revolution of structures. Hence, this method has been’merely static. ‘This defects of the traditional method were pointed out by a special committee of the American Political Science Association in 1944. As a result, the political theorists started depending more on modern ‘methods, instead of traditional. in the study of comparative government and politics, \ByModerns Method The modern method adopted an analytical and empirical approach in the study of comparative government. The modem theorists-David Easton, Max Weber, Grahm Wallas presented such concepts and doctrines which could result in . The modem method also lays stress on the study of non- formal non-governmental structures. In the modern-method, the study of comparative governments does ‘ot remain confined to European countries but the developing countries of Asia, Africa as well as the Third world countries have also been included in its sphere, The modern method also stresses the use of interdis- Ciplinary methodology in the study of comparative government. The method also makes frequent use of Mathematical and Statistical analysis and also Icans on methods of study of social sciences such as Psychol- ogy, Economics, Sociology, Psychiatry etc. Another Characteristic of the modern methods is that it lays stress on value-free study. The method emphasises on ‘objective. It also stresses the need of conducting “area studies’. In the modern method, dynamic variables ¢.g., political partics, pressure groups, interest ‘groups and their impact on political activity is taken into account. Some approaches have been used in ‘modem method of which the following two are quite important. @ Structure-Functional Analysis: This approach is linked with the name of the Almond. Accord- ing to Almod, many structures, with different functions, make a political system. As the activities are related {0 their results the structures re related to ‘legitimate patterns of interaction’. Hence the study of a struc- tures without relating them to their functional analysis, would be partial and incomplete and far away from Political reality. Gi) Input Output Analysis: This approach is associated with the name of David Easton, According {0 this approach, the working of a political system can be considered analogous to a Computer which has a 3Continuous flow of inputs and outputs. The working of th computer depends on the environmental factors. Inevery, society many demands arises at different times, which get support of various interest groups. These demands when enter the political system, get transformed into many decisions and policies. This is a con- tinuous system. With the passage of time, the output brings a change in the environment which results in new demands. This is called ‘feedback’, Easton has described the above working of the political system with the table given up: . : Environment Environment Asa complement to Easton's above approach, Almod agrees that all political gystems mainly do the Input-Output functions. Almond has described the Input-Output functions by use ff another table given below: : Input functions Output functions Agency to perform 4 1. © Political socialization Rule making Legislature and Recruitment { 2. “Interest articulation Rule application Executive 3. Interest.accumulation Rule adjudicajion Judiciary 4. Political communication Political Parties Utility of Comparative Study of Government and Politics None can deny the utility of comparative Study of government and politics. Through comparative study, we come to know the similarities of various political systems. Without a comparative study, one may not be able to distinguish between the real position of an Indian President from an American President. Only a. comparative method enables us to know the real difference between one-party system of a socialist country and a similar system of a non-socialist country. The comparative study hence removes the apparent similar- ity in various structures of difficult political systems. Only through a comparative study, the real context of political systems can be understood properly. ‘The fact that the pressure-group are more active, articulate, dynamic and powerful in America than in any other country, is because of the distinct relationship between the two houses of American legislauure, lack of coordination between American executive and American legislature. ‘The comparative study has also made the study of Political Science more scientific, One ofthe reasons, rather the only reason to consider Political Science as ‘Science’ ig the use of Scientific method which began with Aristotle and continues even today rather rigorously. ‘The comparative study also helps in the birth of new hypotheses which get continuously tested on the basis of ‘time’, ‘place’ and ‘person’, Blondel mentions some such generalisations which are-true in most of the cases. (i) In a democ-acy, irrespective of the form of govemment, Parliamentary or Presidential, the Executive has more powers than the Legislature. (ii) In any country, at difficult times, there is a tendency of personal rule (iii) In despotic governments, the rule of a particular person or a particular party lasts longer 4then in liberal democracies. (iv) The real rule in any state vests in some classes ¢.g., elites. (v) In countries, where the governments are not respected on there are doubts their legality, there would be.a frequent occurance of military rule. ‘The comparative study has gained importance even in international affairs. When a country devel ops close political links with another country, then through comparative study, variables such as ideology, culture etc. which may effect political relationship between them, are known and always cared for when formulating policies lest it adversely affects the relations of these countries, To conclude, one may agree with G.K. Roberts that, “Comparative polities is everything—or it is nothing. Superficially, there appear to be the only logical positions that can be maintained when considering the relationship of comparative politics to various areas and divisions of the discipline of Political Science.”LESSON 2 MODERN APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS ‘The filed of comparative politics involves the study of the political systems of the world. One has to analyse and compare political frameworks various so as to evolve and articulate more sophisticated, interest- ing, and integrating new concepts and theory building in political science. The subject of comparative poli- tics is considered as one of the seven major fields within the discipline of political science. Other areas are state politics, political theory, public administration, international relations, public law and state and local ‘government. The subject of comparative politics is now in a state of crisis, Lack of precise parameters of its field, criticism of its methodology, absence of a single integrating set of theories on which researches could agree, lack of any clear focus and guidéline, and fragmentation of its area of operation have all contributed {0 the decline of interest in the subject. It is an irony of great tragedy that at a time when international interactions are taking momentus turns of history, fewer students and researches are getting attracted to wards comparativ@politics. In fact, it is very much necessary now at this stage of international politics and relations to have understanding of political contexts and dynamics of international framework. ‘Whatever may be the reasons, until the 1950s comparative politics was never a popular subject. The comparative study then mainly concentrated on the analysis of political systems of the European ‘great, Powers’. The parochial approach of general theorizing about small sample of political systems did not attract Scholars to this field. With the penetration of political discipline by sociological, anthropological, and psy- chological methods and theories, comparative politics became more attractive: The national explosion in the Third World and emergence of communism as a powerful factor both in national politics of newly emergent Political economies and in the international political system made a deep impact on the stutly of comparative Politics. Priority shifted towards the study of cultures, social institutions, social and political structures and Processes, and personality formation and behaviour of political systems of the developing world. Tt was only in the late 1950s and carly sixties that comparative politics became very popular. Many of the ‘major works of intemational fame were written. There was no more confusion and questioning concerning nature and scope of comparative politics. Several factors were responsible for this sudden spurt of interest in comparative politics apart from the factors already mentioned. Increasing involvement of the ‘big’ powers in the politics of developing economies, global preoccupation with various development models, and the growth Of new theories in the field of social sciences increased the scope and range of comparative politics. The scholars became more multifaceted relativistic and less parochial and ethnocentric. Daniel Lerner's. The Passing of Traditional Society, Gabriel Almond and James Coleman's The Politics of the Developing Areas, Traditional Society, Gabriel Almond and James Goleman The Politics of the Developing Areas, Seymour Lipset’s Political Man, David Easton’s The Political System and A Framework for Political Analysis, Robert Dahl's Modern Political analysis and W.W. Rostow’s The Stages of Economic Growth, to mention only a - few, had a major impact on comparative politics. Comparative politics till this period has only concentrated ‘on the study of foreign governmental institutions. For nearly two decades, the field of comparative politics dominated the thinking of intellectuals of various countries. Comparative politics contributed a lot towards innovative research strategies and approaches, To quote Sidney Verba, ‘comparative politics made major strides since the 1950s. But all said the done, unfortunately there has not been much studies on the causes, dynamics and consequences of this trend towards study of developing areas on the analysis of developing ‘economies. # Throughout 1970s not much significant works have becn done. So much so that towards 1980s the State of crisis engulfed the field of comparative politics. Neither the scholars were in a position to define Comparative politic’s parameters precisely not there was any single integrating set of theories on which the scholars could agree. Its methodology was criticised. With the international politics taking a new turn in the early years of 1980s, suddenly the scholars became interested in comparative studies of political systems in different parts of the world. Now there is emphasis on finding out as to how to substitute the single global and integrating theoretical framework of earlicr years with new framework and to understand the biases and 6ethnocentrism of the earlier approaches, increasing assertion of indigenous models of development adopted in the Third World systems, diversity of approaches in the field and their implications of the discipline, and the emergence of new theories and conceptual designs. Its, in fact, being emphasized in the field of com- parative politics to have knowledge of various dimensions of newly emerging disciplinary pluralism. In the 1980s and 1990s, the emphasis is on analysis of newer paradigms are corporatist approach, political economy approach, the dependency approach, non-Western conceptions of change, the Marxian paradigm, and comparative public policy analysis. These are some of the new innovative and provocative directions in the field. In, the words of Howard J. Wiarda, ‘From being dominated by a single integrating theory, the field of comparative politics has become dispersed into what we have called ‘island of theory’. ‘These varied approaches are healthy for the discipline of comparative politics. They ‘reflect realistically the plurality of competing paradigms and the variety of approaches, available, which is itself an accurate por- trayal of the considerable diversity of the world’s political systems and of the method, we must use to understand them.” Instead of finding out some grand, universal framework into which all the world’s political systems must arbitrarily and artificially be forced to fit, emphasis should be to evaluate the several ‘island theory’. Efforts should be to ‘secking to build bridges between them.’ There is now sense in working. fora single common paradigm. Wiarda says, ‘We can constructively develop theory in the several islands of the discipline while we also work at building causedays among these archipelagos.” ‘The horizon of comparative politics is expanding every day. Three main area of the field, political activity political process and political power, are having new dimensions with the growth of state power. To quote Michael Oakeshott, ‘In political activity, then, men sail a boundless and bottomless sea; there is neither harbour nor shelter nor floor for anchorage; neither starting point nor appointed destination’. Politi- cal activities are conditioned by several factors in the life of a political system, The basic aim of all political activities in a state is to make life meaningful and to reduce both infra and extemal tensions in-built in a system. Political process is a process by which state inter-links both state and non-state factors in its decision making activity. Pattem of decision-making process helps in determining legitimacy of the political system. Political power, to quote Allan Ball, is a key concept in the study of politics, for if politics is the resolution of conflict, the distribution of power wishin a political community determines how conflict is to be resolved, ‘and whether the resolution is to be effectively by all parties’, It is very difficult to define the concept of power. Capabilities, conversion functions, system maintenance and adaptation functions of a political system deter- mine its power. Every political scientist and researcher is well aware of association of power with political system. Every political scientist and researcher is well aware of association of power with political system. Harold D. Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan in their book Power and Society (1950) talk of ‘severe depriva- tions’. Max Weber highlights power as a legitimate force that like a thread ‘runs through the actions of the Political system’. On the whole, political power is the capacity to effect the behaviour of another person by the threat of some form of sanction’, The field of comparative politics reflects the board trends of an intellectual assertiveness that it stands for the ‘primary of politics’. So in order to have contemporary comprehension, comparative politics ‘Must widen its area of rescarch. tis strategically situated at the crossroad of politics. So itis essential that it ‘must reach out into the area of international power politics. Interdisciplinary correlation and conceptual differentiation are twin essential factors of comparative politics. Braibanti has produced detailed evidence to ‘demonstrate how radical has been the shift of scholarly auention to the comparative filed in the period 1948- 1966(4).. ‘There have been some debated regarding scope and area of operation of both comparative govern- ‘ment and comparative politics. While some experts have pointed out differences between these two subjects, Others have referred to same area of study. According 10 some scholars, the scope of comparative polities is much wider than that of comparative government. In the discipline of comparative government one studics 4ifferent political systems, their institutions and functions and makes a comparative analysis between these Systems. In case of comparative politics, not only an emphasis is put on comparison son of political institutionsOf different political systems but also an attempt is made to compare the role of on-state politics and institutions. Here, besides, a study of rule-making rule-implementing and rule-adjudicating processes of various political systems, one also studies extra-constitutional developments of sxe Politics such as politioal Parties and pressure Sroups alony, with economic, sociological and Psychological implications of the sys- temic frameworks. Michael Curis is ofthe view that there is a difference betverca comparative government ful analysis requires explanatory hypotheses, the testing of sentiments, categories and classifications by the Collection of empirical data, observation, experimentation if at all Possible, and the use of research tech- niques such as sampling and Communication data to incréase knowledge’. He said that comparative Politics Cannot be reduced to involuntary and automatic responses to various developments in a political system. Cenrceroniclconsides comparaive government to be a study of peters of natal see contemporary world. When vertical and horizontal aspects are taken into consideration while making com- Parison then ‘one strays into the area of comparative politics, In Blondel’s view there is no difference between S. In comparative politics, various analogies between dif. ferent types of political systems are analyzed’ in case of comparative government one studies only Comparative politcal institutions and forms of government. The field of Comparative politics covers all aspects of state system. . People like Allan R. Ball, S.E. Finer and E.A. Freeman do not find any difference between com- Parative politics and comparative government. According to Finer, like comparative politics, in comparative eras ument also emphasis is put on the process of governance, state affairs of the system, analysis of ruling elites, and method of government. Also, in both the fields, informal Political process, i irri The students are now examining the political cultural constraints on development and public policy, Impli- ations of tne role of informal potitical groups as clan, cliques, caste, tribes, and extended fami investigated in the ficld of comparative politics. Analytical investi In the background as such let us now have brief discussion on m: Comparative politics. In the traditional approaches to the study of comparati af the present paper it is not possible to discuss all the modern approaches to the study of comparative Politics. However, we would like to ‘concentrate on some of the 8society through which authoritative allocations are made, Authoritative allocations refer to policy decisions. Ina political system, the authoritative allocations are presented in the formof inputs and outputs. Inputs are ‘demands and supports and output are decisions in a system, Feedback mechanism puts outputs back into the system of inputs. All the demands donot get translated into outputs or decisions. Ludwig von Bertallaanfy elements standing in interactions. These elements are interdependent on each other. According to Robert Dahl, a system could be a part of another bigger system. Then it becomes a sub-system. Morton Kaplan talks about a set of inter-related variables. His ideas are expressed in his book System and Process in International Politics. According to him, international systems. These are balance of power system. loose bipolar system, hierarchical system, universal system and unit veto system. Kaplan has not discussed about behaviour of the ‘states. David Easton like Almind believes that political system operates inside the social system. All po- litical systems are adaptive. He talks about commonality between natural system and political challenged by ‘environments. These challenges are demand stress and support stress. No political system can ever survive without structural base i.e., political parties and other non- institutional arrangements. Both intra-societal forces like elites and powerful groups and extra-social forces like war, poverty and inflations often challenge the very existence of political system. Easton speaks of political like as a system of activity. According to him, ‘When the basic political attachments become deeply rooted or institutionalized, we say that the system hhas become accepted as legitimate. Politicization therefore effectively sums up the way in which legitimacy is created and transmitted in a political system. ‘There are no royal road that could be considered as exclusive on or a correct one. Eugene Mecham said, ‘Like Parsons, Easton does not think of a theory in terms of explanations but in terms of the creation of ‘conceptual framework. The result is highly abstract structure that is logically suspect, conceptually fuzy and ‘empirically almost uscless'. Paul Kress talks about Easton’s theory having no substance and artificial nature of the system, and there is no perspective-oriented thinking. All said and done, Easton has provided a new dimension to the study. Mechan said, “Easton has produced one of the few comprehensive attempts 10 lay foundation for system's analysis in political science and provide a general functional theory of politics*. ‘The structural-functional approach to the study of comparative politics arose as a response to the failings of the institutional approach. The institutional approach, one of the traditional the USA and Europe, In developing countries, the organisation of government is often less specialised and political roles more fluid.’So institutional approach could be of not much use. Both G.A. Almond and G.B. Powell provided the ‘most important analysis of the function of political systems. Although their views have changed over the years, the basic elements of their views still remain the same. They have stressed three functions of the systems as the basic ones. Three functions such as recruitment, socialisation and communication concern the maintenance of the system, Other four functions such as interest articulation, interest aggregation, policy- making and policy-implementation are related to the process by which collective decisions are made and implemented. According to them, this approach provides an objective, standardised and culture-free ap- roach to comparative politics. This approach become popular in 1950s. Radcliffec Brown and Malinowski and Marison Levey Jr. made pioneering research in this field. Later on, Robert Merion made extensive use of this approach. He talked about manifest, latent and dysfunctions in a system. Talcott Parsons made extensive use of this approach. He emphasized the study of basic needs of society and factors of stability in a political system. According to him, equilibrium in a political system could be maintained by taking measures relating to four problems i.c., adaptation, goal attainment, paticrn maintcnance and integration. Mitchell and David Apter supported this approach, = Gabriel Almond, the most important name in this field, talked about four common characteristics Of political systems. These are political structures, some gencral political functions, multifunctional charac- ter and mixed character in the cultural sense. Political sysicms could be compared in terms of their functions. He termed input functions as political and output functions as govemmental. After 1966, Almond empha- sized the role of inter-dependence rather than equilibrium,approach has been criticised for ignoring the centrality of politics to politics, a conflict would lead more naturally to an interest in political change than can easily be accommodated within a functionalist framework, None the less, this approach isan important attempt to broaden the conceptual base of comparative politics. It usefully drew attention to neglected aspect of politics, even though it was too constricting to provide a satisfactory general framework for the study of “ve politics. Behavioural approach developed as a protest movement within the discipline of potiti- {i began in 1920s by a book on Political Behaviour by Frank Kent, a journalist. Itis only after the Second World War this approach became very popular. Robert Dahl believes that factors like role of Charles Merriam in the university of Chicago, impact of Second World War, formation of Social Science Research Council by Herring and the role of institutions like Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundation were responsible for popularsing behavioural approach. Leading names like David Easton, Karl Deutasch, and economists like Anthony Downs, Buchanan and G. Tullock, and David Truman. The behaviourlists believe that there should be a close relation between theory and research. This theory puts less stress on events, structures, institutions and ideologies and more emphasis on empirical analysis behaviour of persons and social groups. They put strsson interdependence. Inter-diseiplinary ap- roach and scientific outlook are highlighted, they donot put emphasis on legal studied and institutional framework. Behaviouralism has been criticised for its emphasis on quantification approach. Some experts have criticised them for their escapist tendencies. Post-behaviouralism as a reform movement grew in mid-sixties. By an irony of fate, David Easton become the worst critic of behaviouralism in mid-sixties. Political scientists became more interested in action oriented research. These critics were not anti-behaviouralists. They simply identified major issues of the day. Behaviouralism was ¢vitjgised for concealing an ideology of empirical conservatisi~, Post- behaviouralism stressed social change, not social preservation. In the words of David Easton, “It docs not seek to return to golden age of political research or in conserve or even to destroy a particular methodological approach, It seeks rather to propel political science in a new tradition.’ The Marxist approach provided a well-developed framework within which comparative politics could be studied. Comtemporary comparative politics is deeply influenced by Marxism. Marx considered the Structure of the state as monolithic and is tied to the interests of the ruling class. He viewed all forms of dominance under the under the state as illegitimate. He advocated the abolition of state and its classes. He understood state as nothing but instrument of coercion. David Easton once wrote that political science as a liscipline owed a lotto Marx for differentiating state and society. Some consider Marxist thought to holistic, broad in range, unified and inter Democratic Limited Monarchy Republic Unitary Federal Unitary Federal Parliatnentary Parliamentary Parliamentray Parliamentary Non-Parliamentary — & Non-Parliamentary _& Non-Parliamentary & Non-Parliamentary Other Modern Classifications In the modern age many political thinkers have classified the government keeping in view certain ideas and ideologies. Some of the important ones are:~ Maclver Classification: Maclver has classified the government on the basis of four factors; these are-constitutional, economic, communal and sovereign. On the other basis of constitution he divides govern- ‘ments into'feuda; economy, capitalist system apd the socialist system. On the communal basis he categorises the government and world government. Keeping sovercign power in mind he divides governments into unitary, federal, empire, colonies and dependencies, (b) David Apter a prominent political thinker of the 20th century has mentioned four kinds of governments i.c., dictatorship, oligarchical governments, indirectly clected representative government and directly representative government, Besides these classifications, some constitutional experts divide the governments in another man- ner. They first of all divide the governments into two categories, Despotism and Democracy. ‘The democratic governments are further divided on the basis of territory, administrative organ’s relationship and ideology. On the basis of administrative organ’s relationship they have been classified into parliamentary and presi dential and on the ideological basis the governments have been categorised into the Liberal and Marxist. ‘This classification can be illustrated with the help of chart:- . Modern State Despotism Democracy Territorial * Administrative Ideological Basis organ’s Basis relationship Unitary Federal Parliamentary Presidential Liberal Marxist 19In the end we may say that whereas Aristole’s model was based primarily on his experience of the city-states of his time, but after some time when democracy became the main form of government in the western world, the tri-partt classification of Aristole lost much of its relevance and this model was later on replaced by Liaoch, Marriot and C.F. Strong who laid emphasis on multi principle models. After the world war II, political thinkers have adopted a more comprehensive framework of analysis. To conclude, one may agree with Robert Dahl that each generation of students of politics will have its own model or models for classifying governments, SEPARATION OF POWERS AND PARLIAMENT AND PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEMS We know that the will of the state is formulated and expressed in the form of laws framed by the legislature. These laws are put into operation by the executive. In case of disputes regarding the violation of laws, the law is correctly interpreted and applied 10 individual cases by the judiciary. Accordingly, the Powers of the government may be grouped into three calegories: (2) legislative, that is making of the laws; Q)executive, which is concemed with the enforcement of laws; and\GYjudicial, where the meaning of the Jaws in interpreted and applied to individual cases. The organs performing these functions in a state are known as the legislature, the executive and judiciary respectively. The question to be determined is whether, and to what extent, these powers should be combined in one and the same person or body of persons, or ‘should be entrusted to three separate agencies, each independent of the other. The Principle that these func- tions should be performed by different bodies of persons which should be independent within their own sphere of authority is called the theory of separation of powers. Origin of the Theory The idea of the three-old classification of governmental powers is very old one. Aristole was the pioneer in the field of classification of state powers. In his book “Politics” he divided the various function of the government into deliberative, magisterial and judicial, The scope of deliberative functions, according to Aristole, was very wide. It include law-making (unctions as well as political questions. Magisterial function ‘was understood by Aristole as executive function, and the judicial function was primarily concerned with the interpretation of law, and its application to individual cases. Although Aristole pleaded for separation of powers, in actual practice there was no clearcut demar- cation, In the Roman Empire and the Medieval Word the idea of separation of powers disappeared, It was revived in the fourteenth century by masrsiglio who made a clear distinction between the legislative and executive functions of the government. In the sixteenth century, Jean Bodin explained the need for separat- ing the judicial and executive functions of the government, He advised that judicial functions should be entrusted to independent magistrates. In the seventeenth century in England, James Harrington urged for a clear separation of the executive and legislative functions of the government, During the same century, John Locke in “Two Treatises of Government” made a classification of the three powers-legislative, executive and federative. The last power was understood by him as the power relating to the conduct of foreign relations. The theory of separation of powers has been elaborated with clarity by the French scholar, Montesquieu in his book “The Spirit of Laws” (1748). Monstesquicu deserves the credit of forsnukiting this theory in clear terms and improving upon the statement of the theory by his predecess.s:. He lives! in the times of Louis XIV, who combined in his person all the three powers and his powers and authority wals subject to no challenge. The people of France during this period lived under an oppressive and tyrannical rule and enjoyed no liberty worth the name. Montesquicu paid a visit to England and was greatly impressed by the environ- ment of freedom prevailing there. He compared the despotism of France with the rule of law in England and he thought that the secret of Englishm liberty was the scparation and independence of three departments of government fron: Tt may, however, be noted that Motesquieu had clearly misconceived the true nature of the § ‘ution and confused separation of functions with separation of powers. Monstesquiew kowe od that there could never be any liberty for the citizen if the legislative, judicial and executive jo: cis were concentrated in one and the same hand, In his classic statement of the theory for separation of powers Montesquicu writes, “When the Leytislative and executive powers are united 20in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, and executive them in a tyrannical manner, Again, there is no liberty if the judicial power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of subjects would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression. There ‘would be an end to everything, wee the same man, or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, ‘exercise, those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the cases of individuals.” ‘The idea contained in the above statement is that concentration of the legislative, executive and judicial powers in the hands of the same person is highly dangerous and would result in the establishment resulting in the loss of individual liberty. If legislative and executive powers are united in the same authority, there is an apprehension that same person will enact tyrannical laws and executive them in a tyrannical ‘manner. If legislative functions and judicial functions are mingled together, justice is not likely to be admin- istered impartially because the judge will give biased judgment. Again, if the executive and judicial powers are vested in the same authority, life and liberty of the citizen would be exposed to arbitrary control because the judge would become the oppressor. If all these powers are concentrated in the same authority, there will be an end of all liberty. Similarly, seventeen years later Blackstone, an English Jurist, gave expression to similar views in “Commentaries on the laws of England”. He writes, “In all tyrannical governments the supreme magistracy, or the right both of making and of enforcing the laws, is vested in one and the same man, or one and the same body of men; and wherever these two powers are united together, there can be no public liberty. The magis- trate may enact tyrannical laws, and execute them in a tyrannical manner, Were it (the judicial power) joined with the legislative, the life, liberty and property of the subjects would be in the hands of arbitrary judges whose decisions would be regulated only by their opinions, and not b fundamental principles of law.” According to Madison, one of the Founding Fathers of the American Constitution: “The accumulation of all Powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of a few, or many and whether self appointed; hereditary or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” The Interpretation of Montesquieu’s Theory The lasting controversy that is agitating the minds of the students of Political Science since long, whether Montesquicu, the author of the modern theory of separation of powers and his followers contem- plated an absolute or only a limited separation of the powers. According to Herman Finer, Montesquieu wanted a separation of powers within the structure of governments so that one power may be a check on the other; he never desired complete or absolute separation of powers but wanted only to modify the concentra- tion of powers. To quote Professor Finer, “Monstesquieu was searching for means to limit the Crown, to ‘make the constitution; build canals through which, but not over which power should stream, to create canals as intermediary bodies, to check and balance probable despotism, and yet he did not wish to fly to the extreme of democracy,.” He substantiates his statement from the study of “The Spirit of Laws.” A person who has complete executive power should not exercise whole power of legislative depart- ‘ment. Similarly, the king who is the sole executive magistrate should not possess the complete legislative Power or the supreme administration of justice. However, partial control of a department over the acts of another department in not rules out by Montesquicu. G.H. Sabine sums up Montesquieu’s position thus; “Montesquiew did not really contemplate an absolute separation of the three powers; the legislative ought to ‘meet at the call of the executive; the executive retains a veto on legislations, the legislature ought to exercise ‘extraordinary judicial powers.” Influence of Montesquieu’s Theory Montesquicu’s theory of separation of powers produced a great democratic appeal for people who Suffered from any kind of tyranny. The theory became an article of faith with liberal political writers of the aeighteenth century, and influenced the political thought of subsequent centuries. Although the British Constitu- tion was not based on the theory for separation of powers, the point which was highlighted about it at that time, was that there was balance of power between the King and two Houses of Parliament and none of the three powers was supreme over the others and the judiciary was to a large extent, independent from the remaining two. The U.S. Constitution of 1787 was deeply influenced by the theory which embodied it in a modified form, Later on, when the French Revolution took place in 1789, leaders in France started drawing up constitution on the assumption that every society, in which separation of power is not determined has ‘no constitution and liberty. ‘Montesquieu's observation about the British Constitution however was not correct. The truth is that this theory was never enshrined in the British Constitution, which is based on the principle of close relations between the legislative and executive powers. The Cabinet which has full control over the executive consists of members of Parliament. Itis collectively responsible to the House of Commons. As head of the executive departments, the ministers initiate legislation also, The House of Lords, the upper chamber of the British Parliament is still in fact the final court of appeal for Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Lord Chancel- lor, who is a member of a Cabinet, is also the President of the House of Lords and the Court of appeal. he is also a member of the Judicial committee of tie Privy Council. Instead of separation of powers what we have in England is a basic differentiation ofthe three functions, legistatve, executive and judicial. But unfort nately Montesquieu could not perceive it clearly. Criticism of the Theory It will be seen that in actual organisations of government, the theory of like human of powers is modified to a great extent. This is bound to be so because government like human is an organic unity and it is impossible to attempt to complete demarcation of powers. A rigid separation of powers will prevent unity of coordination in government which is necessary for the smooth functioning of the governmental machin- ery. As pointed out by Woodrow Wilson, “government is not a body of blind forces it is a body of men, with highly differentiated functions. Their cooperation is indispensable, their warfare fatal.” This quotation ex- plains that the government is a body of men, with differentiated functions (legislative, executive, and judi- cial) but with a common task and their harmonious cooperation is necessary for its success. As the various functions of the government are interrelated, a strict line of separation cannot be drawn, An attempt to make a rigid separation of powers would lead to friction and a breakdown of govern- mental machinery. In the U.S.A. where the executive cannot participate in law-making, deadlock frequently tise between the two'branches of the government. There is often clash between Congress and the President in the United States. This clearly shows that close cooperation between law-making and law enforcing authority is indi sable for keeping the wheels of governmental machinery moving. The growth of the Party system has, in actual practice, brought the executive and the legislature in close relationship with each other. If the political party to which the President belongs has majority in a Congress, the laws desired by the President and administration may easily be enacted. Another criticism is that the theory assumes that the three organs of the government are co-equal. ‘This is not true. The legislative body is superior to the exccutive and the judicial organs because it represents the people. ‘The theory is attacked both by the authoritarian and the democrats. Dictators believe in the unity and oneness of the powers. The Soviet writcr Vyshinsky observes, “From top to botlom the Soviet social ‘order is penctrated by the single general spirit of the oneness of authority of the toilers. The programme of the All Union Communist Party rejects the bourgeois principle of separation of Powers”. According to Soviet Writers there are class divisions in capitalist countries and Montesquieu developed the theory of separation of powers to limit the power of the higher class i.e. the class of exploiters. In the former Soviet Union, according to them, there were no class conflicts and hence there was no nced to limit the power of one branch of the government by the. other. 2‘The modern democrats object to the theory because of the concept of the welfare state, Montesquieu developed the theory at a time when it was thought necessary to resirict the power of the goverment. That government was deemed to be the best which governed the least. Today the sphere of the state activity has greatly expanded and we expect from the government too many functions. With the growth of social welfare legislation, the executive has been vested with the functions not only of making regulations to fulfill the law but also with power to take decisions which are of a judicial nature. In modem states ‘merabers of adminis- trative authorities that have been set up are given powers to decided ;disputes between the citizens and the administration. This has been done because the judicial process, followed by the courts is not suited to the task of the administration, If administrative dispute were let to be scitled by the courts of law, administration will stop functioning. Again the theory assumed that individual liberty is dependent on the separation of powers. This is not true, In England people enjoy a grcat measure of freedom but there is no separation of powers. They have 4 parliamentary system of government based on the concentration of legislative and executive powers. Indi- vidual liberty depends not only on the external arrangements like separation of powers but on the spirit of the people, their traditions, the socio-economic conditions of the country and a variety of other factors. Evaluation of theory The theory of separation of powers should not be construed to mean, that there is no relationship between the three organs of the government. It was not the intention of Montesquicu to advocate rigid separation of powers. He wanted to provide a safeguard for his people against the despotic French ruler. He thought that in England people were enjoying real measure of freedom due to separation of powers, In fact, as pointed out above, in England, there was no such separation of powers. There should not bbe concentration of all the three functions of the government in the hands of one person or the same body of persons. In some states there is concentration of powers in the hands of the same body persons. This had led to the growth of dictatorship in those states We may mention that in government which is an organic unit, there cannot be rigid separation of powers, There should be differentiation of functions of government. But a certain degree of harmony among the various organs of goverment is to be maintained for its smooth functioning. The system of judicial review, that is, the power of the courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and administrative acts, is very necessary for controlling the executive arbitrariness. Montesquieu himself was particularly interested in the judicial power acting as a check on the other two branches of government. PARLIAMENTARY AND PRESIDENTIAL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT Modern governments may be classified on the basis of concentration of power, participation of people in the government, division of power between the gentre and the regions and relationship between the legisiature and the executive, Now we will discuss the parliamentary and Presidential forms of Goverament which are classified on the basis of relationship between the legislature and the executive. In a parliamentary form of government, there is very close relationship between the executive and legislature. It is that form of government in which the executive is responsible to the legislature for it political policies and public actions. Itremains in office so Tong as WenpOys te conTdchce of Tegislature, On Une ober and: ie rOSTCHT Toes of government is based on the theory of separation of powers , therefore the executive and legislative depart- ‘ments are largely independent of one another, bul cach exercises checks on the powers of the other in order to make the power limited, controlled and differed. Here the head of the executive has a fixed tenure and is ot responsible to the legislature;hence it is known as non-parliamentary or non-responsible form of govern- ment also, The office of the President in such a system of government goes by calendar. Parliamentary Form of Government Parliamentary for of government is known as Cabinet or responsible form of government Garner defies it as, lich the real cabinet or mini isi i Jegall; responsible to fhe legislawure h of it (usually the more popular Chamber) for its political policies Band acts and mediately or politically responsible to the electorate.” This form of government developed first of all in the United Kingdom as a result of conditional struggles between the Kings and the Parliaments during the last three hundred years. Since then it has been adopted with some modifications by marly other countries like Canada, Australia ad India. In this system of government there is a titular or nominal head of the state and there is a real executive. The real executive is normally the Council of Ministers or the Cabinet headed by the Prime Minister. & Prete ‘This body (Council of Ministers headed by rime Minisicr) is immediately and legally responsible 10 the legislature, usually to the popularly elected chamber, for its policies and acts. In England the Cabinet is responsible to the House of Commons, and in India to the Lok-Sabha. The titular or the nominal executive as the head of the State, is legally vested with all the executive powers. But, in practice all these powers are exercised by the Council of Ministers or the Cabinet in his name. In actual working of the government position of head of state is purcly nominal. For example in England, the Queen is the nominal head of the State and the real executive is the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Similarly in India the cabinet headed by the Prime Minister exercises all the executive powers and the President is merely a titular head of the State. Secondly, the Cabinet is a small body of persons selected from among the members of the majority party or parties of the legislature. The Cabinet ministers are usually members of the legislature and remain in office so long as they enjoy the confidence of the legislature. In other words, Cabinet or the Council of Ministers remains in office till they retain majority in the popular chamber. As members of legislature, they usually have the privilege of a seat in it and a right of participating in its deliberations and voting. The members of the cabinet, collectively constitute the government. They determine the policy, prepare, initiate and pilot their projects for legislative acceptance. From their seats in the legistature, the members of the cabinet answer questions and defend their policies from attack from opposition. Individually, they are heads of departments and leaders of the majority party in the legislature. Thirdly, all the members of the ministry or the cabinet are usually drawn from a single political party, generally the one having a majority in the legislature. Political homogeneity is an important factor in the cabinet system. It is responsible for not only linking the executive with the legislature but also for the successful working of the system itself. Harmonious working of the cabinet will be very difficult if they are drawn from different political parties embracing conflicting ideologies and practicing varied political faiths. If there is political homogeneity, the cabinet nearly always has a well-Knit majority in the legislature to support its programmes. The Cabinet in fact remains in office.so long as it enjoys the confidence of the legislature. In the event of a loss of confidence in the cabinet expressed by the legislature through a vote of non-confidence or by a refusal to pass the measures that the Cabinet proposes or grant the money it asks, the Cabinet resigns or advises to dissolve the chamber to which it owes responsibility and orders fresh election. If the same party again gets majority in that chamber it will continue office otherwise it is forced to resign and the ministry will be formed by the other party getting majority. sige Finally, the cabinet functions collectively like a team, the ministers acting under the leadership of the Prime Minister. All ministers sink or swim together. As leader of the cabinet, the Prime Minister deter- mines the main policies, presides over the meetings of the cabinet, supervises and coordinates the work of the ministry. In fact, the formation of the ministry begins with the appointment of the Prime Minister. ‘Though Primus-inter-pares (j.c., the first among equals), in the Cabinet. He is the real chief executive, As has been rightly said, “he is central to its birth, central to its life and central to its death.” As the leader of the ‘majority party in the legislature, he controls its party machinery in the legislature and acts as the leader of the House. Merits of Parliamentary Form of government The chief merit of the parliament system of government is that it ensures the legislature and the executive, From the first to the last there is intimate collaboration between law making and law enforcing functions which result sin great deal of smoothness and efficiency. Besides, the presence of the Cabinet in the legislature with the constant majority support for its acts, gives an effective direction to 4law making in the legislature, Further the Cabinet system, has a more effective yovision for ibility of the executive to is and it to the electrocrate, In this way, recognises the ultimate sovereignty of the people. The Executive here is constantly subject to the control of the representatives of the electrocrate which prevents it from acting arbitrarily. The Government rem: ins in office so long as it enjoys the confi i \is make flexible and elastic. Demerits “The cabinet or the parliamentary system is criticised for violating the theory of separation of paw ers. As already explained, the legislature and the executive work in close co-ordination with each other in this system of government, In fact, executive is legally responsible to the legistawure. The combination of legislative and’ executive power in one person or body of persons can lead to passage of tyrannical laws which can be executed in a tyrannical manner. ‘Moreover, the harmony between the executive and the legis- Tature takes away the efficiency the because the ministers are distracted from their executive duties by the amount of legislative work imposed upon them. ‘Secondly, the Cabinet system of government is said to be unstable since its term of office depends upon the mood of the legislature. Due to instability of the government, there cannot be @ continuity and ‘consistency of policy in this system. Thirdly, ,opposition parties 100 frequent move of the ruling party simply f oat Fourthly, the Cabinet system of government is said to be government by amateurs, which is another way of saying.that itis inefficient. Fifthly, the growth of party system and the rigid party discipline has reduced the parliamentary form of government to a mere party government. Finally, this system lacks prompiness and vigour in taking immediate action in ties of crisis and ‘emergency. Presidential Form of Government ‘The Presidential form of government on the other hand, is based on the principle of separation of powers, The legislature and executive branches of government are independent in their spheres subject tothe checks each power exercises over the other. The head of the State under this system is not a pominal head but real head of the executive. The United Stated of America has adopted the Presidential type of government where executive powers of the State are vested with the President. In this system the chief executive may act through the agency of minister or secretaries, as they are called in the U.S.A. but they are not responsible to the legislature. Ministers arc, thus merely his assistants and are usually chosen by him from his own party. ‘They are not members of the legislature and above no right to sit or speak in it. ‘The chief executive too is neither a member of the legislature nor has the right to participate in its proceedings. He is also not dependent upon the legislature for the continuity of his tenure which is fixed. A special procedure of impeachment is provided to remove him on grounds specified in the constitution. The islature and the executive may, in fact, a i litical parties at the same tiie, Under such circumstances the two branches may find themselves at loggers heads. The executive, thus, does not provide leadership to the legislature by preparing initiating and piloting legislative projects. “Thus the ministers under this system are politically, not to the legislature, but solely to the chief executive They are only administrative heags and not legislative leaders. ‘who may dismiss them at his own will. The slative leaders. They do not resign if their measures are defeated in the legislature. ‘The merits and demerits of the presidential government are exactly opposite of the merits and demerits of the parliamentary form of govemment. 25Merits \UFtrst of all, Presidential system of government, without being responsible to the legislature, retains a represeniative character. The President is elected by the people in the manner iti laid down in the const tution.sBécondly, it ensures the stability of government. The President is elected for a fixed term with the possibility of being re-elected which ensures continuity of policy and a great scase of stability idly it is pore suitable for emergencies. Emergencies require vigorous policy and quick action. There being a single individual armed will all powers, here is vigour in action and promptness of decision in this systemSBeathly, the Presidential system is of great advantage to states with diverse interest and cultures. Eiftily, the ministers fare not obliged to put in constant attendance in the legislature is comparatively free from party spirit with the result that members of the legislature under this system function more independently. Demerits First of allthis system-appears to be autocratic and dangerous because the President is empowered to exercise his powers at his will, although within the framework of constitution. Secondly, it often leads 10 ‘conflicts and deadlocks between the executive and the legistauure. The executive lacking initiative in legis- Tation leads to the dissiption of energy. The deadlocks between the executive and the legislature are more fften when the two branches are controlled by different political parties. Thirdly, its rigidity does not permit the country to keep pace with the time. The presidential system of government is rigid in character, It cannot tbe moulded easily to the changing circumstances. Fourthly, according to Bryce, the existence of multiple ‘committee system in the legislaure results in dclay, confusion and working at cross purposes. Filthly, the separation of powers has turned out in practice tobe the forcible disjunction of things naturally connected. Finally, the presidential system of government Icaves more to chance than the Cabinet system. ‘Comparison In the presidential form of government, the chief executive is not a titular head as is the case in a parliamentary form of government, The executive powers ofthe government are vested in him both in law ee well as in reality. In parliamentary form of government, on the other hand, the head of the state and the head of the government are two different functionaries. The Prime Minister is the head of government. The ‘Queen in Britain and the President in India are nominal heads of their states respectively. Secondly the presidential system is based on the theory of separation of powers whereas the parliamentary government lands for the fusion of powers. Thirdly, inthe presidential form of government the chief executive is consti- tutionally independent of legislaure. He cannot be removed from office by the vote of no-confidence in the legislature. Inthe parliamentary form of government uhe Cabinet is dependent on legislature and ean be removed from office by passing a vote of no-confidence. Fourthly, uke Cabinet in the presidential system is the creation of the President. The members of Cabinet are responsible to him and not to the legistature. They are not members ofthe legislature, they initiate all important measurcs and al that they want is passed by the Tegislature, Lasly in presidental system, the tenure of the chief executive, is fixed. A special procedure of impeachment is provided lo remave him from office on specified grounds. In parliamentary form of gov: ‘emment, the tenure of the cabinet depends upon the mood of the legislature. It remains in office so long as it tenjoys the confidence of the legislature which means the majority support of the legislature, TERRITORIAL DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS : UNITARY AND FEDERAL SYSTEMS “The modern world is sub-divided into a number of states and one of the attributes of a state is the possession of ‘territory’. The stat, thus, i a territorial community. The question that arises is as to how best the territory of the state is managed and governed : Whether to govern it from a single undivided centre or ‘whether to bifurcate and divide authority between the centre (the federal or the national or the-eentral government) onthe one hand and the territorial sub-division (the units or the provinces) on the other. There fre therefore, two and the other, the federal. The unitary method implies a complete concentration of politi- tal authorities in the hands of some central organ while in a federation there is always the division of authority ie. the division of powers between the central organ and the units. 261. Unitary and Fedral Systems ‘The unitary and federal systems stand opposite to cach other. In a Federation, there must be @ division of authority between the centre and the federating units, but while in a unitary state, the units may be created (as have actually been created in countries like Great China or Japan) and the powers may be delegated to such units such delegation of powers to the units is purely voluntary, i.e. depending upon the will of the centre. In a federation, there has to be decentralization of powers and as such, there has to be a dual set of political authority one for the centre and another for the states or the units. The division of powers, in any federation between the central organ and federating is not the result of any voluntary consent of the centre. It has, rather, to be compulsarily then and that too through the medium of the fundamental law of the land-the Constitution. So the basic difference between the Federal state and the Unitary state lies in the Jegal relationship between the centre is supreme, its authority is unchallenged and which is fully and legally ‘competent to take back the powers, if any, delegated to the units. In practice in every unitary state there is delegation of powers to its units. It may be that the units of the unitary state may enjoy some posers of far~ reaching consequence than those enjoyed by the units ina federation, The test of federalism does no: necesarily Jie in the quantum of authority enjoyed by the units of the federation it lies in the legal status of the units. ‘The unitary state, therefore, is one, as Herman Finer says, in which all authority and powers are Jodged in a single centre whose will is supreme and the units arc the agents of the powerful central govern ment. Professor Dicey, while expressing his opinion about the units state, had much earlier held that the unitary government is the habitual exercise of supreme legislative authority by one central power. As against this, the federation is one Finer holds, in which part of authority and power is vested in the local areas i.e. the units while another part is vested in a central institution, Professor Gamer makes the point clear when he says, ‘Federation is a system of central and local governments combined under a common sovereignty, with the central and local organisation being supreme within definite spheres, marked out for them by general constitutions or by the act of parliament which creates the system. Federalism is comparatively a later idea, It was not in existence as the term is used in the modern sense before 1787 when the American federation was born. It is after the creation of the American federation and particularly after the success of that experiment in America, that federalism gota going, Hence came the other federations, notably, the Swiss Fedcration (1848) the German federation (1971) the Canadian federa- tion (1872) the Australian federation (1901), the South African federation (1902) the Australian federation (1901) the South African federation (1902), the Soviet federation (first in 1924 and then through the consti- tutions in 1936 and 1977 and the Indian federation (1950). + IL, Pre Requisites of a Federation ‘There are, usually, two methods by which a federation may be formed : €-centripetal method or the mentioned of centralisation, and ¥i)Centrifugal method or the method of decentralisation. According to the first method, the method through which the Americans, the Swiss and the Australian federations were formed, i.e. a number of separate and independent e together duc to whatever motive and formed ‘a close knit union by means of a-writien Consttutfo other hand. Centrifugal method means the formation of active consent of independent states on the Centripetel method is Such that an already existent unitary state ‘when it surrenders certain powers in favour of the units the states or the provinces, by means of the constitu tions. This method was followed in the formation of the former Soviet and Indian federation unitary state means one state, but itis a composite state, which is based on the principle of unity. The federal state, on the ‘contrary, is based on the twin principle of unity in diversity. Federation creates due! polity-centre and units- each autonomous within their respective spheres sct by Constitution. . ‘A federation can be formed only if there are a number of contiguous sovereign states having certain ‘common elements of bonds, certain affinities, certain indentities, certain likeness certain similarities. Iden- tity of economic interests among the federating units, quite often, help much in the information of a federa- tion, It is desirable that the people should have a common spirit of nationality if federation is to be a success. aFinancially viable systems alone assure the success all, there has to be a desire for the union by the units intending to form the federation. The desire is for the union and for the unity. TIL Fundamentals of Federation ‘A federation needs to have certain features, Some of the most important are given below. ‘SUPERMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION : A federation comes into being or is created by means of a constitution. A constitution is always written ; That, in a federation, the constitution is always written; ‘There is no existing federation in the world that has an unwritten constitution. If a federation is based entirely on the unwritten constitution or on understanding alone, it will give rise to misunderstand- ings between central government and various political units leading to complications and resulting in too much work for the judiciary. Hence in a federation the written constitution is not only desirable but it is indispensable. (i) That, in federation, the constitution is rigid ; Federation and a flexible constitution are not good companions. If the constitution is flexible, it may be changed easily by any party in majority in the central legislature which may so amend the constitution that the centre is empowered with more and more authority at the cost of the units. The main idea of federalism is the existence of dual polity with well defined powers given to-each pariner of the federation. Any change in the framework of the already demarcated sphere of activity between the centre and the units must require the approval of both the partners of the federation. (iii) That all legislative bodies, central, state or local, are subordinate to the constitution which is supreme, Ina federation, no law-making body can be supreme in the sense the British parliament is. The concentration of authority in any single branch of government (whether of the centre of the units) means negation of federation and that virtually means the establishment of the unitary government, Because the area of authority of both the centre and the state is demarcated by the constitution all legislative bodies, central or state or even local, are therefore, bodies which have to work within the framework of their demar- cated fields. They all act within their boundaries establishment by the constitution. None of them is sover- eign Sovercigprf lies in the Constitutions, i a POSITION OFTHE JUDICIARY : In a federal system, the judiciary occupies a position of great prominence, so much so, the that we can go to the length of saying that the judiciary is Superior to the legislative. In a federation, the judiciary happens to be the task-master of the other two departments to of the government. ‘The supremacy of the constitution generally implies the supremacy of the judiciary. It is essential in every federation that three must be some departments of the central government having the power to interpret the provisions of the constitution to maintain the distribution of powers between the central govern- ‘ment and ihe states units an that department is the judiciary. Any law whether passed by legislature of central government or unit that violates any provision of the constitution has to be declared null and avoid (unconstitutional or invalid) if, the constitution is to be upheld. Such a power of declaring the laws as ‘unconstitutional is vested in the judiciary. This power is commonly known as the power of judicial Reviews of judiciary. But by implicit implication of the American constitution, the Supreme Court of the USA was able to grab this powers judicial review : For the first time, the American supreme Court exercised this power in Marbury Vs. Madison case in 1803. The Swiss constitution does not empower the Swiss federal court to declare laws of the Federal Assembly as ultra virus, for such a power has been given to the people who can reject a law through referendum. The Swiss federal court however, can invalidate the central laws if they go against the provision of the Swiss constitution. Significantly, the former Soviet Supreme Court did 28not the power of judicial review. ‘The judiciary. in any ideal federation, becomes the interpreter and protector of constitution if it enjoys judicial review power. Itis through this power that the judiciary is authors to clarify all ambiguities, to remove all doubts, 10 say authoritatively as to what phrase or clause of the central or state authorities within the four walls of the constitution or what is not, in this sense the judiciary, in a federation, becomes the guardian of the constitution. Dicey made, probably very correctly, these remarks about the American Supreme Court when he said, “The Supreme Court of the United States is not only the interpreter and the guardian of the constitution of America, it has become the master of the Constitution of America, \Uef DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS : Indeed, the territorial distribution of powers is the essential hall-mark of a federation. In one sense, it is because of the distribution of powers between the Central ‘nd the units that,a federation comes into being, and thus it is the very basis of the federal idea. Powers are divided between the centre and the states. But how does this division occur ? Generally the basic principle that is followed with regarded to the division of power in a federation is that those subjects or powers in which uniformity of law and administration is desirable, are given to the centre. While, on the contrary, those subjects concerning with diversities of disparities are not only permis- sible but are even desirable and with regard to which not uniformity of law and administration is required, they are given to the federating units. The central subjects include usually items like peace, war, diplomacy, currency, coinage, means of transport and communication etc. The subjects for the federating units include mainly law and order, judiciary, administration, local administration, agriculture, etc. ‘There are certain subject concerning which different federation follow different practices. For ex- ample, the subjects like criminal law which, according to the American constitution is within the jurisdic- tion of the states, in Canada and in Switzerland, this is the subject with the central government. With regard to the division of powers, federations have generally been divided into two separate categories. The first type of federation is the American federation and the second type of federation is the Canadian federation, In the American Constitution, the powers of the federal government have been enu- merated and all 15 are allocated to the states. In America the competence of the central government bas been posively Scena wile Ws of th sas is imiudly determined Swiss and the former Soviet federations also follow the American model. The Canadian constitution specifically mentions the powers of the Canadian provinces and at the same time, it confers specific powers on the Canadian central government by few concurrent powers, notably education and agriculture, over th 1o this division of powers, the Canadian Consti- Jentral iment. The: (d) OTHER FEATURES : Among other features of a federation, mention can be made mainly to the representation (preferable uniform) of the federating units in the upper chamber of the Central legisla ture, dual citizenship, dual Judiciary, dual sct of services and the life. Since the unitary and federal systems stand opposite to cach other, the features, which are essential for a federal system are not necesarily essential for a unitary system. There may be a unitary system with or without a written constitution. The British Constitution is a unitary system with an unwritten constitution while the People’s Republic of China is unitary with a written constitution. The rigidity of the constitution is a precondition of a federal system whereas such a rigidity is not required for a unitary system. In Great Britain, no distinction is made between a constitutional law and an ordinary law. The division of powers, in a federation, as explained earlier, is done in accordance with the provision of the constitution and as such a special status is given to federating units. But in unitary system, the units of the unitary goverment, do not posses any special or constitutional status for they do not have power by reason of the Constitution. The units Of the unitary system get powers due to the sweet will or the mercy of the central government. It is not necessary that the judiciary be granted the power of Judicial review in a unitary system notwithstanding the Power of judicial review with the Japanese Supreme Court. Similarly, the dual citizenship, the dual set ofservices or the dual Judiciary need not be essential for a unitary system, for such a system establishes a single undivided system of government. But in a federation, because of decentralisation of power, a dual polity becomes almost.a necessity, IV Unitary and Federal Systems-An Evaluation The unitary system is best suited is best suited to a small-sized country, in which the spirit of nationalism is very strong and effective, the unitary system strengthens and creates still further the bounds of national units. The unitary system is comparatively flexible and as such keeps pace with time, if not ahead of it It provides a strong government strong enough to meet the exigencies of war and emergencies. It also Provides a simpler type of government than the one in any federation. Unlike a federation, the unitary system does not have the problems like the dual allegiance, diversity of laws and of administration. But then, a unitary system does suffer from many disabilities as well. It creates more burden upon the central govern- ment in whose hand all authority is concentrated and the centre has to attend all problems, major or minor. This results, usually, in apoplexy and paralysis at the centre. Also, the unitary system kills the spirit of localism. there is so much of concentration of authority in unitary system that the saying goes that if Paris sneezes the whole of France gets cold. Federalism, on the contrary, is suited to large-sized countries with heterogeneous population hav- ing a variety of diversities. As the federation comes to stay, these diversities, through the process of union and unification, tend to be rubbed off. Federalism is the road to prosperity as well. If, for example, the thirteen states, which by their combined action won independence from the United Kingdom at the end of the eighteenth century, had not joined the American federation and if every one of them had stayed indepen- dent and sovereign, then would they have been as prosperous as they happen today? Obviously not, because federalism means removal of trade and commerce barriers and tariff wal! . There is also a saving of expen- diture, particularly forces which may be beyond the financial resources, particularly of the small states to maintain. Small states can ill-afford the luxrics of having embassies, maintaining a huge army, navy and airforce. Federalism is also a guarantce for a diffused system of polity. It prevents the rise of despotism because unlike a unitary system, a federation is based on the decentralisation of powers. But sce the demerits, a federal system provides a weak government, for the revolution of power ultimately leads to rivalry between against itself, It is also a premium on litigation and there is too much burden thrown upon the Judiciary which is called upon to discharge oner. sibilities. Because the federal system provides the power of judicial review for the Judiciary, the role of judges runs conirary to the democratic system when they declare the laws passed by the representatives of the people as invalid. The distribution of powers as the soul-feature of federalism, quite often, leads to division of responsibilities. The irksomeness, the delay, the waste, all these are inevitably involved in a dual system of government. V. Centralising Tendencies in Federations In whatever manner the power may originally be distributed in a federation, subsequently these days, the centre trends to become more and more powerful at the expense of the federating units, There has always been a tendency towards centralisation in all the federations in the 20th Century. This has happened in the United States of America, Switzerland, Australia, the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics India, and it may thus be said practically in the case of every federation. The centralising tendencies in modern federations may be due to modern complexities of life. The centralising tendencies, in any federa- tion, may be summed up because of the following factors. (a) Primacy of the National Law: Federation always implics a dual polity. It always means dual types of laws, central as well as states laws, The constitution of every federation provides for the primacy of national law over the law passed by the federating units in case of a deadlock between the two. The state or the unit law is, usually, considered inconsistent and therefore, illegal to the extent it comes into clash with the central law. The primacy of the central law over the stale law process, beyond any doubt, shows the ‘cenuralising tendency common in any federation. 30ion of Powers: Federation implies distribution of powers. It demarcates areas both for the centre and the units, The distribution, so made, favours the centre. A glance at the Soviet Constitution shows that almost all items of national importance have been placed under the Jurisdiction of the central government of the USSR and items with no significance have been given to the federating Republics. The Constitution of India, through its Seventh Schedule, gives 97 items to the Central Government as against 66 items to the states, (©) Concurrent Jurisdiction: For all practical purposes, the concurrent Jurisdiction is the common Jurisdiction of the centre and the units in any federation that makes a provision for it. In the Australian Constitution, under the concurrent jurisdiction the central government as well as the unit government make laws over any item of the concurrent list, the central law would have primacy over the law passed by the units. So runs the provision with regard to the concurrent items in Switzerland. The Indian Constitution empowers both the centre and the states to legislate power items of the concurrent list. It also provides that if there is a clash between the central law and the state law over any concurrent item, the state laws stands void to the extent it contravenes the central law. (@) Amending Procedure: The easy method of amending the constitution particularly when only the central legistature is empowered to participate in the amendment of the constitution, helps the centre 10 grab more powers. Such a method makes it quite convenient, at any time whenever a need arises, to bestow larger powers on the centre at the expense of the units. The Republics in the Ex-USSR, (i,c,m the units of the USSR) under article 174, did not participate in the amendment of the constitution of the USSR, itis the only the Supreme Soviet, i.c., both the houses of the ‘Supreme Soviet of the USSR which is the central agency that cam amend or change any provision of constitution and thus can enhance the powers of the centre, The central legislation in India also has a decisive hand in the amendment procedure. (c) Means of Transport and Communication: The development of quick means of transport and communication, which, in course of time, tends to bring greater understanding also strengthens the hands of national government of the federation. This not only increases powers of the centre but also enhances its influences as well. The centre tends to pay the role of the philosopher-guide while it supervises the activities of the federating units, (f States Unequal to National Government: The federating units are smaller governments with smaller functions while the centre is authorised to perform bigger responsibilities than the one performed by the units. The official attached to the centre are comparatively more experienced, more mature and more able than those under the state governments. Iis, therefore, very common for the states to scek the guidance and advice of the centre and quite often request the centre to solve its problems through the central officials

You might also like

• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (5814)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brene Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1092)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (845)
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (609)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1717)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (590)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1104)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (897)
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (540)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2104)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (348)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1018)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (474)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (822)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1866)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (271)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (122)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (441)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Tóibín

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (1947)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (401)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (4770)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2259)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (807)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4203)
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (98)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (266)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1929)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1898)
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (231)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (234)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2522)
• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (738)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (3811)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2409)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (74)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (789)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (792)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (104)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (45)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (137)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (104)
• 5 1

  

  Document2 pages

  5 1

  Ayush Shivhare

  No ratings yet
• Religion, Politician Identity and Development Outcomes: Evidence From India

  

  Document29 pages

  Religion, Politician Identity and Development Outcomes: Evidence From India

  Ayush Shivhare

  No ratings yet
• Political SC Sem 3

  

  Document20 pages

  Political SC Sem 3

  Ayush Shivhare

  No ratings yet
• Unit - 1 To 6 SOL

  

  Document65 pages

  Unit - 1 To 6 SOL

  Ayush Shivhare

  No ratings yet
• Nature and Scope

  

  Document11 pages

  Nature and Scope

  Ayush Shivhare

  No ratings yet
• Nature and Approaches

  

  Document16 pages

  Nature and Approaches

  Ayush Shivhare

  No ratings yet