What do you understand by Political Obligation?

Discuss the Consent Theory of

Political Obligation. Analyse the Limits of Political Obligation.
Answer 1
Putting forth an elaborative definition, the term ‘Political Obligation’ can be defined as the
moral duty of an individual to follow, obey, and conform to the laws of his/her country's
laws, regardless of what the law is what it says. It is extremely important to note that there is
a difference between political and legal obligation. There might be use of duress or coercion
to maintain order in the societal fabric and make the citizens obey laws. This raises concerns
of validity of such measures, and whether they are morally correct or not.
There are multiple reasons for which a citizen will obey a law, such as social security,
compulsiveness, punitive reasons, and even societal obligations. In case, however, if a
situation arises wherein it is observed that the law is, in essence, immoral and abhorrent, such
immorality of law will not imply that the law is illegal and void. There might be a political
obligation on the citizens of the country to obey the law, regardless of immorality. Over the
period of time, there have been arguments from theorists favouring the concept of political
obligation, with their own definitions. On reading these definitions, it can be seen that they
lack uniformity and the theorists do not seem to agree on a single idea of political obligation.
Immorality and abhorrent laws aside, any scholars have discussed the theories to give an
acceptable shape to the concept of political obligation, and the topic of consent is the one
which has been widely deliberated upon in this context.
The Consent Theory of Political Obligation:
The Consent Theory of Political Obligation has been one of the most discussed topics,
justifying the context of laws which are deemed to be unjust or immoral. For the purpose of
this question, we will discuss the theories given by the theorists, Hobbes and Locke.
Locke’s Strange Doctrine Theory: The Consent Theory finds its way back to Locke’s Strange
Doctrine Theory. According to the doctrine, enforcement of natural law may be done by the
citizens on their own, in case of absence of authority. However, it is imperative to understand
that this will probably give rise to conflicts, which means that the power in the hands of the
citizens is compromised by a community that they built for themselves. In such a case, the
community vests such power in the hands of a legislative authority to maintain harmony. In
conclusion, Locke proposes that citizens are constrained by their own will and consent, and it
is the consent that creates a binding political obligation. This implies that when a citizen
elects a representative or a leader, he/she consents to follow the law made by such leaders
and to be bound by the same.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Theory of General Will: A theory, similar to that of Locke was
proposed by Rousseau in the theory of general will, i.e., one is bound with the obligation to
sacrifice their will for the purpose of general welfare. This is an apt explanation to the
interplay of authority along with obligation, i.e., the authority’s right to demand obedience,
and the citizens have an obligation to obey such demand. This interplay might be related to
the social contract theory which states that if the authority is in breach of the contract, the
citizens will have the right to protest the rule.
Limitations of Political Obligation:
There are various limitations of the concept of political obligation which are as listed down
below:

a. Dynamic Society: It is up to the administration to make sure that it considers the

dynamic landscape of the social order, and legislates regulations consequently. If
the same is not paid attention to, rules cease to aid their required resolve, and
therefore become superfluous. This makes public displeased, and acts as a
downfall of political obligation.
b. Law must be a reflection of Public Need: If the legislature passes a law, it must
be reflective of the citizen’s need rather than being against their will. This cements
people’s faith in the bills formulated by the acting government. In case of a policy
not being in consonance with the general public’s opinion, they have a right to
protest and express their concern to the authority. This has a negative impact on
political obligation.
c. Stability in the ruling government: The concept of political obligation is
essentially the government’s right to demand obedience from the citizens.
However, in absence of stability in the government, it becomes increasingly
difficult for the government to make the citizens conform to such demand. Thus,
as execution of demand is absent, stability is further hindered and political
obligation disappears.
d. Immoral laws: Immoral and unjustified laws which are passed to please the
powerful people, sections, or groups lead to people’s disappointment because of
the law’s nature. This leads to tension in the country, revolts, and consequently,
the citizens decide not to obey such laws. The protest against farm laws in India
are a real-life example of this limitation. It is the responsibility of the government
to treat its citizens with equality. Any laws, that breach this equality are construed
 to be detrimental to the society, or may be in favour of particular groups of the
society. In such case, the laws and the government, both are greeted with
displeasure.
e. Discrimination against certain sections of society: In a society, every section or
minority must have a sense of security and confidence as laws are drafted with
regards to their condition in a country. However, if representatives are not delicate
of the wants of these factions, this leads to discontent. As a consequence, the said
subgroups take to the streets to protest in contradiction of the regulations to
express their disapproval. In India, implementation of Citizenship Amendment
Act can be seen as a example of this limitation.
f.
Answer 2
The Principle of Separation of Power
The Separation of Power principle, in crux, discusses the freedom and individuality amongst
the three structures of the government, i.e., the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive. It
is palpable that all these parts aid diverse functions, as:

1. The legislature has the work of creating the laws.

2. The executive effects these regulations.
3. The judiciary resolves on disagreements about such regulations inter alia.

If we take a good look at Montesquieu’s theory on separation of powers, the following

observations are obvious:

1. No individual must be a fragment of more than one branch of the government, as it

might lead to conflict of interest.
2. No branch of the government should intervene or affect the business of another
branch, as this might lead to instability.
3. No branch ought to execute roles of another branch, thus guaranteeing ample
exclusiveness and liberation of each branch from the other two, as the concentration
of powers will amount to dictatorship.

The Mechanism of Checks and Balances

Historically, it has been perceived that the concentration of powers in the hands of an
individual leads to suppression of powers of others and curtailment of freedom of individuals.
This very concentration of authority is that the principle of separation of powers, and the
device of checks and balances averts. Checks and balances maintain the liberation of these
branches, as every unit holds the right to monitor the other two divisions of the government
and limit their powers.
As a result, each of these bodies' actions are monitored, and their powers are kept under
control. Additionally, owing to a distinction between these authorities, it is established that
not all the controls are given to one branch. Subsequently, the room of abuse of power is
reduced significantly, and each unit's functions are appropriately performed. Henceforth, the
responsibilities of the administration are satisfied and freedom of these branches is warranted.
Moreover, political veracities play an imperative role in maintaining checks and balances
effectively. If a robust opposition is present, the party in control remains answerable for each
deed, thus keeping alive the ethics of transparency and liability. Therefore, this certifies that
the regulations made are just and impartial and universal well-being interest. Additionally, in
the letdown of one branch to carry out its responsibility, another branch steps in, restricting
its powers. For instance, the principle of equality is violated by a law, it can be challenged
before the courts which might strike it down. This, thus, protects the interests of the public,
and protects their liberty.
The Separation of Power and Checks and Balances in the Indian Polity:
Separation of powers and the process of checks and balances is rooted in India's Constitution,
not overtly, but tacitly. It is shadowed as to separation of functions, not as separation of
powers. It has been stated as a fragment of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution and
is an attached portion of the same. Yet, it must be distinguished that a complete separation of
these branches is not logical. The philosophy of separation of powers is not followed sternly
in India as numerous related functions are performed by one branch of the government.
In this setting, one must note that there are two kinds of functions performed by each branch,
i.e., essential operations and incidental functions, and in numerous instances, roles of two
figures may intersect. In spirit, it is only the branch's incidental functions that can be executed
by one branch for the other.
For example, the judiciary might have a legislative function of creating rules and regulations
for its procedure. It might also have executive functions for level functioning of the branch.
In such cases, it is fine for the judiciary to choose and execute these roles to be proficient in
such matters. Though, if the legislature was to carry a decree, it would be partial since giving
decrees or decisions on a case is virtuously judicial and is a crucial function of the judiciary.
Thus, this would go in contradiction of the separation of powers.

As mentioned, one organ may monitor the actions of another in regards to the checks and
balances and may limit its power, thereby preventing the abuse of power. Thus, for instance,
the power of judicial review, which lies with the judiciary, exists to protect the citizens'
interests against legislative and executive actions. Thus, if a law formed by the legislature is
against the interests of the general public, the judiciary may step in and strike such a law
down. Similarly, executive action may be declared unconstitutional.
Additionally, the legislative has a authority to evaluate activities of the executive. The
judiciary is under examination in as much as the executive employs the judiciary. Also,
judges may be detached by the Legislative by way of impeachment. Therefore, every one of
these branches follows the machinery of checks and balances.
Explain Rawls ‘Theory of Justice’ as a critique of Utilitarianism.

Answer 3

When we define utilitarianism, it can be said that it observes civilization in an organized state
and accepts that all establishments have the intention to maximize usefulness or happiness as
a measure of value and that value is the solitary basis of morality. Also, it accepts that
whether an act is right or not is determined by its significance in a society. It also deliberates
the interests of each individual equally. One more thing that utilitarianism accepts as accurate
is that it appeals to positivists, that is to say, the only problem of importance is the growth of
utility by using operative means. The ethics of the means implemented is of no consequence
for as long as happiness is maximized. Rawls’s theory of justice orbits about two
disparagements of the utilitarianism:

a) Utilitarianists do not concentrate on the variances between individuals.

b) Utilitarianists focus on the significance of an act to govern whether the pathway assumed
is correct or not.

Though, whether the act is correct or not spreads way outside what consequence trails from
it. It is on these two grounds that Rawls shapes his theory of justice. Rawls conveys a Kantian
view of human nature, and structuring on Kant’s theory that there are certain unbreakable
rights of any individual, Rawls articulates that no man’s rights can be overlooked for society's
well-being. His theory is instituted based on the idea that the ideal civilization can be made
on philosophies that individuals choose in the original situation, and their own goals or
aptitudes do not shade their decision-making. According to his theory, lucid individuals,
when determining from behind the veil of ignorance, will provide extensive liberties to
citizens, and inequalities will only benefit the most disadvantaged. Hence, principally, he
suggests that individuals are coherent and capable of selecting for themselves. Rawls believes
that utilitarianism looks at society only as a resource of meeting a culmination and that even
though it ponders the welfares of public, they are desensitized, and the variances between
each individual is not taken seriously. Therefore, his theory encompasses this and he begins
that theory must be distribution of well-being, not overall interest. Consequently, he trusts
that an individual’s rights are conceded in the name of general welfare. His theory suggests
the distribution of welfare among all individuals to circumvent this, certifying that nobody’s
sacrosanct rights are dishonored. Utilitarianism is influential, as it governs whether an act is
right or wrong based on its consequence. Hence, an act by itself, even though it might be
erroneous, would be esteemed if eventually, it maximizes the contentment of the society,
which is the definitive goal of utilitarianism. So, even if a social order unit is distressed, for
so long as the overall contentment is maximized, the act responsible for the same will linger.
The penalties of an action in the theory of justice do not regulate whether the act is right or
wrong. It is autonomous of the consequences, and anything that serves against justice is not
correct.

Consequently, the concept is founded on the impartial principle. Therefore, the ideologies of
the theory of justice are autonomous of the final good and bid individuals freedom to make
choices for themselves instead of imposing the impression of good. Subsequently,
utilitarianism enacts the majority's resolve on people and suppresses individual
determinations of the people or their outset of morality.

Henceforth, Rawls’s theory of justice recommends that lucid people who are the social
contract’s topics are positioned behind a shroud of obliviousness in an original position
whereby their own biases are detached. Their decision-making competencies are not affected
by their own self-centered comforts. This warrants that the interests of people are not evaded
for the interests of the general welfare. Hence, the conclusion of the theory of justice is not
the maximization of the general welfare. Also, if any disparities occur, they must do so only
to advantage the most underprivileged. This may be observed in the form of its present-day
arrangement, called affirmative action.

In this context, Rawls propositions two principles of the theory of justice, wherein justice is
founded on impartiality. The two principles of this theory as against utilitarianism are:

a) “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal
basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all,”

b) “Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest
benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and attached
to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.”

Therefore, this elucidates the presence of Rawls’s theory of justice in distinction with the
utilitarianism school.
Discuss Ambedkar as a social reformer and a political leader.

Answer 4

Positive reforms in society bring about changes that leave an imprint on the future's
foundation stone. Born on 14th April 1841, Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, better known as Baba
Saheb Ambedkar to a Dalit family in Madhya Pradesh, he has been recognized for numerous
of his works in the arena of politics, philosophy, and economy. He is also titled the Father of
the Indian Constitution for his immutable contributions and impact on India's governance.
Born in a social group that was regarded as lower caste, he met with severe discernment
throughout his life, and he decided to exterminate this caste-based discrimination, which
blocked avenues for a lot of people.

Baba Saheb Ambedkar has been of unfathomable importance in altering the social views
concerning untouchability, and has had a significant influence on Indian society. He was a
firm advocate of social change, which he thought can result in the elimination of slavery. He
deliberated the Hindu traditions and measured their significances in society. By way of his
discoveries to supplement his exertions, he functioned in women empowerment as he thought
that numerous outdated practices endorse untouchability in the community. Focusing on this,
he started the Outcasts’ Welfare Association, which intended to educate the oppressed.
Supplementarily, he courageously started the temple-entry movement, which was a milestone
passage meant to eradicate discernment against the lower caste. Ambedkar contributed to the
three Round-Table Conferences, wherein he articulated his opinions on untouchability and
educated people on the said issue. He also arranged all the socially regressive classes to
whisk in contrast to such societal crimes to eliminate discrimination from its roots.

Baba Saheb was also in charge of the reservation of seats for lower classes during the
elections in 1932. Moreover, he recommended individuals to join the Military. He also
efficaciously presented the scheme of the reservation to guarantee acceptable representation
of the socially backward classes in the country. He changed to Buddhism since it does not
trail any caste system and is virtuously founded on humanity. He recommended people to
absorb innovative skills and look up new jobs to beat financial restraints. He was a supporter
of industrialization because he held that it would lead to pecuniary growth and eventually
result in societal expansion, which outdated occupations will clutch individuals back. So, he
made noteworthy contributions to bring about social change.
Ambedkar instituted the Independent Labour Party in the year 1936 and endorsed people to
take up current occupations to exterminate poverty and eradicate discrimination. He supposed
that education could lead to significant variations in the edifice of the social order. He fixated
on promoting education and facilitated the education of several students. He also managed to
open several educational institutions, which contributed significantly to the progress of the
country.

In the year 1937, his party also challenged elections whereafter he was selected as the
Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee and played a significant role in framing the
Constitution. He made substantial contributions to numerous units of the Constitution. His
contributions were in fundamental rights, an intense center, and the protection of minorities.

He believed that an added effort needs to be made to avert the liberation of lower castes at the
upper class's hands. Thus, he introduced the concept of reservation, thereby protecting the
interests of society's socially backward classes. He was also an ally of Constitutional
Morality and held that it would help organize contradictory claims and contribute to disputes'
harmonious resolution. He resolutely thought that the Constitution would play a meaningful
role in shielding the broken and disadvantaged interests. He also reinforced democracy and
called it a way of life. His thinking of social change guaranteed him that it is democracy that
can bring about social change. Ambedkar also took into viewpoint the economic aspect of
things to bring about vicissitudes in society. He believed that real democracy must bring
about liberty and equality, both social and economic. He preferred the community over
politics, which often gave rise to a clash between Ambedkar and the Indian National
Congress. The socially backward classes credit their solace to Baba Saheb since his labors led
to the Poona Pact with Gandhi and reserved seats for the socially regressive. He also thought
that caste came from the Shastras' holiness, and therefore, he ritualistically scorched the
Manusmriti. His slogan was ‘educate, organize, agitate’, which he trailed through his life to
elevate the oppressed.
Classification of Rights
Answer 5
The classification of rights is done under three principles, namely, liberty, equality, and
fraternity.
According to the fraternity principle, we have three rights, (i) the right to education, (ii) the
right to public assistance, and (iii) the right to employment. It is imperative to note that a
right occurs with an equivalent duty. This implies that if one has a right, the other is
responsible for protecting the said right. Even though the principle of fraternity can be linked
to economics, in the crux, it discusses the things that may be required and cherished by a joint
set of individuals needing support. These rights involve both worldly and psychological
facilities.
The second principle talks about equality. According to this principle, every individual is to
be treated likewise, be it before the law, in legislative acts, or socially. This implies equity,
which means that equally positioned people are treated similarly, and differently situated
people are treated differently. They may be closely associated with the fraternity principle's
rights, since this also involves several shared belongings and equality in terms of possession.
The third principle, the liberty principle, would comprise of three sections, namely, political,
civil, and economic liberty. For example, the right to partake in the country's matters, such as
the right to vote, would be one’s political right. For civil rights, the right to form a political
party would be a civil right even though it is closely related to political rights. The civil rights
are further bifurcated into two groups: (i) right to own personal property, personal freedom,
etc. (ii) liberty to choose profession, liberty to form associations, etc. Further, it may also be
classified under the right to freedom of expression, religion etc. Under the principle of
liberty, the third header, economic rights, holds rights to form associations and bargain
through them without restrictions, the right to ask for remuneration of services, etc.
It is important to note that a novel set of rights are in the process of being developed, and
these rights can be exercised against people, while those mentioned above can be exercised
against the government. Therefore, this new set of rights is dissimilar to the ones already in
place. An additional set of rights contains legal rights, which are certain under diverse laws,
and may be exercised when one person sources a loss to the other.