Political Science I

Sovereignty and State Formations
02 May 2014 11:23
In medieval Europe, both the rulers and the ruled were governed by universal laws
supposedly derived from the authority of God and the society was a patchwork of various
overlapping political loyalties and allegiances that cut across geographically interwoven
jurisdictions and political enclaves. The authority of the Church was the only thing that
transcended both legal and political boundaries.
Around the 15th century a new set of social and economical conditions were emerging
characterized by increasing trade. The manufacturing class was gaining strength and was
supported by increasingly centralized monarchies with competent civil servants and hired
armies. The monarchies began to levy taxes.
The Renaissance led to a secularization of life and a corresponding decline in the authority
of the Church. Reformation, counter-reformation and the wars of religion further facilitated
the acceptance of a secular state.
The Thirty Years War and the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). The Westphalian state system
was characterized by territorially bound sovereign states; each with its own centralized
administration and monopoly over the legitimate use of power. The new form of state based
on the notion of sovereignty redefined the idea of private property; it came to be
understood as the right to exclude others from the possession of a commodity, be it land,
labor or capital. Private and public spheres of life came to be demarcated very strongly. The
royal court became the supreme authority in the public sphere.
The feudal state in Europe was replaced by the absolutist state based on the notion of
absolute sovereignty, wherein the king or queen was believed to have absolute right over
their domain, and acquisition of new territories was simply a matter of extending
sovereignty.
Theories of Sovereignty
There are two sides of sovereignty, internal and external.
• Internal: the state is considered to be sovereign and has supreme authority within its
borders. This implies that no higher authority exists internally above the state to take
any coercive or any other actions.
• External: implies that no state can interfere or dictate terms to any other state.
All theories of sovereignty attempt to answer 3 questions:
1. the limits of sovereignty
2. the location of sovereignty
3. the relationship between the state, sovereignty and civil society
Machiavelli (1513-14) revived Roman law and defined the state as an organisation of
force that ensures security of persons and property.
Hobbes: Leviathan (1651) did away with every limitation on sovereignty by insisting
that every right of the people (except the right of self-preservation) has to be surrendered
to the sovereign. This would results in "a multitude united in one Person" - A
Leviathan. Hobbes saw no distinction between the society and the state. Groups in the
community existed so long as they were sanctioned by the sovereign. Hobbes describes a
"state of nature" where humans are intrinsically selfish and competitive. People would thus
be fearful and distrustful of each other and life would become "nasty, brutish and short".
The only way out would be to voluntarily give up the conditions of equality and autonomy to
create a sovereign with absolute powers. This sovereign would guarantee protection to all
by enforcing laws. Hobbes thus responded to both the anarchy within England and to the
need for security and order felt by the emerging trading classes by arguing for an absolute
sovereign who would be beyond challenge.
Locke created a framework which was based on natural law as a claim to innate,
inalienable rights inherent in each individual rights. Locke argued that governments are held
in trust by the people and derive legitimacy from their consent, given only in return for
adequate protection of individual rights. Locke seems to imply that sovereign power
ultimately rested in the people. He was clearly uncomfortable with the idea of absolute
sovereignty. This represented the desires of the bourgeoisie for greater freedom and
Political Science I Page 1

sovereignty. This represented the desires of the bourgeoisie for greater freedom and
autonomy.
Rousseau Social Contract (1762) begins with the assumption of a community of citizens
united by a commitment to collective good. He argued that all individuals in the political
community should be involved in law making. People themselves would be the sovereign
authority. Rousseau made no distinction between the state and the community or between
the government and the people. He agreed with Hobbes on that state sovereignty would be
unlimited and indivisible however Rousseau did not distinguish between the state and the
body politic.
A criticism of both Hobbes and Rousseau would be the potentially tyrannical implications of
their projects. In Hobbes framework, the state was accorded an all-powerful position with
respect to the community, but according to Rousseau, it was the community that was
accorded a similar status vis-a-vis the individual.
John Austin argued that the state was a legal order in which a clearly determinate
authority would be the ultimate source of power and be habitually obeyed while the
sovereign state would be immune to the command of others. This sovereign would be
unlimited authority, and the moral worth of the laws would be irrelevant. All that matters
would be the effectiveness of the laws. Laws are conceptualized as the command of the
sovereign, who would be responsible for formulating all laws, direct as well as indirect.
Marx believes that the claims of the sovereign state representing the general interests of
society had to be seen as an illusion that masks the reality of a state that expresses the will
of private property. According to him, it is a structure representing particular interests,
economic processes and institutions.
Modern critics of the concept of sovereignty highlight the emergence of federal and
decentralized governance patterns that have emerged in most states, accompanied by an
elaborate system of checks and balances. They wonder where the concept of sovereignty
can be located internally under such circumstances. Externally they point to numerous
international laws and organisations that have considerably limited the sovereignty of the
states (Charles R. Beitz). Besides these questions is, of course, the whole issue of
compatibility between the democratic ethos of most nation states and the absolutist claims
of the concept of sovereignty.

The state
02 May 2014 11:23
Statehood today refers to a set of institutions, but also to a body of attitudes. It

encompasses obedience of state laws, obligatory voting in elections, compulsory military
training or conscription. Rights, democracy, equality and liberty are based on the
relationship between the state and those living within it.
The state and the government are not coincidental. Max Weber said all states must have:
• a monopoly over the legitimate use of force within a common territory
• territoriality
• monopoly of the means of physical violence
• legitimacy
Political obligation necessitates obedience to the laws of the state. We obey the state
because it promotes our happiness more than any alternative political organisation. We
ourselves have consented to the state on the basis of a social contract, and this is the very
reason that binds us to obey the laws of the state.
Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States in 1933 stated that states must
posses:
• a permanent population
• defined territory
• government capable of maintaining effective control over the corresponding territory
• conducting international relations with other states
The government refers to the administrative organ of the state and is constrained by the
constitution of the state. The government may change but the state persists.
The modern state, a form of political organisation that could be said to have evolved in early
modern Europe and was transmitted primarily through colonialism to other parts of the
world.
When Machiavelli talks about political power (1532) he begins and ends with one individual,
the prince. It is with Hobbes that the theorization of power moves on to an abstract, non-
human entity, the modern sovereign state.
The modern state sets out a clear distinction between the rulers and the office and
institutions they occupy. The current holders of power in the government do not constitute
the state.
The emergence of the modern state in Europe is linked to the differentiation of various
spheres of people's lives. It identifies the political sphere, and is at its apex. Political aspects
of the lives of the people living within it. In the 14th and 15th centuries the same set of
political functions were carried out by different sources of authority. e.g. declaring war and
collecting taxes. These could be done both by the Church and the king. The peace of
Westphalia at the end of the Thirty Years War (1648) led to a centralized modern authority
and the state came to be the source of political authority. It stated:
• sovereign states recognized no superior authority
• law making, settlement of disputes and law enforcement was in the hands of individual
states
• wrongful acts across the border were private matters concerning only those affected
• virtually no legal fetters exist to curb the resort to force
• collective priority of all states should be to minimize the impediments to state freedom
Sovereignty refers to the state being the ultimate source of political authority within its own
jurisdiction.
The state exercises its powers within its territorial borders which are acknowledged by other
states. This differentiates it from other political organisations that have governance over
people rather than over land, and people allegiances are not territorially determined. Within
the boundaries of the state there is a single system of governance, distinct from others that
operate externally.
The state represents coercion while civil society represents voluntary participation.
A nation could be defined as a community feeling among people who recognize that they

A nation could be defined as a community feeling among people who recognize that they
are distinct from other communities and wish to control their own affairs. Possession of a
common language, religion, political values and attitudes, a sense of having done things
together in the past. There are however people who feel part of the same nation that are
spread across different states.
The necessity or otherwise of the state is often based on beliefs concerning human nature.
Those who have argued for greater powers of the sate are usually those who view human
nature with distrust. Hobbes viewed human beings as naturally selfish and went on to argue
that the necessary solution to the problem was absolute sovereignty. Gandhi however
believed self determination could be achieved without the coercion of the state. Peter
Kropotkin, the Russian anarchist believed in the supreme goodness of human nature and
any deviation from this was insidious influence of the state and exploitative capitalism.
A situation in the absence of the state is called the state of nature. Each person is on his
own and only protects his own interests and possessions. This is most likely that people
would opt for some form of centralized political authority. A common power to protect us
from one another and from any external threats. This leads to the belief that the state
emerged from a contract that individuals in a state of nature consented to in order to
protect themselves from one another and from external threat. We are bound to obey the
laws of the state most of the time because it has emerged out of our consent that is
voluntarily given.
Kant argued that if an arrangement is such that free individuals could not have agreed to do
it, then it is unjust. e.g. would any free man choose to be a slave? It is unlikely, thus the
institution of slavery is unjust. This consent could be expressed or it could be tacit.
The state could also be justified because of its utility in bringing about greater happiness to
a greater number of people.
1. Human happiness and well being are important
2. we assess an act purely by its consequences
Jeremy Bentham and James Mill were proponents of utilitarianism. It aims at bringing about
a state of affairs that results in the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The
justification of the state in this case is based on its utility, and not consent. However
sometimes the greatest happiness of the greatest number could lead to a situation where
the greatest happiness is based on the sacrifice of an individual's rights. This is called
unqualified utilitarianism.
Liberals believe that the state is a neutral arbiter between competing interests and stands to
realize what is called the common good in society. It is based on the moral equality of
individuals and their ability to think, feel and make choices. The emphasis here is on
capacity or ability rather than actual exercise.
Citizens are entitled to equal respect and concern from the state because the state is
committed to respect the moral equality of citizens, which means non discrimination and
impartiality at all levels. The state is concerned with the rules that would enable individuals
to pursue their own ideas of what they think is a good life, so long as the freedom of others
is not infringed upon.
It implies the equal distribution of certain goods and opportunities. However, should it be
concerned only with the maintenance of law and order or should it also be concerned with
redistribution of resources and with the welfare of its citizens. Should it be a state or a
welfare state. Does this violate the liberal state's commitment to treat its citizens are entitled
to equal respect and concern or is in consonance with this principle?
According to Michel Foucault, the state is the result of the practices of the government. He
maintained that the state is the result of this tendency towards the government of conduct.
So rather than saying that the state is the condition for the existence of government, he
turned around saying that the state flows from this modern practice of ordering life into
structures, something that was not common in the Middle Ages.
With the advent of globalization there is a greater inter locking of different parts of the
world. Globalization poses challenges to the sovereignty of the state. The economic aspect
refers to the emergence of an interlocking global economy and the worldwide spread of
capitalism with the flow of financial capital between countries.
Political globalization is reflected in the growing importance of international bodies like the
UN, EU and WTO. The membership of the EU for example threatens state power as many
decisions on matters like monetary policy and defense are made by the European

decisions on matters like monetary policy and defense are made by the European
institutions.
Pooled sovereignty is the idea of states that would be weak and ineffective acting
independently could acquire greater influence by working together with other states through
the vehicle of international regional institutions. States are now more concerned about their
role as actors in global markets to protect national economic well being and are
entrepreneurial. They are less concerned with political sovereignty and security than they
were earlier.

Separation of Powers
02 May 2014 11:25
Government power expresses itself in three forms:

1. Legislation
2. Administration
3. Judicial Decision.
The theory of separation of powers was clearly formulated for the first time by Motesquieu in
the Spirit of Laws (1748)
"When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, there can be no liberty
because apprehensions may arise lest the same person should enact tyrannical laws, to execute
them in a tyrannical manner."
"Again there is no liberty if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive.
Were it joined with the legislative, the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the
executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression."
The Federalist : 1788
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of
one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may be justly pronounced
the very definition of tyranny
The Theory of separation of powers merely means that a different body of persons is to administer
each of the three departments of government; and that no one of them is to have
a controlling power over either of the others.
Modern Government:
• A legislature elected directly by the people for a fixed term
• An executive elected directly by the people for a fixed term and independent of the Legislature
in discharging its function
• Judges elected and independent of both in respect to their terms of office and salary
• Legislative does not have the power of choosing, controlling or dismissing the Executive or the
Judiciary
• The executive will not have the power of dissolving the legislature, vetoing laws or appointing
and dismissing judges
• Judges will not have the power of declaring laws unconstitutional or trying executive officers
Britain
• The executive forms an integral part of the legislature
○ The cabinet is chosen from the legislature
○ Ministers take part in its proceedings, initiate laws,
○ Ministers have the power to issue statutory orders
• Legislature has the power by refusal of supply or other methods to terminate the term of the
cabinet
• The executive appoints the judges
• Judges have the power to sit in judgement on the conduct of government officials
• Legislature has power to present an address to the Crown for the removal of judges.
A close study of the English Government in its practical working shows that, organically, the principle
of the separation of powers has been carried out with a rigidiy that is found in few or no other
governments.
• The executive power is vested in the crown and parliament never attempts to deprive
it of any of its executive powers
• The judiciary has been established as a distinct and independent branch of the
government.
○ Their salaries are independent of annual budgetary provision, being a permanent
charge on the consolidated fund
The United States of America
• The popular election of executive officials and of judges so widely prevalent
• The separation is evident in the relation between the legislature and the executive
• Congress and the President are elected by the people for fixed terms

• Congress and the President are elected by the people for fixed terms
• The President before it has run its term
• The term of judges is made independent of the executive
• The president has a suspensive veto over the laws passed by it
• Heads of departments appear before the committees of congress
• The senate's consent is necessary for the appointments made by the president as well
as treaties negotiated by him
• The house of representatives may impeach the president before the senate
• The president appoints the judges and has the power of pardon
• Judges may sit in judgement over the conduct of government officials
• Judges have the power to declare laws passed by Congress unconstitutional
All constitutions recognize the fact that government is an organic whole. Therefore the
separation of powers is necessary for the maintenance of liberty has to be reconciled with
the need for the co operation with, and dependence on each other. Some union of powers
promotes harmony in government and some separation makes for liberty, while both are
essential for efficiency.
What is essential is that each department should in the main confine itself to the work which
properly belongs to it. This is merely political application of the economic principle of division
of labour, it makes for specialization and efficiency.
The Legislature as a body is unfit to undertake the work of judges because it is subject to
the influence of party politics

Federal and Unitary States
02 May 2014 11:24
• A unitary state may be defined as one organised under a single central government.
• A federal state is one in which there is a central authority which represents the whole plus
provincial or state authorities with powers of legislation and administration within the sphere
allotted to them by the constitution.
The distinctive feature of a federation is the formal division of governmental powers by a
constitution between the constituent units and the larger state which they compose. Both the units
and Federal authority may exercise their legislative, administrative and judicial powers only within
the limits set by the constitution. The supremacy of the constitution is therefore a second important
feature of the federation.
Some authority, such as the Supreme Court is needed to interpret the constitution and decide
conflicts of jurisdiction between the states and the center. A federal state has necessarily a rigid
constitution. The machinery to amend the constitution is one in which both the Federal Authority
and the units have a definite place.
In a unitary State there is no constitutional division of powers between the Center and the states,
which the center is not powerless to alter. All local governing authorities within the State are
created, their powers defined and their form of organization determined by the Central
Government. It is by the nature of the relationship of the central to the local bodies that one
determines a state is federal or unitary.
Confederation
Continental Congress of 1777. Here each one was a sovereign body-politic. The only form of
common control was exercised through the Congress, a body of delegates which had no power to
compel the states to its will, and no power to command or tax the individual citizens. Congress was
primarily to look after foreign relations, declare and conduct war, build and equip a navy and issue
requisitions upon the states for soldiers and for funds. It had no authority to make law in the sense
of regulations backed up with a power of enforcement. Another case is the German Confederation
(1815 - 1866)
A confederation, like a federation is a union of states with a common recognized authority in certain
matters affecting the whole, and especially in respect of external relations. But it differs from a
federation in that it is a league of sovereign states, whereas federation creates a new state. In the
former, sovereignty rests with the component states; in the latter, the component states give up
their sovereignty in favor of the new state. The distinction between the two forms of union is
therefore fundamental, founded upon the source of ultimate authority, sovereignty.
The citizen in a confederation therefore has to obey only one Government, that of his own State.
The citizen in a federal state on the other hand, has to obey two governments, that of his state and
that of the federal authority.
Conditions of Federalism
• The desire for union. This normally arises when a number of small, independent states, locally
adjacent, come to feel that if they do not unite, their independence will be threatened by
more powerful states. States that are powerful will naturally think they would not gain from a
federation as they would sacrifice their own liberty.
○ Conjoint action, to develop foreign trade, removal internal trade barriers and prevent
international warfare can be another desire. There can be a feeling than an authority
with wider powers than any existing before the federation was necessary for industrial
and social development.
○ The sentiment for union is also induced by community of blood, language and culture
and the similarity of political institutions.
• The desire for local independence. Should not be so great as to result in the demand for the
establishment of a unitary state. Essentially common matters is a precondition for this form of
political organisation
• Geographical continuity. Countries which are to form a federation should be close to one
another for the success of federal government.
• The absence of marked inequalities among the component units. If there is any state so

• The absence of marked inequalities among the component units. If there is any state so
much more powerful, it will insist on being master of the joint deliberations.
• Political education and legalism. The permanence of federation demands a capacity on the
part of the people to appreciate the meaning of a double allegiance. A general willingness to
yield to the authority of the law courts
Problems of Federal Government
• Satisfactory division of powers. How to secure an efficient central government while allowing
the scope for diversities. Centrifugal and centripetal forces are in equilibrium. Whatever
concerns the nation as a whole should be placed under the control of the national
government. All matters which are not primarily of common interest should remain the hands
of the state.
○ Foreign affairs, defense, the control of the armed forces, foreign trade, maritime
shipping and currency, are clearly of common interest.
○ Municipal institutions, hospitals, local public works, property and civil rights, and the
administration of justice would be allotted to the units.
• The powers of the center can be enumerated in the Constitution, the residue is left to the
units. The device of concurrent powers is a specially noteworthy as it provides a plan by which
the Center can step in some matters when the Government of a unit is lazy or unprogressive
and when the need for uniformity demands its interference, while leaving the initiative in the
first instance to the units.
• In Canada, the powers of the provinces are enumerated; the residue is left to the state
• In India, the powers of the center and the provinces were more or less exhaustively
enumerated in three lists, the exclusively federal, the concurrent and the exclusively
provincial; nor with the provinces, bus was to be allotted every time.
The more markedly federal nature depends not on the mere fact that the residue is allotted to the
units, but on the content. The idea of the residuarry powers has little significance if they have no
power. Under modern economic and social conditions, where an increasing number of problems can
be met only by the authority representing the general interest, it seems the wisest policy to
enumerate the powers of the units and leave a large reserve of powers to the Center.
• A provision must be made to prevent either from encroaching upon a sphere allotted to the
other. The most common safeguard is the establishment of an independent court to interpret
the constitution and decide conflicts of jurisdiction between the center and the states.
• The power can also be given to the people in the form of a national referendum and the
initiative to decide finally on constitutional laws.
• The constitution is made to be rigid,
• Protection of the smaller states against domination. It is possible that the
larger units may have a predominant influence in the legislation on account of their
larger representation in the lower house.
• Two provisions are generally adopted:
○ The second chamber of the central legislature, where every unit is given equal
representation. The second chamber can refuse to agree treaties made by the
president.
• No amendments to the constitution may become valid until they have been ratified not
only by a majority of the whole people, but also a majority of the federal states
• Each state is more or less independent not only of the Center, but must also be
independent of other states as well. To prevent any two or more of them from
conspiring against the interests of the whole. Thus every state is enjoined to give full
faith and credit to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other
state; the citizens of every state are declared to be entitled to the privileges and
immunities of every other.
• Neither the center nor the units by themselves should be given the power to alter the
constitution as such powers to alter the constitution as such power is likely to affect
one of the essential features of federalism.
• It is possible that one or more of the units may, claim the right of secession from the
whole.
Sovereignty in a federal state lies in the body wherever and whatever it may be, which has
the power to amend the constitution. Legally speaking, this sovereign body can entirely
abolish the federation and restore each member of its original independence.

abolish the federation and restore each member of its original independence.
Merits and Defects
• The whole problem of the organisation of a government is enormously simplified when
the decision is made to establish a unitary government. The constitution making body
does not have to concern itself with the manner in which the territory shall be divided
into political divisions nor the manner in which governmental powers shall be divided
between two authorities.
• As federal constitutions are rigid, the changes in the constitution do not keep pace
with the changes in the social and economic life of the state. (e.g. The English easily
abolished child labour, not so America). Federalism thus tents to produce
conservatism.
• All the powers of government are concentrated in the hands of one single set of
authorities. All the force of government can, therefore, be brought to bear directly
upon the problems of administration to be solved. There can be no conflict of
authority, no conflict regarding responsibility for the work to be performed, no
overlapping of jurisdictions, no duplication of work, plant or organisation which cannot
be immediately changed.

Nationalism
02 May 2014 11:23
Nationalism has a structured connection with the state, and could not have emerged prior to
its existence. In medieval Europe, political power was divided instead of being consolidated
in the hands of a single sovereign ruler who shared power both 'horizontally' with the
Church and 'vertically' with feudal governors and vassals.
Feudalism was a system of social stratification which existed throughout medieval Europe.
The feudal system functioned both at political and economic levels. Status inequalities were
concretized in feudalism through the economic hierarchy between the lords and serfs.
Technological impediments like a lack of advanced transport and communication networks
made the sharing of political power not simply a convention but a necessity for individual
monarchs. In the absence of modern rules of residence and citizenship, subjects were also
free to move across kingdoms to live, work, marry. As a consequence of all these patterns
of decentralization of politics, administration, law and culture, the daily life of populations
within feudal kingdoms continued in all its local diversity.
The rise of Absolutist Monarchs (e.g The Tudors in England and The Bourbons in France)
consolidated their political power with the help of the newly emerging trading classes - the
merchant capitalists, or the mercantile bourgeoisie. This allowed monarchs to reduce their
dependence on taxation from feudal agrarian production and thus reduce their dependence
on vassals. This allowed rulers to exercise absolute power over their kingdoms. The religious
reformation of the 15th century dealt a heavy blow to the power of the Catholic Church.
These new absolute rulers strictly enforced territorial boundaries, standardized population in
the realms of religion, education and language, maintained standing armies and introduced
stricter rules of residence and mobility of citizens.
The bourgeoisie soon became restless for greater political rights and representation,
dominating newly established representative assemblies and parliaments across Western
Europe. This culminated with events such as the Glorious Revolution in 1688 in England and
the French Revolution.
After the industrial revolution of the 18th century, nationalism united diverse sections of the
bourgeoisie through these historical upheavals, allowing the bourgeoisie to speak in the
name of a seemingly primordial community called the nation while bargaining for greater
political power within their respective modern states. As absolutist monarchs struggled to
hold on to their power in the face of decreasing support from the bourgeoisie. Often the
leadership of the national movement would remain in the hands of the elites, and the
popular element would ebb and flow.
Gellner 'Nations and Nationalism' 1983: The principle of nationalism exerts a
homogenizing pressure on pre-modern cultures, exploiting them and transforming them
to fulfill its project of creating a homogeneous 'national culture'. Nationalism also obliterates
obscure little cultures.
The social organisation of agrarian society is not at all favorable to the nationalist principle.
According to him, the need of modern industrial economies for a mobile and
interchangeable workforce requires complex new skills, a single language and within a
centralized political, economic and educational system; in other words, within the modern
nation state.
Marxists argue that nationalism has to do a great extent arisen as an ally of capitalism, as a
bourgeoisie ideology. Hobsbawm believes that nationalism is a symptom of capitalism at a
particular stage of its development. Nationalism unites the dominant classes, the
bourgeoisie, and creates a false sense of community between them and the masses. All
nations are characterized by deep economic and social inequalities even today. Thus
Marxists argue that the unity in nationalistic thought can be a mythical one as it does not
reflect the real conditions of human beings in the modern, capitalist world.
Nationalism often works against modernization, as is the case with nationalist social
economic opposition to international trade agreements.

Historical Materialism
02 May 2014 11:24
The theory of historical materialism is based upon the primacy of economic forces in social
change throughout history. Friedrich Engels wrote that Marx “discovered the law of
development of human history”
Dialectical method.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a well-known German philosopher who lived from
1770-1831.
Every time man’s perception of reality is transformed into a newer version, man takes one
step closer to the Absolute. Alienation is the idea that two things that belong together come
apart (2003, 29). In this case, man and the Absolute belong together, they are separated,
and the dialectical process will gradually bring them together over the course of
history. State of reality where man and the Absolute are reunited is the end of history,
which is created through the interaction between the thesis and antithesis. These are
stages that exist in contradiction to each other.
Contradictions in dialectics are the oppositions that are necessary for and yet destructive of
each other. Marx used this understanding of contradiction to define class struggles through
the antagonism of a ruling class and a lower class. Marx described the ruling class of
society as the thesis and the lower class as the antithesis. They contradict and can only be
defined in relation to each other.
The thesis, antithesis, and synthesis are the actors of the dialectic. The thesis and antithesis
compete with each other until a tipping-point is reached and the existing thesis is
overthrown and replaced with the synthesis. The synthesis created through this combination
then becomes the new thesis The newly formed thesis is on a higher level of development
or understanding than the previous thesis. The newly formed thesis, however, is not alone.
Another antithesis exists. These two stages will again interact and the process will start all
over again until another synthesis is formed.
Historical Materialism
Hegel was an idealist. Marx disliked idealism and called it the “mystificatory side of
the Hegelian dialectic”. Marx thought the interaction occurred in real life. The actions of
people, not ideas, move man closer to the Absolute. Marx flipped Hegel’s dialectic “on its
head” in order to “discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell”. Materialism is the
opposite of idealism. According to materialists, matter is the only thing that can be proven
to exist. To Marx, the Absolute is the material condition of freedom. Alienation will be
eliminated when man achieves true freedom.
Historical materialism asserts that economic forces are the primary forces that propel man
through history as social classes interact. Economic interactions are how man relates to the
material world. Man changes the material world, not with thought and conceptualization,
but with picks, shovels, ploughs, diggers, looms and lathes. Class struggles provide the
contradiction that causes the dialectical process to work in Marx’s theory. Two classes, ruling
and lower, struggle against each other until one eventually wins and becomes the new
ruling class.
The superstructure is the legal, philosophical, religious, and political environment in which
the productive forces and productive relations interact.
The lower class, on the other hand, is not content with the current situation and would like
to take advantage of the ever-improving productive forces. The lower class overthrows the
ruling class and forms new relations of production that are better suited to work with the
productive forces. The superstructure changes with the relations of production and the new
relations of production and superstructure serve the interests of the new ruling class.
Marx and Engels identified three occasions when the lower class has overthrown the ruling
class and created a new mode of production. These transitions occurred between Marx’s
four modes of production: the Asiatic, ancient, feudal, and capitalist
Asiatic
Asiatic mode of production was the earliest form, and is also known as primitive
communism. In this mode, the productive forces were hardly developed at all and property

communism. In this mode, the productive forces were hardly developed at all and property
was held in common. the division of labor was elementary. The replacement of this mode of
production came about by the gradual increase in population, growth of wants and
extension of external. The improving forces of production created a collective surplus that
began to erode the “presupposed objective conditions” by appealing to the increasing wants
of the people
Slaves and Expansion
In the ancient mode of production, classes were prevalent. The ruling class controlled the
surplus. In this mode, slavery was the most predominant materialization of class struggle as
the coercion and restraint of the lower class was very direct. The division of labor was still
underdeveloped. Slaves had little to no motivation to advance the productive forces
by increasing their labor productivity. Any increase in productivity would only benefit the
ruling class. The ancient mode of production’s productive forces grew outward or
extensively.
With an ever-expanding geographic reach, the ruling class had to devote more and more of
the surplus it received to maintaining control of slaves. Eventually, with the ruling class
spread too thin, the ancient states that supported the ruling class succumbed to invasion
and the ancient mode of production failed.
Feudalism: Serfs and the need for markets
Feudalism was characterized by serfdom and the guilds. The surplus the lords obtained was
extracted from the land through the serfs. Lords maintained control over serfs not through
shackles and whips, but through ideology. The serfs felt an obligation to work, pay rent, and
protect the land because they were in a system bigger than themselves in which the lords
ruled and the serfs served. Unlike the slaves of the ancient mode, the serfs had certain
legal rights within feudalism. More importantly, the serfs owned some of the means of
production.
The serfs did not own the land, but they owned the tools that they used on the land. With
fixed labor obligations or rent, the serfs had an incentive to increase individual labor
productivity and to care for their means of production because any production in excess of
what they were obligated to perform was surplus the serf could keep. serfs found
themselves in the peculiar position of having surpluses of their own. To benefit from the
surplus, markets had to be developed where the serfs could sell their excess goods. From
this individualized form of surplus grew the first forms of market relations and capitalism.
The ruling class did not need a market to extract their surplus but the lower class did.
Feudalism fell when the lower class overthrew the ruling class and established market-based
productive relations to further the development of the productive forces.
Capitalism
Businesses own machines, buildings, and tools and use these to produce different items that
can be sold in markets to make a profit. They essentially sell their labor to the business. In
order to increase productivity and the surplus they extract, businesses offer incentives to
their workers in the form of promotions, bonuses, stock options, etc.
Underlying the exchange of labor is another form of coercion and class struggle that is more
hidden than the previous modes of production. The lower class is forced to work for the
upper class because of the necessity of survival. The capitalist lower class is coerced into
working for the capitalist ruling class. Once their labor is sold, members of the lower class
remains stuck in their role and they cannot escape without losing their means of livelihood.
Problems
Communism
The true absolute is freedom. Freedom meant the abolishment of classes and coercion. In
communism nobody would be forced, implicitly or explicitly, into any role.
“do one thing to-day and another to-morrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon,

rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner... without ever becoming hunter, fisherman,
shepherd or critic”
within the last few decades is the result of the fall of socialism and communism. Many
have interpreted the fall of such regimes as evidence enough that historical materialism is
false. Capitalism was not even close to being fully developed before the creation of
communist states such as the Soviet Union. Russia was essentially still a feudal society at
the time of their revolution. In order for socialism/communism to follow capitalism, the
productive relations within socialism/communism would have to use the productive

productive relations within socialism/communism would have to use the productive
forces more efficiently than the productive relations of capitalism. It is difficult to argue
against the efficiency of capitalism and the markets. The development of market socialism,
but Marx thought the use of any kind of market would be unable to completely eliminate
alienation. It is perfectly acceptable to agree with the principles of historical materialism
without accepting the utopian vision of a future communist society.
Economic Primacy
Sociologists in recent years, however, have become more and more unsatisfied with Marx’s
economic reductionism. Marx believed that economic forces developed through history and
political, ideological, and military forces (i.e. the superstructure) developed subordinate
to economic forces. Several sociologists now believe that there are multiple forces acting
simultaneously and with varying degrees of strength. To say that men mold their means
of survival around secondary forces such as ideological and political makes little sense. Even
when it appears as though a new ideology or political movement causes a change in the
mode of production. The superstructure can affect the way the productive forces develop as
the ancient and feudal modes demonstrate, but the superstructure only changes
subordinate to the productive forces.
Class Struggle
class struggles have not had a uniform effect throughout history, with class playing a
large role during certain periods and a smaller role in others. The transitions may be fuzzy,
but the flow was discernible.

Legislature
02 May 2014 11:22
The legislature of a country passes laws, determines the ways of raising and spending public
revenue and discuss matters of public importance. Some legislatures have elective functions
(Switzerland). The upper houses of some states have judicial functions (Britain, house of
lords). The four main functions of the legislature are:
1. Legislation
2. Administration
3. Finance
4. Public grievances
• Legislation: A numerous representative assembly is not ideally fitted for the direct
business of legislation, which is skilled work demanding study and experience
○ Each provision of thelaw requires to be framed with the most accurate and long
sighted perception of its effects on all other provisions (context)
○ The mere time necessarily occupied is getting through bills renders Parliament
incapable of passing anything except on broad principles.
 Mills himself suggested that the duty of making laws should be entrusted to
a small body of experts
○ Technical knowledge needs to be tempered by the representatives knowledge of
social needs and the desires of the public.
○ The initiation of new legislation is most parliamentary democracies is vested in
the executive and advisory bodies
• Administration: A popular assembly is still less fitted to the administer or to dictate
to those people who have the charge of administration. Here again its proper office is
that of superintendence and check, to throw the light on the Government's acts.
• Finance: It should be a rule that public money cannot be raised or spent without
parliament's sanction. The right of private members to proposes new items of
expenditure should be restricted, because this puts a premium upon particular
interests instead of on general interests.
• Grievances: A legislature is a useful organ of public opinion. This is a most important
function in a democracy, which has been well described as a government controlled by
public opinion.
Bicameralism
Most modern constitutions provide for a legislature of two houses or chambers. A lower and
an upper. The arguments for the second chamber are:
• a safeguard against the despotism of a single chamber. A single housed legislature is
at least as susceptible as an individual despot
○ neither house may be exposed to the corrupting influenced of undivided power,
even for the space of a single year
• Serves as a check upon hasty and ill considered legislation
○ It is possible that the upper house has superior or supplementary intellectual
qualifications
○ restrains tendencies and compels a careful, sober consideration of legislative
projects.
○ subjects laws to revision which may introduce improvements in form or
substance
• Helps provide adequate representation of the aristocratic element of the community
• the best way of providing adequate representation to certain 'interests' in a country
which needed representation, which for want of proper organization may not get such
representation in the lower house. e.g Labour and women
• Possible for people of political and administrative experience and ability (who for
reasons of age, finance, health are not likely to try to enter the lower house through
the arduous process of electioneering)
○ brings into public life and makes available for the service of the state these highly
qualified people

○
qualified people
• No major state has been willing to dispense with a second chamber
Criticisms
• If a second chamber dissents from the first, it is mischievous, if it agrees with it, it is
superfluous
• It is unnecessary to have a second legislative chamber with its attendant delay and
expense
• There can be safeguards against despotism and hastiness such as a suspensive veto of
the executive
• Legislature is not so hasty or ill considered as it is often made out, any measure that is
enacted becomes law as the result of a long process of discussion and analysis
• Members of the second chamber often vote on party rather than state lines
The Upper House
It should be differently composed from the first so that legislative measures may receive
consideration a second time by a body different in character from a primary representative
assembly, if possible with superior or supplementary intellectual qualifications
• method of choice: The upper house is in the main, a hereditary body or a nominated
body or a partly nominated and partly (indirectly) elected body.
○ The qualities required for a legislator are not handed down from father to son
○ Nomination enables men of character and ability who may not desire to contest
elections to be made available for the service of the community
○ Nomination however can be abused by being made along party lines
○ A nominated upper house, not being represented, may not command the
confidence of the people
○ Indirect election gives the choice of the legislators to people more qualified than
primary voters; but it provides greater opportunity for corruption
• tenure of membership: The principle of partial renewal is applied to member of the
upper house, one-third for instance, retiring every two years in the united states and
india
• the qualifications: age can be used as a qualification. Differentiation can also be made
by prescribing a property or educational qualification.
The essential idea being that the upper house should not obstruct the will of the lower
house, but should be helpful in revising the laws passed by the lower.
The Lower House
The lower house should be elected by the people. It should not be too large to make
effective deliberation possible, it must not be too small to make the formation of reasonably
small constituencies easy, for if the constituencies are very large, members cannot maintain
effective contact with their electors. The area and population must of course be taken into
consideration.
Their tenure in the house must be sufficiently long to enable members to familiarize
themselves with procedure and to settle down to useful work, yet not so long that they lose
touch with the electorate.
It must make the final decision in matters of legislation and finance, the initiative being with
the Executive, and the revision, subject to the final sanction of the lower house, being left to
the upper house. It is also an organ of public opinion on all matters of public interest and
importance. Above all, it must watch and control the government, compelling it to justify all
its acts before the legislature and before the public. This last function can of course only be
performed efficiently where the executive is a parliamentary one, where a non parliamentary
executive prevails, its function in this regard must necessarily be secondary and indirect.

Judiciary
02 May 2014 11:25
The judge fulfills an onerous function in the community. His primary duty is to
• interpret the law
• apply existing law to individual cases
• hold the scales even between one private citizen and another
• hold the scales between private citizens and members of the government
In the process of interpretation, he cannot help making new law.
Three methods of appointing judges are apparent
1. nomination by the executive
2. election by the legislature
3. election by the people
The legislature can hardly be expected to estimate efficiently the legal knowledge required
by judicial decisions, and, besides, is likely to be too much influenced by political
considerations. For similar reasons, popular election of judges is also open to objection.
It is now recognized that the preservation of judicial independence requires that judges
should hold office for life, independent of the pleasure of the Executive, and that their
salaries should not be diminished during their term of office.
Relation to legislature
• The more the judiciary is separated from party politics the better
• The legislature may be vested with the power of recommending the removal of judges.
This is the ultimate safeguard against a judge who abuses his power
• address to the executive (britain)
• impeachment (USA, India)
• The judiciary in a unitary state need not have the power to question the validity of the
laws passed by the legislature
• In federal states the power of the judiciary to declare unconstitutional a law passed by
the Legislature is essential in order to maintain the supremacy of the constitution
Relation to executive
No member of the executive should have judicial functions. Also the executive should not
have the power to dismiss judges. If the two are not separated, the Executive, as judge, has
to sit in judgement over their own conduct. However the executive plays a significant part in
the appointment of judges. The executive also has the power of pardon
The judiciary may be vested with the power to review acts of the executive. The
government officer must be answerable in a court of law for his conduct as a government
servant.
India
Separation of executive and judicial powers thus centers in collectors, divisional officers,
deputy tahsildars and sub-magistrates. However, if the control is exercised by the officer
who is responsible for the peace of the district there is the constant danger that the
subordinate magistracy may be unconsciously guided by other than purely judicial
consideration.
As the promotion and prospects of subordinate magistrates depend partly on the
recommendation of the district magistrate as collector; it is therefore likely that they will
subordinate their own views to what they assume to be his views.
Magistrates subordinate to the district magistrate have the duty of taking preventive
measures and quelling disturbances of the public peace; there is a side of magisterial work
which must be regarded as preventive rather than punitive.

The Executive
02 May 2014 11:25
The executive is the total aggregate of all the functionaries and agencies which are
concerned with the execution of the will of the state as that will has been formulated and
expressed in terms of law. Its primary duty is rather that of seeing that laws are enforced.
Legislative: While laws are everywhere passed by the legislature, the executive has some
share, direct and indirect in the process of legislation, recommending measures for its
consideration, initiating bills, defending them in parliament, exercising a suspensive veto etc.
It also has the power of delegated legislation; issuing statutory orders and rules under the
power vested in it by the legislature.
Administrative: The direction and supervision of the execution of laws. It is vested with the
power of appointing and removing the higher officials, directing their work and exercising
disciplinary control over them. It also has military power, supreme command over the army,
navy and air force as well as the power to declare war. Lastly, it represents the government
in its relation with other states.
Judicial: The power of pardoning is vested in the executive. In Britain, the quasi judicial
power of trying certain disputes within government officials and private citizens.
Single and Plural Executives:

In the case of a single executive, the final control rests with one individual, whereas in the
later it rests with a council (Switzerland Federal Council).
The single executive secures unity, singleness of purpose of an executive. In a grave crisis
of national existence, when unity of control is absolutely essential. A collegial executive on
the other hand, impairs unity of control by dividing responsibility. A plural executive however
is a maxim of experience in a multitude of counselors there is wisdom. It renders more
difficult the encroachment of the executive on the liberties of the peoples in general.
Parliamentary and Non Parliamentary Executives:
• An executive chosen from parliament and holding office only so long as it commands
the confidence of that parliament
• An executive chosen independently of the legislature and holding office for a fixed
term
Advantages of the Parliamentary executive:
• ensures harmony and co-operation between the executive and the legislatures, which
makes for efficient legislation
• Congress in America legislates in a vacuum. The divorce of the executive from the
legislature is a 'forcible disjunction of things naturally connect' and is injurious to both
• executive is crippled by not getting the laws it needs
• it contributes to the efficiency of the administration by bringing the ministry into
constant contact with the opposition
• It makes for responsibility to popular will; an executive always has its finger on the
pulse of the house of commons and the larger public outside
• persons fitted to be members of an executive may make known their ability
Disadvantages of the Parliamentary Executive:
• Its tenure is uncertain, being liable to be upset at any moment by a breeze of popular
disfavor
• Ministries are shortlived and uncertain of their period of office; renders it difficult for
them to adopt a farsighted and consistent policy
• Ministers are liable to be distracted from their executive duties by their parliamentary
work
• Ministries are unwilling to propose measures that are unlikely to be unpopular, and is
anxious to propose measures whose chief merit is their vote catching quality
• Choice of ministers is limited to members of the dominant party in parliament.
• A presidential system of government offers stability and freedom from control by a
fickle legislative authority

fickle legislative authority
○ He is free to pursue a reasonably continuous and consistent policy, with nothing
to fear from Congress
However the cost of the isolation of the executive and legislative branches from each other
is often seen as too great.
Civil Service
A professional body of officials, permanently paid, and skilled. As governments move
towards a social service state, its functions have increased enormously. Every extension of
the area of state activity increases the points at which officials and citizens come into
contact with each other. The growth of delegated legislation and administrative justice must
also be reckoned among the causes of the increasing importance of the Civil service.
The political executive should have little control over the appointment of permanent officials
because they might lead to party patronage, favoritism and insecurity of service.
Members of public services must be appointed by persons other than those in the cabinet. A
Public service commission, with members holding office during good behavior is entrusted
with the duty of recruiting men ti the service by open competition. The fundamental
principles is the conduct of the service. Once a person is recruited, given efficiency and good
behavior, he should be certain of keeping his place until the age of retirement. The
executive should have the right of dismissal to be exercised only in cases.
• Promotion must be on the basis of seniority tempered by factors of efficiency
• Members of the civil service must abstain from party politics
• The minister takes the responsibility for the action of his subordinates
○ No minister should take shelter behind the staff of his department
The raison d etre of communal reservation in the services was said to be the unequal
cultural development of the communities in the state. Social harmony in the body politic
they served. In order to secure a fair degree of efficiency, a minimum qualification was
imposed; and communal representation was not taken into account in making promotions.
Growing power of the Executive:
The growth in the power of the executive at the expense of the legislature. The legislature
should generally be the great overruling power in every free community for the will of the
state must be expressed before it can be enforced, and that will is expressed by the
legislature. The legislature has power iver the purse, it has power to regulate matters the
power over which has not been conferred to other departments.
• Modern executive business is concerned not only with the execution of laws, but also
in many cases with initiating of bills
• War necessarily results in an increase in the power of the executive; and the habit has
acquired in war time tends to continue in peace time as well.
• The methods of election and party system do not induce the best men to enter
parliament; the electorate by demanding and acquiring powers of direct legislation,
competes with the legislature.
• The nature of modern government is such that leadership, continuous and
acknowledged, concentrated and co-coordinating adequately informed and equipped is
vitally necessary.

Liberty
02 May 2014 11:24
Thomas Hobbes:
Liberty or freedom signifies the absence of all impediments to action that are not contained
in the nature and intrinsic quality of the agent. If a person is tied with chains, the
impediment is not in the person but in his chains. This cannot be said of someone who is
sick or lame, because the impediment is in oneself. Fear and necessity for Hobbes are the
motivating factors in human nature and impel them towards liberty.
Can the act of one to preserve oneself be justified as an act of liberty even if it violates the
safety of another human being> Do you think the actions of a person based only on fear or
necessity is an act of liberty? Begging due to the fear of starvation or the necessity to eat is
therefore seen as an act of liberty.
Such an understanding of liberty doesn't take into account the notion of choice and does not
recognize any kind of moral framework. It is this notion of choice that is conspicuously
absent in the examples by which we understand Hobbes view of liberty. A dacoit cannot rob
or kill anyone and explain it as an act of liberty to preserve himself/herself.
Locke:
Locke places his view of liberty as choice exercised in a moral framework. This moral
framework is based on the Laws of Nature of which equality is a central tenet. No one ought
to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possession. Liberty as a natural right, for Locke,
is no more than the liberty to do what the Law of Nature allows, what is morally permitted.
The exercise of liberty should not be at the cost of equality.
As a natural right, liberty is innate in human nature, is universal and can be apprehended by
reason. As a right bestowed by nature, Locke's views it as an inalienable right. In other
words, one cannot waive from one's person the right to liberty. The Lockean individual is
guided by the faculty of reason in the exercise of freedom in conditions that are alterable.
The moral framework for Lock does not however specify ways to bring about the existence
of such conditions to facilitate choice.
Rousseau:
Freeing oneself from selfish motives towards a larger good for the entire group. Hos
conception of liberty liberates human beings from the hierarchical and unjust inequality of
society. Liberty is not a natural right for Rousseau . Liberty for him is liberation from a state
of unfreedom which comes into being with the emergence of civil and political society.
People are liberated only through obedience to the law. Law is equated with the expression
of the general will of the whole community. An individual can be free only by being a part of
a free people who obey the laws. One is liberated when one is free of personal servitude.
The individual is liberated from subjection to one's lower nature in uniting with the whole
community. It appears that he seems to equate choice with the right to choose the right
option, where the right thing to do is pre-decided.
Bentham
Utilitarians see a positive correlation between freedom and pleasure. Freedom is about
seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. The utilitarian maxim is, "greatest happiness for the
greatest number.' Utilitarian understanding of freedom dos not make any distinction
between different kinds of pleasures. It is not accompanied by a sense of moral
responsibility. It violates the harm principle, that one's exercise of liberty should not harm
the life, liberty and possession of others. Liberty here does not have the sole qualification
about Hobbes sets for the exercise of freedom, namely self-preservation.
Mills
Mills seeks to protect individual liberty from the interference of state and society. He states
that the principles of utility, consideration has to be given both the quality and quantity of
the pleasure as well as utilitarianism need not involve a radical break with traditional
morality.
Marx
What defines human nature is the ability to express creativity. The circumstances that create
situations of inability of expression of self are those that deny liberty. Marx explains the

situations of inability of expression of self are those that deny liberty. Marx explains the
denial of liberty, what he terms alienation. The agent is alienated from the product, from
productive activity, one's own human nature and from other human beings. Marx explains
this by saying, 'as a result, therefore, man (the worker) no longer feels himself to be freely
active in any but his animal functions.'
Liberation is leading to a life of self-realisation. Self realisation can be defined as the full and
free actualisation and externalization of the powers and abilities of the individual. Capitalism
hinders self realization in two ways. The formation of desires through a process the
individual does not understand. Often one's own desires appear as alien powers, not freely
chosen. Secondly, the realization of desires is often frustrated by lack of coordination and
common planning.
Negative Liberty
Negative liberty indicates injuctions that prohibit acts that restrict freedom. If I am
prevented by others from doing what I could otherwise do, I am to that degree unfree: and
if this area contracted by other men beyond a certain minimum I can be described as being
coerced, or, it may be, enslaved. Only restrictions imposed by other people affect my
freedom.
• Each one knows one's own interest best. This is based on the assumption that the
individual is a rational agent
• The state has a limited role to play. This follows from either axiom, with the individual
agency foregrounded, the state cannot decide ends and purposes for the individual.
Negative liberty as freedom is the opportunity to act, not action itself. It focuses on the
availability rather than exercise of the quality of action. Poverty for example is not always
seen as an infringement of freedom in negative liberty. As it is purely the absence of a
particular obstacle, coercion by other men. The conception of freedom under the law rests
on the contention that when we obey laws in the sense of general abstract rules irrespective
of their application to us, we are not subject to another man's will and therefore free.
Positive Liberty
The positive sense of the word liberty derives from the wish on the part of the individual to
be his own master. It does not just refer to non intereference, but includes the idea of self
mastery where the higher self is in command of the lower self. It is exercising and availing
of the opportunities while negative freedom is just having opportunities. Positive liberty is
open to the idea of directing the individual either by law or an elite. As long as the law
directs an individual towards rational ends, it liberates rather than oppresses. Positive liberty
also includes the idea of collective control over common life.
Insufficiency of Negative Liberty : Charles Taylor
Taylor discusses the two types of liberty as the opportunity concept of freedom and as the
exercise concept pf freedom. Taylor feels that a pure opportunity concept of freedom is
inadequate to attain freedom inclusive of self realization.
Liberty and Rights
Contemporary theory is of the opinion that they are two distinct concepts. However the
traditional view understood them as the idea of having a right to do or be something is the
same as the freedom to do or be something. Later it was felt that while liberty cannot be
equated with the concept of right, a right is a liberty in a restricted sense. A liberty that is
protected, recognized and allowed by the law.
• There can only be a right to something, whereas freedom can be freedom to as well as
freedom from.
• There are degrees of freedom, but not of rights.
• Liberty cannot be delegated, transferred or waived.

Equality
02 May 2014 11:24
Hobbes:
The difference between man and man, is not considerable, as that one man can thereupon
claim to himself any benefit, to which another may not pretend as well as he. What Hobbes
proposes is the equal ability of individuals in the state of nature which gives rise to an
equality of hope to achieve our ends. What drives individuals is an equal ability to work as
well as an equal and irresistible passion for power. Unless men agree to cede a part of their
power to the political authority and accept to lead a civilized but equal existence under the
domination of authority, they can never be fully secure.
Rousseau: Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of Inequality
Life in the collective state also precipitates the development of a new negative motivating
principle for human actions. He calls this principle amour propre and it drives men to
compare themselves to others. This drive towards comparing with others is not only rooted
in the desire to preserve the self and pity others, but it also drives men to seek domination
over their fellow human beings as a way out of augmenting their own happiness.
Private property is invented, and the labor necessary for human survival. The beginning of
private property allows the property owners and all those who live off the labor of others to
dominate and exploit the poor. Rousseau observes that the poor resent this state of affairs.
The last stage effected transformation of legitimate power into arbitrary power that
authorized the existence of masters and slaves. In Rousseau's inequality continuum, the
property owners or the rich amass power and become masters. New revolutions dissolve the
government altogether or bring close to its legitimate institution.
The only natural inequality among men is that which results in differences in physical
strength, for this is the only sort of inequality that exists in the state of nature. Creation of
laws and property has corrupted natural men and created new forms of inequality that are
not in accordance with natural law. From this analysis and the prescribed prognosis of new
revolutions, a straight road leads to the works of Karl Marx.
Marx
Marx derided his contemporaries for their inability to account for the materialistic conception
of history. Marx also shows how the ruling class produces a legitimating ideology to
perpetuate the system of economic exploitation. Towards that end, the division of labour in
the ruling class of a capitalistic society will ensure a division between mental and material
labour, and correspondingly the division between the thinkers of the class and the capital
owners will emerge.
The Communist, classless society becomes clear only when we understand the impossibility
of human emancipation under conditions of exploitative social relations. The question of
human emancipation is linked to freedom from economic inequalities. The capitalist system
intensifies and heightens economic inequality. In the transitional socialist stage,
emancipation is not complete but equal access to the means of production is ensured. The
distributive principle in operation during the state is guided by the principle of each
according to his work. Marx declares that in the final phase of communism, society will be
able to inscribe on its banners, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his
needs.' Under communism, man will no longer be regarded simply as a producer, but as a
person with needs and desires, which, rather than his contribution of labour, will be on the
basis for the distribution of goods.
• Equality is sometimes required in order to be fair.
• Equality is desirable because some measure of equality is necessary for self respect
• Equality enjoins a duty to show respect to others
• Equality is necessary to foster fraternity
Amartya Sen
Sen pioneers the idea that distributional equality should concern itself with equalizing
people's capabilities, instead of emphasizing on resources or incomes. Sen argues, focus on
the real freedoms that people enjoy such as being able to read, being healthy, having self
respect, being politically active, being able to take part in the life of the community and so

respect, being politically active, being able to take part in the life of the community and so
on.
Sen proposes the notion of well being understood in terms of function. Reading is a function
vital to leading a valuable life. However, Sen does not argue that social policy should be
concerned with function. Social policy, according to Sen, should focus on capabilities. A
capability is the ability to achieve a certain sort of function. For example, literacy is a
capability, while reading is a function. In a society where people are illiterate, a state should
actively promote people's ability to read.
Sen's observation that a proper analysis of inequality needs to go hand in hand with facts of
human diversity. Social policy must be attuned to facts of human diversity. A simple minded
approach towards correcting complex modes of inequality will simply not do.

Justice
02 May 2014 11:25
Distributive Justice
Justice is more often than not linked with distribution. The rewards or punishment that a
man or woman receive, or is subject to, are a consequence of his or her efforts and actions.
It is very difficult however, to isolate individuals actions and efforts from what goes on in
society, especially what the society considers desirable, valuable or meritorious.
The principle of justice based on need would argue that irrespective of people's capabilities
their needs ought to be fulfilled.
• Procedural theories of justice are satisfied if certain rules are followed. Justice is only a
property of individual behavior and cannot be a feature of 'society'. Individuals are
understood to be autonomous rational beings who make their own independent
choices and are thus responsible for the consequences of their actions.
• Social theories of justice see justice as a feature of society. How just or unjust a
society or state of affairs is according to some agreed upon criterion. It would be far
more likely to advocate the use of the state to uphold the principle of justice.
Procedural Justice
Procedural justice does not make a distinction between production and distribution. Each
individual is on his or her own and has entitlements that are individual in character. The
state would have no authority to interfere. These theories do not accept that societies have
any 'ends' or purpose that need to be collectively strived for. This makes the individual very
powerful, autonomous and completely in control of his/her life.
It is based on a close association with the workings of the market economy. In a free
society, there can be no general agreement about what constitutes needs or what is a just
desert.
John Rawls: Theory of Justice
Rawls theory takes care to respond to the most common criticisms leveled against
procedural theory, that despite the meticulous following of rules, unjust conditions might be
created. He suggests that under controlled conditions rational human beings would uphold
ideas consistent with the basic idea of distributive justice.
Rawls insists that justice prevails only when every departure from equality can be rationally
justified. His theory of justice is premised upon the need for equality. Rawls sets out his
theory by placing individuals abstracted from their social and economic contexts behind
what he calls the 'veil of ignorance'. Individuals behind the veil are unaware of who they are
and what their interests and skills needs and so on are. Such a group of people will then not
know which way the fault lines of discrimination run in their society. These people would
have an elementary knowledge of economics, sociology and what Rawls calls 'a sense of
justice'.
Rawls hoped this would enable them to pursue whatever conception of of good they might
discover on their own, when the veil is removed. He also assumed that these hypothetical
people would be conservative risk takers and in a situation of uncertainty would obviously
opt for the least disadvantageous outcome in any choice presented to them. Hence, they
would choose those principles which would maximize the position of the worst off, assuming
that when the veil is removed, they themselves would turn out to be the worst off.
1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with
similar liberty to others.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both
○ to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged
○ attached to the offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality
and opportunity
After indpendence when it came to drafting the Constitution, the fundamental assumption
that systematic departures from norms of equality would have to be made in the pursuit of
justice. The Indian constitution permits the creation of an elaborate and diverse range of
programmes that permit the departure from formal equality, for the purpose of favoring

programmes that permit the departure from formal equality, for the purpose of favoring
certain historically deprived groups.
Limitations of Rawls: Macpherson, Democratic theory: Essays in Retrieval
Macpherson argues that Rawls theory is rather an elegant defence of what is essentially a
liberal democratic, capitalist welfare state. Rawls accepts the inevitability of class divisions
based on income and wealth. Macpherson argues that such inequalities would adversely
affect individual liberty by creating inequality of power in society.
Rawls admits that his theory is based on the existence of a particular kind of individual who
is free and equal, and inhabits a pluralistic society, that has no shared agreements about
social institutions and ends. Thus in Macpherson's opimion, far from being a universal
account of justice applicable to all rational human beings, Rawls theory is culture specific
and appropriate only for liberal democratic societies with a welfare orientation.
Communitarian Critique
Communitarians point out that individuals can only be indentified as members of pre existing
social organisations. This means that whatever ideas men and women have, have come out
of the society and community they belong to. Hence, their notions of what should be the
distributive criterion will obviously emerge out of this context.
They argue that such as stripped down individual behind the veil will be unable to make
choices. Since the Rawlsian veil of ignorance keeps individuals out of a real social context.
the communitarians ask the question of how the choices they make can ever be relevant in
an actual social context.
Amartya Sen
Rawlsian paradigm of justice assigns a central role to the achievement of liberty. Sen argues
the Ralsian framework concentrate only on the means of freedom rather than on the extent
of the freedom that a person actually has. It is not just the access to primary goods but the
extent of capabilities that each individual has to convert these primary goods but the extent
of capabilities that each individual has to convert these primary goods into lives that they
value living and that would determine freedom and ultimately uphold justice.
Sen clarifies that capability means a person's freedom to choose between alternative lives
and there need to be unanimity about what would be considered a valued way of life.
Capability thus represents freedom. Sen argues that equality of freedom to pursue our ends
cannot be guaranteed by equal distribution of what Rawls describes as primary goods. Sen
would want an examination of interpersonal variations on people's capabilities to pursue
ends and objectives.
End State Theories
End state theories are those that suggest a set of principles to control the process of
exchange between individuals. Marx argues that in a transitional socialist society justice
would mean that each person should receive that which is in accordance with his or her
labour contributions to the social product. Marx was dissatisfied with the contribution
principle because it did not incorporate a person's needs.
In contrast he said that in communist society people would receive goods to each according
to his or her needs. People would produce goods and services without the needs for
differential rewards and that they would be completely unaffected by what others get. For
Rawls, justice is the first virtue of social institutions, but for Marx a truly good community
would have no need for the concept of justice. Justice is at best seen as an unavoidable but
not very desirable necessity for societies flawed by conflict and scarcity. Marx advocates the
abolition of private property as an essential step towards the creation of a cooperative and
harmonious community.
Pursuits of profits in a market driven society can never be the basis for creating justice; it is
only fulfillment of genuine human needs in conditions of unalienated labour that can be the
basis for justice.
Such theories critics fear would not hesitate to use the authority of the state to interfere and
take away people's liberty on the pretext of upholding the perfect and just way of life

Political Science I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Science I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sovereignty and State Formations

02 May 2014 11:23

Political Science I Page 1

Political Science I Page 2

Statehood today refers to a set of institutions, but also to a body of attitudes. It

Political Science I Page 3

Political Science I Page 4

Political Science I Page 5

Government power expresses itself in three forms:

Political Science I Page 6

Political Science I Page 7

Political Science I Page 8

Political Science I Page 9

Political Science I Page 10

Political Science I Page 11

Political Science I Page 12

Political Science I Page 13

Political Science I Page 14

Political Science I Page 15

Political Science I Page 16

Political Science I Page 17

Single and Plural Executives:

Political Science I Page 18

Political Science I Page 19

Political Science I Page 20

Political Science I Page 21

Political Science I Page 22

Political Science I Page 23

Political Science I Page 24

Political Science I Page 25

You might also like