Political Science Notes

Manipal Institute of Communication

2020-2021

Chapter 1 – Politics and the State

The Political Importance of the State

• State: a monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in enforcing its order within a given territorial area

The Sovereign State

• State as the highest form of authority in a given territory; no external challenge to it

- Theoretically above challenge both internally (domestically) and externally (internationally)

• First sovereign states emerged in Europe in the 15 th and 16th centuries, replacing the feudal societies in
which authority had been shared between the aristocracy (emperors, kings, princes, dukes, etc.) and the
Roman Catholic Church

• Most countries now make use of the sovereign state model; the only stateless societies are small
communities of nomadic peoples

• In constitutional theory, the state is sovereign; however, in practice, it inevitably faces challenges from both
inside and outside its borders, and as a result, the state’s autonomy (ability of a rational person to make
informed, unforced decisions) is limited.

A Typology of the State

• States can be categorized based on how much they intervene in society and the economy

• States can be classified according to how subject the leaders are to the will of the people

Night-Watchman State

• Sees the role of the state as minimal

• Typically restricted to the provision of security and property rights

• Allows the economic market to operate relatively unhindered

• Primary duty is to protect the individual’s right to life, liberty, and property against any threat, external or
internal

• Favoured by both classical Liberals and New Right Thinkers

• Played a large part in shaping 19th-century politics not only in Britain but throughout the Western countries,
including Canada and the United States
 • It continues to be popular with libertarians as they also believe that the state’s role should be minimal

- Most are very critical of large state bureaucracies

- Object to the maintenance of a large military force, especially when it is deployed to fight overseas;
believe that the only time a military force should be used is in self-defence when the country is
under attack

- Do not approve of welfare state programs such as universal health care

- Believe that local government and private enterprise are the most efficient providers of the services
that citizens really want and need

- The basis of libertarianism is an almost utopian belief that individuals know what is best for
themselves and are capable of living their lives ethically and responsibly without undue interference
from the government

• The minimal state is an ideal that has probably never existed in reality.

• The closest approximation to it was Hong Kong under British colonial rule when government activity was
limited to basic services such as policing and garbage removal

Developmental State

• Government and private businesses partner together to promote economic development

• Associated not just with economic development but with government efforts to secure greater social and
economic equality

• The approach has been particularly prevalent in East Asia, where it has developed rapidly since 1945

Liberal Democracy

Characterized by free and fair elections, universal suffrage, a relatively high degree of personal liberty, and
protection of individual right Examples include Canada, the USA, and India

Illiberal Democracy
• Elections are held, but little protection for rights or liberties
• State control over the means of communication (television, radio, newspapers and even internet
content and access) means that the party in power generally remains there
• Examples include Russia and Malaysia

Authoritarian State
• Absence of fair elections; rulers generally unaccountable to the citizens; can be centred on an individual,
family, military, or ruling party
• Up to 1/3 of the world’s population lives in an authoritarian state
• Examples include China (just under 20% of the world’s population) and Saudi Arabia

Totalitarian State
• An extreme form of the interventionist state
• Absence of public/private distinction; repression of civil society
• Total control exercised through police and other forms of state violence
• First emerges in the 20th century along with the rise of mass communications technology (radio, TV) as
a means for the dissemination of propaganda
• Examples include Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, and Maoist China
Theories of the State
Pluralism
• Classical Pluralism, Dahl (1963)
• Society is made up of thousands of groups of all shapes and sizes pursuing thousands of activities
and competing for political, social, and economic influence
• The role of the state is to regulate and mediate between groups; some see the state as the neutral
arbiter in this system, and others see it as a group in itself, competing against other groups in society
• What governments do reflects the balance of power of those groups
• No one group is predominant

Interest Groups
• Organization for defence or promotion of an interest or cause
• Two types:
- Sectional groups protect the interests of their members (i.e. Canadian Union of Public Employees
and the Public Service Alliance of Canada)
- Cause groups promote a particular group (the homeless or an ethic group) or ideal
(environmental protection or opposition )

Elite Pluralism & Corporatism

• Elite pluralism argues that interest groups are themselves under the control of elites
• Politics may be hierarchical, but there is no single homogenous elite group
• Corporatism calls for coordination between the state, industry, and trade groups to achieve
economic interests
• Attempted in Spain, Portugal, and Greece during the early part of the 20th century, and was a staple
of Mussolini’s Fascist regime in Italy
• Mussolini: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state
and corporate power.”
• Neo-corporatism reflects a more genuine attempt by governments to incorporate economic interests
into the decision-making process
- Shares with pluralism the belief that groups are a crucial part of the political system
- Rejects the pluralist notion that the various groups theoretically have an equal opportunity to
be heard
 - Attributes a special role to economic elites, arguing that government outputs produce a tripartite
relationship between elites in government, business, and trade unions.
- The state sanctions the insider role of economic elites in return for their cooperation in
securing their members’ support for government policy

Elitism
• Argues that a unified, self-conscious elite leads all societies
• “Iron law of oligarchy” – all complex organizations will come under the direction of a dominant group
• No one resource is necessarily crucial; thus, it is possible to conceive of elites based on
military, administrative, or religious factors as well as economic ones
• Elites can be economic, military administrative, or religious

Marxism
• The state is always controlled by its economic elites
• Classes are based on material status; on who has what
• The power of the ruling group in capitalist societies was always based on its control of the
primary economic resource: the means of production
• Capitalism has two classes, the bourgeoisie (owners), and the proletariat (workers)
• Makes a note of the presence of elitist rule in pre-communist societies
• Emancipation (freedom) is not possible through state reform but requires a revolution
• Revolution as a means for doing away with the hierarchical societies that elitists see as inevitable
(Marxists believe a communist revolution will bring about a truly egalitarian [classless] society, one that
will abolish hierarchical power)

New Right Theory of the State

• Advocated by liberal free-market thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Adam Smith
• Argues that the state tends to overstep its bounds far beyond what is healthy for the society for two
reasons:
1. Overpromising of benefits to secure votes
2. Expansion of state bureaucracy for its benefit

The New Right vs Pluralism

• New Right thinkers see pluralists as wrong on two counts
- First, the state is not neutral but serves its interests
- Second, competing interests do not produce equilibrium but result in legislative paralysis

How Should the State be Organized?

• Pluralism can be seen as overemphasizing differences in society and undervaluing public interest
• Elitist pluralism can be seen as dismissing the importance of participation
• Elitism makes an empirical claim (elites rule) that is easily confused with a normative one (elites ought
to rule)

Social Contract Theory

• Origins in 17th-century Liberal thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau
• Individuals come together to decide what kind of society they will live in
• Begins with a “state of nature” argument that imagines life without the state

Human Nature
• Different social contract thinkers have different views of human nature
• Hobbes is more pessimistic than Locke
• Hobbes sees the state as requiring an all-powerful sovereign, necessary for the provision of security
• Locke sees the state as a protector of natural rights

Feminist Critiques of Social Contract Theory

• Wollstonecraft argues that liberty is impossible without equality
 • Women do not receive the same treatment as men in society and have less protection under the law than
men do
• Tickner argues that the view of human nature taken by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau is very narrow
and male-centric
• Cooperation downplayed in favour of competition

Utilitarianism
• Associated with the British political thinker Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
• The state strives to provide the greatness happiness for the greatest number; happiness is associated
with pleasure
• If governments maximize happiness, they are valid; if they fall short of this goal, they are not
• Argued that only if rulers were accountable to the electorate would they seek to maximize the happiness
of all rather than their happiness; this forms the basis of the utilitarian theory of democracy
• Main advantage: By focusing on the community rather than the protection of individual rights, it
promotes the kind of collective goals associated with the welfare state
• Require state accountability to citizens as it promotes collective goals
• Classical utilitarianism has been criticized for ignoring the risk that the majority might override the human
rights of minorities

Liberalism and Communitarianism

• Liberalism calls for a neutral, pluralist state
• Understands the individual as free-formed or asocial
• A liberal society`s function is to serve individuals, and one of how it should do this is by respecting their
autonomy and not trespassing on their rights to do as they please as long as they can do so without
harm to others (harm principle)
• Communitarianism sees the state as uniting the society around a common set of values
• Understands individuals to be the product of the social and historical context
• Emphasizes the values of communal existence and the importance of being bound together by a
shared vision of the good promoted by the state
• Some communitarians critique liberalism on the normative grounds that liberal theory reflects liberal
society and, therefore, should be transformed. Others suggest that liberal theory misrepresents the
reality of modern societies where social ties are more important in determining the belief systems of
individuals than liberal theory has realized.

The General Will

• Emphasized by thinkers such as Rousseau and Hegel
• Inspired communitarians by suggesting that the state and morality are inextricably linked
• The state should be judged by how well it can uphold the non-selfish will of its people
• General Will: binds people together and can be contrasted with the selfish or partial will that exists
in everyone
• Importance of overcoming the particular will of the individual, the family, and the civil society for
the benefits of all

The Future of the State

• With the rise of globalization, does the state still matter?
• Empirically, states are no longer as economically powerful as they once were
• Borders are more porous, and the authority of states are more open to challenge to a variety of areas
• States see the beginnings of global citizenship (i.e. EU doesn’t have constant borders preventing entry to
EU countries)

Critiques of Marxism
• Sees the state as an obstacle to human freedom that must be overcome
• Others see this as overly optimistic or utopian
• To remove economics as a ground for conflict leaves a range of others such as religion, culture, or language
 • To impose equality to suppress the urge to be different from others
• Literature; short stories

KEY POINTS
• The state is a central institution for students of politics.
• Sovereignty is a defining feature of the state, although it is arguably more important in the legal
context than the political one.
• An empirical typology of the state would run from the minimalist night-watchman state typical of 19 th-
century capitalist regimes at one end of the spectrum to the totalitarian state of the 20th century at
the other.
• We can arrange empirical theories of the state on a continuum from classical pluralism at one end to
elitist theory and Marxism at the other.
• While pluralism sees the power structure as diffuse and fragmented, both elitism and Marxism see it
as concentrated.
• One key difference between Marxism and elitism is that for the former, the dominant group is always the
class that owns the means of production, distribution, and exchange, whereas the latter recognizes that
the sources of power can be diverse. Another is that Marxism looks forward to a future egalitarian society,
while elitist theory sees elitism as an inevitable feature of all societies.
• All three of the theories outlined above can be criticized on empirical grounds as failing to
adequately describe the world's reality as it is.
• A normative critique of pluralism focuses on its downgrading of the public or general interest, while
a normative critique of elitism insists that elites alone should rule.
• The liberal social contract tradition, represented notably by Hobbes and Locke, offers two distinct
arguments justifying the state's existence, the former focusing on security, the latter on the protection of
natural rights.
• Wollstonecraft argued that greater economic equality and the emancipation of women were
preconditions for creating a fair and equitable democratic system.
• Tickner and Pateman rightly demonstrate that there is more than one view of human nature and that
social contract theorists often confuse their Western male views for the views of human beings in
general.
• Other normative theories propose a limited role for the state (the New Right), the pursuit of happiness
or preference satisfaction as the ultimate goal (utilitarianism), the upholding of moral pluralism
(liberalism), and a critique of the state in general (anarchism).
• A key debate in modern political theory is between liberal and communitarian theories of the state. The
former upholds moral pluralism, whereas the latter seeks moral uniformity. The antecedents of the
communitarian position lie in the efforts of political philosophers such as Rousseau and Hegel to justify
obedience to a state promoting the general will.

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

INTRODUCTION

Political theory is not only a theory of/about politics, it is also the science of politics, the
philosophy of politics at that.

As a theory, Bluhen explains, political theory “stands for anabstract model of the political order… a guide to the
systematic collection and analysis of political data”. Andrew Hacker, enlarging the point of view, says that
political theory as a “theory, in ideal terms, is dispassionate and disinterested.

As science, it will describe political reality without trying to pass judgement on what is being
depicted, either implicitly or explicitly. As philosophy, it will describe rules of conduct which will
secure good life for all of society…”.
Political theory is not fantasy, though it may contain an element of political vision. It is not
politicking, though it does take into account political realities for its study and analysis. It is not
all scientism, though it seeks to reach the roots of all political activity analytically and systematically.

It is not ideology, though it attempts to justify a political system and condemns another. It is
theoretical, scientific, philosophical and at the same time dynamic with a clear objective of
attaining a better social order. It thus, has in varying degrees, elements of ‘theory’, ‘science’,
‘philosophy’ and ‘ideology’.

WHAT IS POLITICAL THEORY?

Political theory is a theory about what is “political”, the science and philosophy of what is
political.

George Sabine says, “It is anything about politics or relevant to politics”. This being the broader meaning,
he refers to its narrow meaning, saying that it is “the disciplined investigation of political problems” (A
History of Political Theory, 1973).

David Held defines political theory as “a network of concepts and generalizations about political life
involving ideas, assumptions and statements about the nature, purpose and key features of
government, state and society and about the political capabilities of human beings”.

Political theory is all about politics. It is an overview of what the political order is about. It is
a symbolic representation of what is “political”. In its nature, it is a formal, logical and systematic
analysis of processes and consequences of political activity. It is, in its method, analytical, expository, and
explanatory. It is, in its objective, an attempt to give order, coherence and meaning to what may be referred to
as “political”.

What is Theory?
The meaning of political theory necessitates the meaning of theory: to know what political theory really is to
know, first, what is theory?

Originating from the Greek word “theoria”, theory means or at least, may mean a well-focused mental look
taken at something in a state of contemplation with the intention to grasp or understand it.

Arnold Brecht refers to both the broad and the narrow meaning of the word “theory”. In the broader sense,
theory means “A thinker’s entire teaching on a subject”, including the description of facts, his explanation, his
conception of history, his value judgements, and the proposals of goals, policies and principles.

In the narrow sense, he says, theory means “explanatory” thought only or at least primarily. In his book,
Political Theory, Brecht uses theory in the narrow sense, saying, “explaining is the function of theory.” Thus, for
him, theory means a proposition or a set of propositions designed to explain something with reference to data
or inter-relations not directly observed or not otherwise manifest.
# Theory has to be scientific, without the quantum of science, it is unthinkable. But theory, without theory
or say philosophy, is as meaningless as it is, without science.

Theory is a combination of elements characteristic of both science and

philosophy. Theory is not practice, because doing too needs thinking. Theory involves a theoretical frame which
practice really lacks. Theory is not merely ‘description’ because “describing” is only a part of “thinking”, its
other parts, for example, include “discovering”, “determining”, “augmenting”, “explaining” and “framing” a
phenomenon. Theory is not hypothesis, for hypothesis denotes a tentative assumption of facts, and, therefore,
lacks what theory really has, “definiteness”.

Theory is not philosophy because while theory is about “something”, philosophy is about “everything”. Theory
is not thought because it is a thought about thought, and not an entire
thought itself. There is, indeed, much that is common between theory and reason, for both have
a claim on being scientific, yet theory looks beyond reason, beyond science.

Political Theory
Theory implies both science as well as philosophy. It is, against this background, that one may say that a
theorist is both a scientist and a philosopher; a theorist is more than a scientist; he is more than a philosopher.
To understand theory when applied to politics would mean understanding politics as a theory, as a science and
also as a philosophy.
Bluhen would, thus, explain political theory as “an explanation of what politics is all about, a general
understanding of the political world, a frame of reference. Without one we should be unable to recognize an
event as political, decide anything about why it happened, judge whether it was good or bad, or decide what
was likely to happen next.

A theory helps us identify what is happening in a particular case of politics. It helps us to explain why an event
occurred and to predict future events. Theory also is a tool for evaluating what is happening and for guiding our
political choices….”.

The job of the political theorist is really important. Brecht makes a note of it saying,
“It is the function of the political theorist to see, sooner than others, and to analyze, more profoundly than
others, the immediate and the potential problems of the political life of society; to supply the practical
politicians, well in advance, with alternative courses of action, the foreseeable consequences of which have
been fully thought through; and to supply him not only with brilliant ideas, but with a solid block of knowledge
on which to build.” When political theory performs its function well, he continues, “it is one of the most
important weapons in our struggle for the advance of humanity.”

The discussion on what a theory is or what political theory is would help us identify the characteristic
implications or the major aspects of political theory. Some of these can be stated as under:

i) The area in which political theory works extends to the realms of politics only – political life of the citizen,
his political behaviour, his political ideas, the government that he seeks to establish, and the tasks expected
from such a government.

ii) The methods, which political theory adopts, include description, explanation and investigation of the
political phenomenon.

iii) Though political theory is all about what is ‘political’, yet it attempts to understand ‘political’ in relation to
‘social’, ‘economic’, ‘psychological’, ‘ecological’, ‘moral’, and the like.

iv) The objective which political theory seeks to achieve is to build a good state in a good society, and in the
process, create processes, procedures, institutions and structures historically tested and rationally attained.

v) As a body of thought, political theory attempts to explain, evaluate and predict political phenomena, and
in the process builds not only scientifically testable models, but suggests values as rules of human conduct.

vi) Political theory is both prescriptive and explanatory.

Political Theory - Contents

Politics, as a political activity, is usually associated with cynicism, and skepticism, demonstrating self-seeking
behaviour, hypocrisy, and manipulation of attitudes. This negative connotation hardly holds any ground.
Political theory is neither a theory of politicking, nor a theory of political intrigues.

It is a disciplined investigation of what constitutes the ‘political’. Its contents have varied from time to time.
From the early Greeks, in the Western political tradition, to the end of the eighteenth century, political theory
concerned itself mostly with what politics ‘ought to be’. Almost during the whole nineteenth century and the
first half of the twentieth century, political theory dealt, largely, with the nature and structure of government
as a decision-making body.

Then came a period when some of the American political scientists, under the influence of scientism, declared
the demise of political theory as against those, mostly the British, the traditionalists, who advocated the value
of political theory as a guide to political action. With the fast changing complexion of the world, political theory,
has happily, survived the onslaughts of ‘the end of ideology’, and ‘the end of history’ debates.

# The concern of political theory, today, has been both the nature and proper ends of the government.
Political theory, as a disciplined investigation of political phenomena, is closely related to why and what of the
institutions of the government, and the whole political system in which the government operates.

To study political theory is to study the context in which it exists. We need to understand political theory within
the realm of the political system, the political system within the realm of the social system, the social system
within the realm of the period it exists, and in the environment it breeds.

The contents of political theory include understanding of what is really ‘political’, to link ‘political’ with what is
‘non-political’, and to integrate and coordinate the results of the numerous social sciences for knowing its own
nature. Its scope is not limited to what it constitutes, but to what exists in the periphery and beyond.

Suggesting that the task of defining what is political is a continual one, Sheldon Wolin (Politics
and Vision 1960) includes the following in the contents of political theory:

(i) a form of activity centering around the quest for competitive advantage between groups, individuals, or
societies;

(ii) a form of activity conditioned by the fact that it occurs within a situation of change and relative scarcity;

(iii) a form of activity in which the pursuits of advantage produce consequences of such magnitude that they
affect in a significant way the whole society or a substantial portion of it.
•