PRINCIPLE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Module 1 : Introduction of Political Science

• Meaning of Political Science

- Aristotle, the famous Greek philosopher, coined the term "polities" in his discussion of the
definition of Political Science. He referred to it as "the master science" "Man is by nature a
political animal," Aristotle wrote in his famous book Polities, "and he, who is without state by
nature and not by mere accident, is either above humanity or below it."Political science, the
systematic study of governance by the application of empirical and generally scientific methods
of analysis. As traditionally defined and studied, political science examines the state and its
organs and institutions. The contemporary discipline, however, is considerably broader than this,
encompassing studies of all the societal, cultural, and psychological factors that mutually
influence the operation of government and the body politic.
- Although political science borrows heavily from the other social sciences, it is distinguished from
them by its focus on power—defined as the ability of one political actor to get another actor to do
what it wants—at the international, national, and local levels. Political science is generally used
in the singular, but in French and Spanish the plural (sciences politiques and ciencias políticas,
respectively) is used, perhaps a reflection of the discipline’s eclectic nature. Although political
science overlaps considerably with political philosophy, the two fields are distinct. Political
philosophy is concerned primarily with political ideas and values, such as rights, justice,
freedom, and political obligation (whether people should or should not obey political authority);
it is normative in its approach (i.e., it is concerned with what ought to be rather than with what is)
and rationalistic in its method. In contrast, political science studies institutions and behaviour,
favours the descriptive over the normative, and develops theories or draws conclusions based on
empirical observations, which are expressed in quantitative terms where possible.
- Although political science, like all modern sciences, involves empirical investigation, it generally
does not produce precise measurements and predictions. This has led some scholars to question
whether the discipline can be accurately described as a science. However, if the term science
applies to any body of systematically organized knowledge based on facts ascertained by
empirical methods and described by as much measurement as the material allows, then political

1
 science is a science, like the other social disciplines. In the 1960s the American historian of
science Thomas S. Kuhn argued that political science was “pre-paradigmatic,” not yet having
developed basic research paradigms, such as the periodic table that defines chemistry. It is likely
that political science never will develop a single, universal paradigm or theory, and attempts to do
so have seldom lasted more than a generation, making political science a discipline of many
trends but few classics.

• Nature of Political Science

- (a) In consonance with the requirements of scientific method political ye proceeds alone ano nutes out
supernatural or metaphysical tolies on. It is beyond our sense-experience);
- (b) Generalization which is base Observation of regularities leading to establishing the relation and cored
beseen different factors or variables. This may either be obtained by beuctive method (proceeding from
particular to general', i.e. arriving general rule after observing similarities in particular cases), or by the
docus Bethod (proceeding from "general to particular', i.e. postulating a general and then confirming it by
observation of particular cases). Generalization be expressed in the form of a general rule, preferably in
quantitative tem which should be capable of verification by experimentation;
- (c) Explanany which consists in giving reasons for the general rule, for without such reasons any
observation of correlation might be a mere coincidence; explanation all. will make particular events,
situations or tendencies meaningful;
- (d)Prediction and Prescription so that in the light of known facts and gener rules, their possible outcome
could be known and measures for achieving sud objectives as higher efficiency, stability, satisfaction, etc.,
could be suggested Behavioural approach exemplifies the scientific approach to the study of politics. It
insists on studying the actual behaviour of human beings in & political situation rather than describing
salient features of political institutions and their legal position. In the behavioural approach formal
political institutions are dissolved into 'systems' and 'processes' so as to focus attention on the actual
behaviour of political actors, which alone is capable of scientific study.
- However, post-behavioural approach insists on making the achievements of political science subservient
to human values and ends.
- Hence, it heralds revival of concern with 'values' without compromising scientific method for the study of
'facts'. In short, post-behaviouralism calls for application of political science for overcoming the prevailing
crises in various spheres of human life.

• Scope of Political Science

- The scope of political science is a point of contention among political scientists.
- With the passage of time, the discipline's scope continues to evolve. Political science has ceased
to be solely a science of statecraft in recent years. Political science has evolved into a
multifaceted field with a dynamic nature. Political science examines every aspect of the state and

2
 government in relation to their past and present, as well as the likely developments in the future.
In layman's terms, we could say that political science has a significant impact on every aspect of
our daily lives. Power theorists and behaviouralists expanded the scope of political science
research in the second half of the twentieth century.
- This trend began to concentrate on all aspects of power relationships and human behaviour that
have political ramifications in society.
- First and foremost, political science examines the origins and development of organised political
life. Scholars attempt to infer from the past and draw conclusions about the state, government,
law, and political behaviour at various stages. Various currents of political thought, such as
individualism, socialism, and democracy, have emerged as a result, assisting in the understanding
of current institutions, ideas, and processes.
- Political science then looks into the current political concepts, institutions, and phenomena. It
examines political parties, pressure groups, social movements the executive, judiciary, law, and
courts, as well as other groups and organisations that seek power and influence in society. Other
aspects of political science include various forms of government and how they work, as well as
various international organisations and their role in politics. Election studies, polls, and studies of
voting behaviour have all become important aspects of political science.
- Furthermore, since Aristotle's time, speculation and prediction about the future course of
development, as well as proposals for improving existing political processes and structures, have
been important aspects of political science.
- Political science investigates the state as it should be, or in its "ideal form." Political science,
according to Gettell, is a historical study of what the state was, an analytical study of what the
state is, and a politico-ethical debate about what the state should be.
- Some writers, such as American political scientist Lasswell, American political scientist Kaplan,
American political scientist Morgenthau, British scholar Russell, and French scholar Foucault,
have attempted to make political science the "study of power" in recent years. It is the power
factor that distinguishes the state from other organisations. The scope of political science was
broadened by this new field of study. Apart from that, political science has evolved into
- 'policy science,' with the goal of formulating integrated and comprehensive policies to address
and solve a variety of problems at various levels.
- Developments in the field of human rights and development, as well as new social movements
and upsurges in civil society, have broadened the scope of political science since the 1990s.

3
• Political Science and allied science
- Man is a social animal who lives in a social environment. His social life has many facets-
economic, political, psychological, historical, sociological, and so on. As a social science,
political science examines the political aspects of man's social life. Other social sciences, such as
history, economics, sociology, psychology, and ethics, are all closely related to it. in recent vears.
social science research has taken on an inter-disciplinary character, with researchers and students
from one specialised social science collaborating with researchers and students from other
specialised social sciences. Though Political Science is a self-contained discipline, it is
intertwined with other disciplines such as economics, history, sociology, psychology,
anthropology, and ethics.

• Political Science and History

- History and Political Science are inextricably linked. History is necessary in order to fully
comprehend the origins and development of political institutions. The nature of monarchy in the
United Kingdom and the functioning of the British Parliament, for example, can only be
understood in the context of a thorough understanding of British history. The English people
continued to protest and struggle against their own rulers' despotic monarchy, culminating in the
Glorious Revolution of 1688. It paved the way for the establishment of a limited monarchy in the
United Kingdom, as well as recognition of the parliament's rights. As a result, we can see that the
political institutions that exist today in one form or another have roots in the past. At the same
time, it is important to remember that history is more than just a record of past events and
institutions. Only when the political significance of various historical events and movements is
properly appreciated does history study become fruitful. As a result, both history and political
science are useful and complementary. Political science and its ideas are rooted in a specific
historical period and environment.
- As a result, the two disciplines are intertwined and complement one another. Knowledge of
political institutions and the principles that govern them is essential for a proper understanding of
history. Political scientists use historical events to draw conclusions and develop principles that
govern political life. Sir John Seely, a British historian, aptly described the relationship between

4
 history and political science as follows: "History without Political Science bears no fruit, and
Political Science without History bears no root.”

• Political science and Economics

- Political science and economics have a very close relationship. In fact, economics began as a
branch of political science. Political economy was regarded by the Greeks as the art of generating
revenue for the state. Wealth of Nations was the title of a book written by the British political
economist Adam Smith, the father of modern economics. He stated that economics is a science
that aims to benefit both people and the state. Political and economic issues were discussed by
writers such as Machiavelli (Italian thinker), John Locke (British philosopher), Bentham (British
political philosopher), James Mill (British political thinker), and J.S. Mill (British political
thinker). According to Karl Marx (a German thinker), a nation's politics are determined solely by
economic factors. Economic forces have a big influence on how a government looks and
functions. Individualism, Socialism, and Communism are all based primarily on economic
principles. In contrast, a country's economic activities are largely determined by its current form
of government and policies. The government's taxation policy, export and import policies,
exchange rates, and banking system policies, among other things, have a significant impact on
the country's cconomy. Political stability is dependent on economic stability, and vice versa.
- Modern states face a slew of economic issues that can only be addressed through government
action. The modern state is viewed as a welfare state with economic functions at its core.

• Political science and Sociology

- Sociology is the study of human behaviour. It is concerned with the emergence, evolution, and
structure of all types of human associations in society. Political science, on the other hand, is
primarily concerned with a single type of human association: the state. As a result, Political
Science has a much narrower scope than Sociology.
- Furthermore, Political Science is limited to the political aspects of man's life, whereas Sociology
is concerned with the social man in all of his aspects, including social, ethnic, economic,
political, religious, and so on.
- Sociology is the study of society's various social structures and activities. As a result, it
investigates the state structure, which is a central theme in political science. To enrich empirical

5
 political theory, behavioural political scientists have drawn heavily on the sociological writings
of Talcott Parsons (American Sociologist) and Robert K Merton (American Sociologist). This
popular trend spawned a new field of study known as political sociology. In fact, political science
students must learn sociology principles, and sociology students must derive facts about the
state's organisation and activities from political science. Political science is concerned with the
state and government, whereas sociology is concerned with the nation, tribe, clan, family, and all
other forms of human associations, including the state. Despite the fact that the two sciences'
spheres have been separated, Political Science and Sociology are complementary to one another.
For example, the state, which is a topic of Political Science, is also a topic of Sociology. It
investigates the evolution of the state from its inception, attempting to decipher the complex
social forces at work in bringing the state into being. Sociology aids Political Science by
presenting these facts. Political Science, on the other hand, aids Sociology by providing
information about the state and government.

• Political science and Geography

- Political science and geography have some overlap. Physical conditions of a state, such as
topography, climatic conditions, insularity, the presence or absence of rivers or mountains, and
proximity to or distance from the sea, influence the character and national life of people. The
differences in political thought, economy, and administrative systems of different countries are
largely explained by differences in geographical factors. Various authors have attempted to
demonstrate the link between the geographical environment and people's political organisations.
Jean Jacques Rousseau. a French political philosopher, claimed that climatic conditions could
determine the nature of a nation's polity. Montesquieu, a French political philosopher, emphasised
the impact of physical environments on government and people's liberty.

• Political science and Jurisprudence

- No less close and no less ancient is the connection between Political Science and Jurisprudence,
the science of law. The former is the study of the State and government whereas the latter is the
study of law.
- If human beings are to live a life of togetherness and safeguard the existence of the community
itself, they must accept certain rules of conduct.

6
- The rules governing society may be few or many. They can range from a few primitive traditions,
handed down orally from one generation to another, to the whole complex set of constitutional
and governmental regulations which are associated with the modern State. The regulations of the
State are called laws and these are formulated, administered and enforced by the
governmentEvery State, no matter what its form of government, develops its own constitutional
law. Similarly, every political philosophy embraces or implies jurisprudence. From a social point
of view, laws must be influenced by their environments. As is the structure of society, so is the
content of laws.
- In a community of large land-owners the laws will not be the same as in a country of peasant
farmers. Similarly, the laws governing private property and the conditions of labour will be
different under a capitalistic pattern of society and a socialistic one. The constitutional law of a
democratic government basically differs from that in a dictatorship.
- Strictly speaking, Jurisprudence is a sub-division of Political Science, as it is the State that
creates and maintains the conditions of law. But it is now treated as a separate study because of
the vastness of its scope and its specialised study of law. Moreover, la’ is concerned with classes
of persons and classes of situations in general, and often hypothetical terms.

• Political Science and Ethics

- Political science and ethics have a very close relationship. Both have the same goal of doing good
to people and promoting the common good. The state was established to uphold law, order, and
morality. In fact, laws should be enacted in such a way that they strengthen people's moral
convictions. The government's actions that violate moral principles are condemned. The moral
end of the state was duly emphasised by ancient philosophers. The state, according to Greek
political philosopher Aristotle, was created for the sake of a good life. The close relationship
between Ethics and Political Science is also mentioned in modern writings. Mahatma Gandhi
tried to combine political principles with moral values, emphasising the importance of both ends
and means being good. Morality, values, and norms of human behaviour are all addressed by
ethics. Man is a rational being who can distinguish between right and wrong, right and wrong,
and just and unjust. Social and political philosophers have long attempted to reconcile their ideas
about the state, government, and law with ethical standards. The Greek political philosopher
Plato, for example, proposed the theory of the ideal state during the ancient period. Aristotle also
stated that the state exists for the good of the people. Theology governed the ethical standards in

7
 politics during the mediaeval period. Rousseau (a French philosopher), Kant (a German
philosopher), Hegel (a German philosopher), Green (a British philosopher), and Mahatma Gandhi
all placed a high value on ethics and morality in political science.
- Politics without morality, according to Mahatma Gandhi, is a death trap. The behavioural
revolution and the emphasis on the concept of power in the twentieth century diminished the
importance of norms and values in political studies.

8
Module 2 : Approaches to Political Analysis

• Traditional Approach
- The traditional approach is value based and lays emphasis on the inclusion of values to the study
of political phenomena. The adherents of this approach believe that the study of political science
should not be based on facts alone since facts and values are closely related to each other. Since
the days of Plato and Aristotle “the great issues of politics‟ have revolved around normative
orientations. Accordingly there are a large number of traditional approaches like legal approach,
philosophical approach, historical approach, institutional approach etc.
- (i) Philosophical Approach
- In the first place, the philosophical approach is concerned with the clarification of concepts used
in a particular discipline. Secondly, the philosophical approach aims at evolving "standards of
right and wrong" for the purpose of a critical evaluation of the existing institutions, laws and
policies.
- Philosophical approach to the study of political science could be traced in the writings of ancient
philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. Leo Strauss who was one of the ardent supporters of this
approach believed that “the philosophy is the quest for wisdom and political philosophy is the
attempt truly to know about the nature of political things and the right or good political order.”
This approach lays stress on ethical and normative1 study of politics and is idealistic2 in nature.
It deals with the problems of nature and function of state, issues of citizenship, rights and duties
etc. Its themes are generally concerned with moral reasoning which cannot be subjected to
scientific test
- (ii) Historical Approach
- Historical approach believes that political phenomena could be understood better with the help of
historical factors like age, place, situations etc. Political thinkers like Machiavelli, Sabine and
Dunning believe that politics and history are intricately related and the study of politics always
should have a historical perspective. Sabine is of the view that Political Science should include
all those subjects which have been discussed in the writings of different political thinkers from
the time of Plato. Every past is linked with the present and thus the historical analysis provides a
chronological order of every political phenomenon.
- The term 'historical approach' to politics may be used in two senses. Firstly, it may denote the
process of arriving at the laws governing politics through an analysis of historical

9
- 1 Normative means establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of
behaviour.
- 2 It is characterized by idealism; unrealistically aiming for perfection.
- Historical events, that is events of the past, as exemplified by the theories propounded by Hegel
and Marx. In the second place, historical approach stands for an attempt at understanding politics
through a historical account of political thought of the past.
- (iii) Legal Approach
- Legal approach stands for an attempt to understand politics in terms of law. It focuses its
attention on the legal and constitutional framework in which different organs of government have
to function, inquires into their respective legal position, their powers and the procedure which
makes their actions legally valid.
- For instance, legal approach to Indian politics will proceed to analyse legal implications of
various provisions of the Indian Constitution, duly documented by the decisions of the Supreme
Court of India as well as by the opinions of legal luminaries, procedure of formation and legal
position of the two Houses of the Indian Parliament and State legislatures, procedure of election
or appointment, powers and position of the President, Prime Minister, Governors, Chief
Ministers, Central and State Cabinets, etc., role and powers of the Supreme Court of India and
High Courts, full legal implications of the federal set up, position of Fundamental Rights and
Directive Principles of State Policy, etc. Similarly, legal approach to international politics will
largely tend to analyse it in terms of the requirements of international law.
- Moreover, all political processes to become effective and stable must culminate in legal
provisions whether it is an independence movement in a colonized country or an agitation for
civil rights or certain concessions for any sections of society. Besides, the study of constitutional
law and international law, etc. in spite of its limited use in understanding politics, continues to
play a pivotal role in the social and political life of almost every country.
- Legal approach regards state as the creator and enforcer of law and deals with legal institutions,
and processes. Its advocates include Cicero, Jean Bodin, Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy Bentham, John
Austin, Dicey and Sir Henry Maine.
- (iv) Institutional Approach
- Institutional approach is closely related to legal approach, yet it is different. Significantly, this
approach does not solely bank on other disciplines—philosophy, history or law—for

10
 understanding politics. Amongst the traditional approaches it alone gives independent identity to
the systematic study of politics.
- Institutional approach lays stress on the study of political institutions and structures like
executive, legislature, judiciary, political parties, interests groups etc. Among the ancient thinkers
Aristotle is an important contributor to this approach while the modern thinkers include James
Bryce, Bentley, Walter Bagehot, Harold Laski, etc.
- Accordingly the upholders of the institutional approach proceed to study the organization and
functioning of government, its various organs, political parties and other institutions affecting
politics. Classification of governments, starting from Aristotle (monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy,
oligarchy, polity and democracy) to modern classification (democracy and dictatorship,
parliamentary and presidential, unitary and federal, etc.), identification of levels of government
(federal, state and local) as well as branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial),
composition and powers of each of these and their interrelationships (largely in legal terms), etc.
are the chief concerns of this approach. It aims at giving an elaborate description of facts. Hence
it exemplifies a shift from normative to empirical approach, and from a historical to a
contemporary concern within the sphere of traditional approaches. However, it relies heavily on
description rather than explanation. Hence, it fails to qualify as a contemporary approach.

• Modern Approach
- The modern approach is fact based and lays emphasis on the factual study of political
phenomenon to arrive at scientific and definite conclusions. The modern approaches include
sociological approach, economic approach, psychological approach, quantitative approach,
simulation approach, system approach, behavioural approach, Marxian approach etc.
- Broadly speaking, modern or contemporary approaches to the study of politics signify a departure
from traditional approaches in two respects: (a) they attempt to establish a separate identity of
political science by focusing on the real character of politics; and (b) they try to understand
politics in totality, transcending its formal aspects and looking for those aspects of social life
which influence and are influenced by it.
- Normative methods generally refer to the traditional methods of inquiry to the phenomena of
politics and are not merely concerned with “what is” but “what aught to be” issues in politics. Its
focus is on the analysis of institution as the basic unit of study. However with the advent of
industrialisation and behavioural revolution in the field of political science, emphasis shifted

11
 from the study “what aught to” to “what is”. Today political scientists are more interested in
analysing how people behave in matters related to the state and government.
- A new movement was ushered in by a group of political scientists in America who were not
satisfied with the traditional approach to the analysis of government and state as they felt that
tremendous exploration had occurred in other social sciences like sociology, psychology
anthropology etc. which when applied to the political issues could render new insights. They now
collect data relating to actual political happenings. Statistical information coupled with the actual
behaviours of men, individually and collectively, may help the political scientists in arriving at
definite conclusions and predicting things correctly in political matters. The quantitative or
statistical method, the systems approach or simulation approach in political science base their
inquiry on scientific data and as such are known as modern or empirical method.
- (i) System Approach
- This approach belongs to the category of modern approach. This approach makes an attempt to
explain the relationship of political life with other aspects of social life. The idea of a system was
originally borrowed from biology by Talcott Parsons who first popularized the concept of social
system. Later on David Easton further developed the concept of a political system. According to
this approach, a political system operates within the social environment. Accordingly, it is not
possible to analyze political events in isolation from other aspects of the society. In other words,
influences from the society, be it economic, religious or otherwise, do shape the political process.
- The systems approach as developed by David Eason can be analyzed with the help of a diagram
as follows:
- The political system operates within an environment. The environment generates demands from
different sections of the society such as demand for reservation in the matter of employment for
certain groups, demand for better working conditions or minimum wages, demand for better
transportation facilities, demand for better health facilities, etc.. Different demands have different
levels of support. Both ‘demands’ and ‘supports’ constitute what Easton calls ‘inputs.’ The
political system receives theses inputs from the environment. After taking various factors into
consideration, the government decides to take action on some of theses demands while others are
not acted upon. Through the conversion process, the inputs are converted into ‘outputs’ by the
decision makers in the form of policies, decisions, rules, regulations and laws. The ‘outputs’ flow
back into the environment through a ‘feedback’ mechanism, giving rise to fresh ‘demands.’
Accordingly, it is a cyclical process.

12
- (ii) Structural Functional Approach
- This approach treats the society as a single inter–related system where each part of the system has
a definite and distinct role to play. The structural-functional approach may be regarded as an
offshoot of the system analysis. These approaches emphasize the structures and functions.
Gabriel Almond is a supporter of this approach. He defines political systems as a special system
of interaction that exists in all societies performing certain functions. According to him, the main
characteristics of a political system are comprehensiveness, inter-dependence and existence of
boundaries. Like Easton, Almond also believes that all political systems perform input and output
functions. The Input functions of political systems are political socialisation and recruitment,
interest-articulation, interest-aggression and political communication. Again, Almond makes
three-fold classifications of governmental output functions relating to policy making and
implementation. These output functions are-rule making, rule application and rule adjudication.
Thus, Almond believes that a stable and efficient political system converts inputs into outputs.
- (iii) Communication Theory Approach
- This approach tries to investigate how one segment of a system affects another by sending
messages or information. It was Robert Weiner who first spoke about this approach. Later on
Karl Deutsch developed it and applied it in Political Science. Deutsch believes that the political
system is a network of communication channels and it is self regulative. He further believes that
the government is responsible for administering different communication channels. This
approach treats the government as the decision making system. According to Deutsch, the four
factors of analysis in communication theory are – lead, lag, gain and load.
- (iv) Decision Making Approach
- This approach tries to find out the characteristics of decision makers as well as the type of
influence the individuals have on the decision makers. Scholars like Richard Synder and Charles
Lindblom have developed this approach. A political decision which is taken by a few actors
influences a larger society and such a decision is generally shaped by a specific situation.
Therefore, it takes into account psychological and social aspects of decision makers also.

• Postmodern Approach

13
- Postmodernism in political science refers to the use of postmodern ideas in political science.
Postmodernists believe that many situations which are considered political in nature can not be
adequately discussed in traditional realist and liberal approaches to political science.
Postmodernists cite examples such as the situation of a Benedictine University “draft-age youth
whose identity is claimed in national narratives of ‘national security’ and the universalizing
narratives of the ‘rights of man,’” of “the woman whose very womb is claimed by the
irresolvable contesting narratives of church,’ ‘paternity,’ ‘economy,’ and ‘liberal polity.’In these
cases, postmodernists argue that there are no fixed categories, stable sets of values, or common
sense meanings to be understood in their scholarly exploration.
- In these margins, postmodernists believe that people resist realist concepts of power which is
repressive, in order to maintain a claim on their own identity. What makes this resistance
significant is that among the aspects of power resisted is that which forces individuals to take a
single identity or to be subject to a particular interpretation. Meaning and interpretation in these
types of situations is always uncertain; arbitrary in fact. The power in effect here is not that of
oppression, but that of the cultural and social implications around them, which creates the
framework within which they see themselves, which creates the boundaries of their possible
courses of action.
- Postmodern political scientists, such as Richard Ashley, claim that in these marginal sites it is
impossible to construct a coherent narrative, or story, about what is really taking place without
including contesting and contradicting narratives, and still have a “true” story from the
perspective of a “sovereign subject,” who can dictate the values pertinent to the “meaning” of the
situation. In fact, it is possible here to deconstruct the idea of meaning. Ashley attempts to reveal
the ambiguity of texts, especially Western texts, how the texts themselves can be seen as "sites of
conflict" within a given culture or worldview. By regarding them in this way, deconstructive
readings attempt to uncover evidence of ancient cultural biases, conflicts, lies, tyrannies, and
power structures, such as the tensions and ambiguity between peace and war, lord and subject,
male and female, which serve as further examples of Derrida's binary oppositions in which the
first element is privileged, or considered prior to and more authentic, in relation to the second.
Examples of postmodern political scientists include post-colonial writers such as Frantz Fanon,
feminist writers such as Cynthia Enloe, and postpositive theorists such as Ashley and James Der
Derian.
• Behaviouralism

14
- Behaviouralism is an approach in political science emerged in the 1930s in the United States. The
deep dissatisfaction with the nature, scope, methods and conclusions of traditional Political
Science led to the emergence of a revolution that resulted in the emergence of Behavioural
Approach in Politics.
- Behavioralism, which was one of the dominant approaches in the 1950s and ’60s, is the view that
the subject matter of political science should be limited to phenomena that are independently
observable and quantifiable. It assumes that political institutions largely reflect underlying social
forces and that the study of politics should begin with society, culture, and public opinion.
- The origin of behaviouralism is often attributed to Charles Merriam who emphasized the
importance of examining political behaviour of individuals and groups rather than only
considering how they abide by legal or formal rules.
- Definitions of Behaviouralism
- Behavioural approach to politics is referred to as behaviouralism.
- “Behaviouralism is a movement in political science which insists on analysing only observable
behaviour of political actors”.

• CHARACTERISTICS OF BEHAVIOURALISM
- Eminent scholars like David Truman, Heinz Eulau, Samuel J.Eldersveld, Morris Janowitz and
David Easton, have given their views on the characteristics of Behaviouralism.
- David Truman defines political Behaviouralism as the science of political behaviour, where
political behaviours means all “those actions and interactions of men and groups which are
involved in the process of governing.”
- According to David Truman, behaviouralism has two main features:
- (i) research must be systematic, and
- (ii) it must place primary emphasis upon empirical methods.
- Heinz Eulan, Elderseld and Janowitz specify the following four characteristics of the political
behaviour approach:
- 1. Behaviouralism specifies the behaviour of persons and social groups rather than events,
structures, institutions, or ideologies, as the unit or object of both theoretical and empirical
analysis.
- 2. Behaviouralism favours inter-disciplinary focus. It seeks to place theory and research in a
frame of reference common to that of social psychology, sociology and cultural anthropology.

15
- 3. Behaviouralism stresses the mutual inter-dependence of theory and research. It is self-
consciously theory oriented. Theoretical questions need to be stated in operational terms for
purpose of empirical research. Empirical findings should have a bearing on the development of
political theory.
- 4. Behaviouralism tries to develop rigorous designs and to apply precise methods of analysis to
the political behaviour problems. It stands for scientific procedure of research.
- David Easton has identified the following eight major assumptions or characteristics of
Behaviouralism:
- 1. Regularities
- There are discoverable uniformities in political behaviour. These can be expressed in
generalizations or theories with with explanatory and predictive values.
- 2. Verification
- The validity of such generalizations must be testable, by reference to relevant behavior.
- 3. Quantification
- Precision in the recording of data and the statement of findings requires measurement and
quantification, not for their own sake, but only where possible, relevant and meaningful in the
light of other objectives.
- 4. Value
- Ethical evaluation and empirical explanation involve two different kinds of proposition that for
the sake of clarity should be kept analytically distinct. However, a student of political behavior is
not prohibited from asserting propositions of either kind separately or in combination as long as
he does not mistake one or the other.
- 5. Techniques
- Means for acquiring and interpreting data cannot be taken for granted. They are problematic and
need to be examined self-consciously, refined and validated so that rigorous means can be found
for observing, recording and analyzing behaviour.
- 6. Systematization
- Research ought to be systematic; theory and research are to be seen as closely inter-twined and
part of a coherent and orderly body of knowledge.
- 7. Pure Science
- The application of knowledge is as much a part of the scientific enterprise as theoretical
understanding. But the understanding and explanation of political behavior logically precede and

16
 provide the basis for efforts to utilize political knowledge in the solution of urgent practical
problems of society.
- 8. Integration
- Since the social sciences deal with the whole human situation, the political research can ignore
the findings of the other disciplines only at the peril of weakening the validity and undermining
the generality of its own results. Recognition of this inter-relationship will help to bring political
science back to its status of earlier centuries and return into the main fold of the social sciences.
- These eight assumptions form the common core of the views of almost all the behaviouralists.
- Thus, Behaviouralism seeks to study politics as an aspect of human behaviour in a framework of
reference common to other social sciences and prescribes the use of empirical research,
mathematical-statistical-quantification techniques of data collection and analysis with the
purpose of building a scientific theory political behavior.

• The Post-Behaviouural Approach

- The Post-Behaviouural Approach is such an approach which developed after witnessing
the loopholes of Behavioral Approach. Considering the popularity in 1940’s, Behavioural
Approach has been one of the most important approaches to Political Science. But in
1970’s, there was general dissatisfaction with the achievements of behaviouralist as it
failed to solve practical problems of the society and it led to the emergence of the post-
Behavioural Approach. The failure of the Behavioural Approach to make any real
progress towards the objective of building a scientific political theory compelled the
behaviouralists to admit reforms in Behavioural Approach and that result in Post-
Behavioural Approach. David Easton, who at one time was a Behaviouralist, criticized it
for its limitations in later course. Thus, the Post- Behavioural Approach complains that
the Behavioural Approach had not taken into account serious social matters.
- Post- Behavioural Approach is both a movement and academic tendency. It opposed the
efforts of the Behavioural Approach to make Political science a value free science. The
Post- Behavioural Approach is a future oriented approach which wants to solve problems
of both present and future. To this approach, the study of Political Science should put
importance on social change. To it political science must have some relevance to society.

17
 Along with relevance, this approach believes that action is the core of study political
science. It accepts that political science needs to study all realities of politics, social
change, values etc.
- There are some basic characteristics of Post- Behavioural Approach. Importance on
action and relevance, human problem oriented, qualitative and qualitative, concerned
with regularities and irregularities are the basic features of Post-Behavioural Approach.
David Easton has mentioned about seven key features of Post- Behavioural Approach to
political science. Considering this seven features, he opined that substance must have
precedence over technique, political science should put emphasis on social change,
research in social science must not lose touch with reality, study should accord value
also, study should also be future oriented etc. To him mad craze for scientism should be
discarded as social science can’t be pure science at any cost. Therefore, we can say that
Post- Behavioural Approach lays emphasis on substance than technique. It is an attempt
to develop a practical, social change oriented approach to political science. Actually, the
Post- Behavioural Approach refines the Behavioural Approach and tries to make it
acceptable.

• Structural-Functional Analysis
- A system of analysis of social phenomena and processes viewed as parts of a structurally
stratified whole, where each structural element has a definite function or purpose.
- Marxist sociology singles out the following structural forms of social organization:
socioeconomic formation, material and intellectual production, the base and the
superstructure, economic, social, and political relations, and socioeconomic, political,
cultural, and other institutions. In this approach, the term “function” is used in two
senses: (1) the purpose of an element of the social system or the service it performs with
respect to another element or to the system as a whole (for instance, the functions of the
state, the law, art, and education), and (2) dependence within a given system, whereby
change in one of its parts is the result of, that is, a function of, change in another part (for
instance, a change in the relationship between urban and rural population as a function of
work content). In this sense, functional dependence may be considered a type of

18
 determinism. The study of both types of function—functional relations and functional
dependence—is one of the objects of special sociological theories based on a synthesis of
theoretical analysis and empirical research.
- In Marxist sociology, structural-functional analysis is organically related to historicism,
to socioeconomic determinism, to analysis of the internal contradictions of phenomena,
and to other analytical principles, all of which constitute the dialectical materialist
methodology for the study of social phenomena.
- In contemporary bourgeois sociology, the structural-functional approach is based on a
juxtaposition of functionalism and historicism. Sociologists of this orientation, such as T.
Parsons, have developed an abstract theory of social systems that have four basic
functions: adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and maintenance of latent social
patterns. For these sociologists, the basic structures of a social system are not
socioeconomic structures but values and norms. The chief mechanism for ensuring the
normal functioning of a system, according to this school, is socialization—a process in
which the individual internalizes the norms and values prevailing in a society—while
deviant behavior is regulated through the process of social control. Such an approach
ignores the contradictory nature of society, as well as class differentiation and the class
struggle. Contemporary bourgeois sociologists of the structural-functionalist orientation
place major emphasis on stability and equilibrium in society, exaggerating the role of
values and norms as regulators of human behavior and concentrating on the study of
mechanisms that bring about social consensus. Ideologically such conceptions are direct
or indirect apologias for bourgeois social relations.

19
Module 3 Origin of a State

• Divine Right theory

- The theory of divine rights of the kings also known as the Divine Origin theory is one of the
oldest theory of the origin of the state. The theory explains about how the state came into being.
The supporters of this theory believed that the state doesn’t come into being by the people but it
is the handiwork of God on the earth. The state was created by the God and the King was the
representatives or agents of God on the earth.
- The king was given the divine power and he was to be responsible to the God alone for his deeds
and was not responsible to the people for any of his works. The king was given the supreme
power to rule over the people through God. This theory has made the king above law and no
subjects will have the right to question his authority or his action.
- The theory prevailed in the old age where religion has dominated the minds of the people. The
subjects believed that as the king is the agent of God so they have to abbey the king and to go
against the king will be a sinful act. But in the twentieth century, this theory has been criticized or
we may say it came under a criticism being an incorrect explanation of the origin of the state.
- There are many causes for the decline of the theory. In the first place it was the emergence of the
social contract theory as a more acceptable theory, the divine origin theory was dashed into the
ground as this social contract theory has suggested that the state is the handiwork of man and not
the creation by the grace of God. Second, was the separation of the church and the state. Thus the
secular outlook made the divine origin theory totally unacceptable. Third, is the emergence of
democracy because democracy it glorified the individual and not the king who was considered as
the agent of God.
- The people was no longer superstitious and have no blind faith, they began to accept only those
things that stood the test of logic and reasoning, for this reason the theory suffered a setback.

• MATRIARCHAL THEORY
- Mclennan, Morgan and Jenks are the notable exponents of matriarchal theory. The matriarchal
system was prior to the patriarchal system and tribe. There was no permanent institution of
marriage. A woman had more than one husband and because of the uncertainty of male parentage
kinship was reckoned through woman that is from mother to daughters.

20
- In the place of a family consisting of a man his wife and children there was a large and loosely
connected group called a horde or pack organised for matrimonial purposes.
- The matriarchal family developed as indicated below.
- 1. First there was a tribe and it was the oldest and primary social group.
- 2. In course of time a tribe breaks into clans.
- 3. Clans in their turn give place to households.
- 4. Atlast comes the modern family.
- Criticism
- The matriarchal theory is more sociological than political. It seeks to explain the origin of family
and not that of the state.
- There is no adequate proof in support of the matriarchal system as the universal and necessary
beginning of society.

• PATRIARCHAL THEORY
- The Patriarchal theory explains that the state originated from the patriarchal family or the family
in which the pater or father was the head.
- State is an enlargement of the family. Originally the family consisted of a man, his wife and
children. The father was the head of the family and his control and authority was complete in all
respects over all its members. When his children married there was expansion in the original
family and it led to the establishment of new families. But the authority of the father and head of
the original family remained as before, and it was duly acknowledged by all his descendants.
This constituted the patriarchal family. The chief exponent of the patriarchal theory is Sir Henry
Maine.
- The following important points may be noted in Maine's Patriarchal theory.
- 1. In the Patriarchal family the element of paternity was the chief fact.
- males and from the same ancestor. None of the descendants of a female was included in the
primitive notion of family relationship. Kinship was accordingly, purely negative.
- 3. Permanent marriage was the rule whether monogamy or polygamy
- The Head of the family was the basis of all authority, and his power was unqualified over his
children and their houses and other relations of all descendants. howsoever numerous.

21
- 5. He controlled not only the business affairs of the group which he headed but its religion and its
conduct.
- The family was the primal unit of political society, 'the seed led of all larger growths of
governments, 'as Woodrow Wilson calls it. The single family had developed into several families;
yet all of them were fully conscious of their ultimate kinship. Bound together by ties of common
anchestors, they associated in a wider common fellowship group, the gens, owing allegiance to
some elected elder - perhaps the oldest living ascendent or the most capable. Similarly, the gens
broadened into the tribe. The pastoral pursuits gave way to agriculture and settled life on a
definite land became a matter of necessity; land tribes united to form the state.
- In support of his statement, Sir Henry Maine cited the patriarchs of the old testament 'families'
and 'brotherhood' of Athens, the patriapotestos in Rome and the Hindu Joint family system in
India.
- Criticism
- Modern theories show that the patriarchal family was not universal, the patriarchal theory was
subjected to severe attacks.
- Patriarchal and matriarchal theories are in essence sociological rather than political theories.
- Stephen Leacock says nonetheless, both the theories sufficiently establish that family is the
original link in the evolution of the state.
- Both these theories do not satisfactorily explain the origin of the state. Matriarchal and
patriarchal could have been prevalent in certain early societies. But it is wrong to assume that the
creation of state was occasioned by these systems. There was not substantial proof to support the
universal validity of these theories.

• FORCE THEORY
- According to this theory, the state originated due to force exerted by the strong over the weak.
The idea contained in the statement is that 'war begat the king'. The same view is expressed by
Hume, Oppenheim, Jenks-Bernhardy and Trietschke are the exponents of force theory. A number
of rulers also believed in this theory. The powerful conquered the weak state is the outcome of
the process of aggressive exploitation of the weaker by the stronger. Might without right is
antagonist to individual liberty.
-

22
- There were other factors besides force which helped the expansion of the state. Similarly force
alone is not the basis of state and it cannot be maintained by force.
- Criticism
- Force indeed has played an important part in the origin and development of the state. Some of the
greatest empires of today have been established through blood and iron.
- The theory of force unduly emphasis the principle of the survival of the fittest. It means that
might is right and those who are physically weak should go to the wall. It is dangerous to employ
such a principle in the internal existence of the state. Every state will be at perpetual war with the
rest. This is a condition of chaos, pure and simple endangering the peace and security of the
world. The attention and efforts of every state will be directed towards war preparedness and to
win the war if it comes. War which is an alias for murder, glorifies brute process, suppressing the
moral forces. This is the mean self of man and not his real self.

• Social Contract Theory

• Social contract theory says that people live together in society in accordance with an agreement
that establishes moral and political rules of behavior. Some people believe that if we live
according to a social contract, we can live morally by our own choice and not because a divine
being requires it.
• Over the centuries, philosophers as far back as Socrates have tried to describe the ideal social
contract, and to explain how existing social contracts have evolved. Philosopher Stuart Rachels
suggests that morality is the set of rules governing behavior that rational people accept, on the
condition that others accept them too.
• Social contracts can be explicit, such as laws, or implicit, such as raising one’s hand in class to
speak. The U.S. Constitution is often cited as an explicit example of part of America’s social
contract. It sets out what the government can and cannot do. People who choose to live in
America agree to be governed by the moral and political obligations outlined in the Constitution’s
social contract.
• Indeed, regardless of whether social contracts are explicit or implicit, they provide a valuable
framework for harmony in society.

23
• The social contract in Hobbes
- According to Hobbes (Leviathan, 1651), the state of nature was one in which there were no
enforceable criteria of right and wrong. People took for themselves all that they could, and
human life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” The state of nature was therefore a state
of war, which could be ended only if individuals agreed (in a social contract) to give their liberty
into the hands of a sovereign, on the sole condition that their lives were safeguarded by sovereign
power.
- For Hobbes the authority of the sovereign is absolute, in the sense that no authority is above the
sovereign, whose will is law. That, however, does not mean that the power of the sovereign is all-
encompassing: subjects remain free to act as they please in cases in which the sovereign is silent
(in other words, when the law does not address the action concerned). The social contract allows
individuals to leave the state of nature and enter civil society, but the former remains a threat and
returns as soon as governmental power collapses. Because the power of Leviathan (the political
state) is uncontested, however, its collapse is very unlikely and occurs only when it is no longer
able to protect its subjects.

• The social contract in Locke

- Locke (in the second of the Two Treatises of Government, 1690) differed from Hobbes insofar as
he conceived of the state of nature not as a condition of complete license but rather as a state in
which humans, though free, equal, and independent, are obliged under the law of nature to
respect each other’s rights to life, liberty, and property. Individuals nevertheless agree to form a
commonwealth (and thereby to leave the state of nature) in order to institute an impartial power
capable of arbitrating disputes and redressing injuries. Accordingly, Locke held that the
obligation to obey civil government under the social contract was conditional upon the protection
of the natural rights of each person, including the right to private property. Sovereigns who
violated these terms could be justifiably overthrown.Locke thus stated one of the fundamental
principles of political liberalism: that there can be no subjection to power without consent—
though once political society has been founded, citizens are obligated to accept the decisions of a
majority of their number. Such decisions are made on behalf of the majority by the legislature,
though the ultimate power of choosing the legislature rests with the people; and even the powers
of the legislature are not absolute, because the law of nature remains as a permanent standard and
as a principle of protection against arbitrary authority.

24
• The social contract in Rousseau
- Rousseau, in Discours sur l’origine de l’inegalité (1755; Discourse on the Origin of Inequality),
held that in the state of nature humans were solitary but also healthy, happy, good, and free. What
Rousseau called “nascent societies” were formed when human began to live together as families
and neighbours; that development, however, gave rise to negative and destructive passions such
as jealousy and pride, which in turn fostered social inequality and human vice. The introduction
of private property marked a further step toward inequality, since it made law and government
necessary as a means of protecting it. Rousseau lamented the “fatal” concept of property and the
“horrors” that resulted from the departure from a condition in which the earth belonged to no one.
- Civil society, as Rousseau described it in the Discourse, came into being to serve two purposes:
to provide peace for everyone and to ensure the right to property for anyone lucky enough to
have possessions. It was thus of some advantage to everyone, but mostly to the advantage of the
rich, since it transformed their de facto ownership into rightful ownership and kept the poor
dispossessed. It was, indeed, a somewhat fraudulent social contract, since the poor got so much
less out of it than did the rich.
- But Rousseau also believed in the possibility of a genuine social contract, one in which people
would receive in exchange for their independence a better kind of freedom, namely true political,
or republican, liberty. As described in Du Contrat social (1762; The Social Contract), such liberty
is to be found in obedience to what Rousseau called the volonté générale (“general will”)—a
collectively held will that aims at the common good or the common interest.
- Rousseau’s conception of citizenship was much more organic and much less individualistic than
Locke’s. The surrender of independence, or natural liberty, for political liberty meant that all
individual rights, including property rights, are subordinate to the general will. For Rousseau the
state is a moral person whose life is the union of its members, whose laws are acts of the general
will, and whose end is the liberty and equality of its citizens. It follows that when any
government usurps the power of the people, the social contract is broken; and not only are the
citizens no longer compelled to obey, but they also have an obligation to rebel.
- The more perceptive social-contract theorists, including Hobbes, invariably recognized that their
concepts of the social contract and the state of nature were unhistorical and that they could be
justified only as hypotheses useful for the clarification of timeless political problems. See also
state of nature.

25
• Structural functional analysis
- Structural functional analysis was originated in the sphere social anthropology, in the writings of
Radcliffe-Brown and B. Malinowski.
- Then it was developed in the field of sociology by Talcott Parsons, Robert Merton and Marion
Levy. Gabriel Almond and his associates developed it into a tool of political analysis.
- Structures are patterned behavior and need not necessarily be formalized and located in concrete
institutions. Functions are the relevant consequences of activity. In structural-functional analysis
one identifies the important structures in a political system and then seeks to discover the
functions of those identified structures.
- The political system "would appear as that sub-system performing the distinctive function of
making legitimate policy decisions, or to use shorter expression, the function of goal attainment'
for the society of which it is a part.
- With a view to understand the implications and nature of the structural functional analysis, we
should look at its basic assumptions and postulates.
- 1) It takes the society as a single, interconnected system each element of which performs a
specific function. The basic feature of such a system is the interaction of its components for the
maintenance of its equilibrium.
- 2) If society is a system as a whole, it has its parts that are interrelated. A social system has a
dominant tendency towards stability that is maintained by virtue of build in mechanism.
- 3) Underlying the whole social structure there are broad aims and principles that are observed by
the members of the society.

26
Module 4: Elements of State

• State
- The concept of the state has figured as the central theme of traditional political theory. R.G.
Gettel defined political science as 'the science of the state’, while J.W. Gamer claimed that
'political science begins and ends with the state'. In modern political theory, the significance of
the concept of the state has been fluctuating. Some exponents of the behavioural approach in
political science have even suggested abandoning the concept of the state altogether.
- Their main objection is that this concept does not help in understanding political reality or the
political process, because (a) the term 'state' refers to a formal concept while real politics
transcends the formal organization of the state; (b) the 'state' is usually conceived in terms of the
'ends' of the state which drags us to the realm of moral philosophy, far removed from the real
world of politics; and (c) the concept of the state postulates a particular type of organization
which excludes top organizations of certain societies, real or imaginary, and thus introduces the
idea of 'pre-state' societies and 'stateless' societies.
- This leads to the assumption that political organization is not a universal phenomenon. David
Easton, in his Political System— An Inquiry into the State of Political Science (1953), observed:
“One person sees the state as the embodiment of the moral spirit, its concrete expression; another,
as the instrument of exploitation used by one class against others. One author defines it as simply an
aspect of society, distinguishable from it only analytically; another, as simply a synonym for
government; and still another, as a separate and unique association among a large number of other
associations such as the church, trade unions, and similar voluntary groups.” After dwelling on
these ambiguities in some detail Easton came to the conclusion that the word 'state' 'ought to be
abandoned entirely’.
It is important to note that distaste for the term 'state' was confined to some exponents of liberal
political theory, especially to some American political scientists. Marxist political theory continued
to use the term 'state' to denote a specific form of political organization: the terms 'slave-owning
state', 'feudal state', 'capitalist state', 'socialist/communist state', as well as 'pre-state society' and
'stateless society' are the current coins of Marxist political theory. Even the empirically-oriented
political scientists of the liberal tradition used the term 'state- building', especially in the context of
developing societies, which signified a renewed interest in the concept of the 'state' as an
institutional and constitutional mechanism. Then, in the 1980s attention swung back to the state, as

27
exemplified by T. Skocpol, 'Bringing the State Back (In Bringing the State Back in: Strategies of
Analysis in Current Research, 1985). However, in contrast to the earlier concept of the state as an
institutional structure, it was redefined as an active agent of shaping and reshaping society. It is thus
evident that, in spite of some initial suspicions and objections, the concept of the state never became
entirely redundant for the study of politics.

• Elements of State:
- A State stands identified with its four absolutely essential elements:
1. Population:
- State is a community of persons. It is a human political institution. Without a population there can
be no State. Population can be more or less but it has to be there. There are States with very small
populations like Switzerland, Canada and others, and there are States like China, India and
others, with very large populations.
- The people living in the State are the citizens of the State. They enjoy rights and freedom as
citizens as well as perform several duties towards the State. When citizens of another State are
living in the territory of the State, they are called aliens. All the persons, citizens as well as aliens,
who are living in the territory of the State are duty bound to obey the state laws and policies. The
State exercises supreme authority over them through its government.
- There is no definite limit for the size of population essential for a State. However, it is recognised
that the population should be neither too large nor very small. It has to be within a reasonable
limit. It should be determined on the basis of the size of the territory of the State, the available
resources, the standard of living expected and needs of defence, production of goods and
supplies. India has a very large and fast growing population and there is every need to check
population growth. It is essential for enhancing the ability of India to register a high level of
sustainable development.
2. Territory:
- Territory is the second essential element of the State. State is a territorial unit. Definite territory is
its essential component. A State cannot exist in the air or at sea. It is essentially a territorial State.
The size of the territory of a State can be big or small; nevertheless it has to be a definite, well-
marked portion of territory.
- States like Russia, Canada, U.S.A., India, China, Brazil and some others are large sized states
whereas Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldivies, Switzerland, Togo, Brundi and many others are

28
 States with small territories. The whole territory of the state is under the sovereignty or supreme
power of the State. All persons, organisations, associations, institutions and places located within
its territory are under the sovereign jurisdiction of the State.
- Further, it must be noted that the territory of the state includes not only the land but also, rivers,
lakes, canals inland seas if any, a portion of coastal sea—territorial waters or maritime belt,
continental shelf, mountains, hills and all other land features along with the air space above the
territory.
- The territory of the state can also include some islands located in the sea. For example Anadaman
& Nicobar and Daman and Diu are parts of India. State exercises sovereignty over all parts of its
territory. Ships of the State are its floating parts and Aero-planes are its flying parts. Even a States
can lease out its territory to another State e.g. India has given on lease the Teen Bigha corridor to
Bangladesh.
3. Government:
- Government is the organisation or machinery or agency or magistracy of the State which makes,
implements, enforces and adjudicates the laws of the state. Government is the third essential
element of the State. The state exercises its sovereign power through its government.
- This sometimes creates the impression that there is no difference between the State and
Government. However it must be clearly noted that government is just one element of the State.
It is the agent or the working agency of the State. Sovereignty belongs to the State; the
government only uses it on behalf of the State.
- Each government has three organs:
(1) Legislature—which formulates the will of State i.e. performs law-making functions;
(2) Executive— enforces and implements the laws i.e. performs the law-application functions; and
(3) Judiciary—which applies the laws to specific cases and settles the disputes i.e. performs
adjudication functions.
- Government as a whole is the instrument through which the sovereign power of the State gets
used.
- In ancient times, the King used to perform all functions of the government and all powers of
governance stood centralized in his hands. Gradually, however, the powers of King got
decentralized and these came to be exercised by these three organs of the government:
Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.

29
- Each of these three organs of the government carries out its assigned functions. Independence of
Judiciary is also a settled rule. The relationship between the Legislature and Executive is defined
by law and it corresponds to the adopted form of government. In a Parliamentary form of
government, like the one which is working in India and Britain, the legislature and executive are
closely related and the latter is collectively responsible before the former.
- In the Presidential form, as is in operation in the U.S.A., the legislature and executive are two
independent and separate organs with stable and fixed tenures, and the executive is not
responsible to legislature. It is directly responsible to the people.
4. Sovereignty:
- Sovereignty is the most exclusive element of State. State alone posses sovereignty. Without
sovereignty no state can exit. Some institutions can have the first three elements (Population
Territory and Government) but not sovereignty.
- State has the exclusive title and prerogative to exercise supreme power over all its people and
territory. In fact, Sovereignty is the basis on which the State regulates all aspects of the life of the
people living in its territory.
As the supreme power of the State, Sovereignty has two dimensions:
Sovereignty.
(i) Internal Sovereignty:
It means the power of the State to order and regulate the activities of all the people, groups and
institutions which are at work within its territory. All these institutions always act in accordance
with the laws of the State. The State can punish them for every violation of any of its laws.
laws.
(ii) External Sovereignty:
- It means complete independence of the State from external control. It also means the full freedom
of the State to participate in the activities of the community of nations. Each state has the
sovereign power to formulate and act on the basis of its independent foreign policy.
- We can define external sovereignty of the State as its sovereign equality with every other state.
State voluntarily accepts rules of international law. These cannot be forced upon the State. India
is free to sign or not to sign any treaty with any other state. No state can force it to do so.
- No State can really become a State without sovereignty. India became a State in 1947 when it got
independence and sovereignty. After her independence, India got the power to exercise both
internal and external Sovereignty. Sovereignty permanently, exclusively and absolutely belongs

30
 to the State. End of sovereignty means end of the State. That is why sovereignty is accepted as
the exclusive property and hallmark of the State.
- These are the four essential elements of a State. A State comes to be a state only when it has all
these elements. Out of these four elements, Sovereignty stands accepted as the most important
and exclusive element of the State.

• Sovereignty
- Sovereignty is a political concept that refers to dominant power or supreme authority. In a
monarchy, supreme power resides in the "sovereign", or king. In modern democracies, sovereign
power rests with the people and is exercised through representative bodies such as Congress or
Parliament. The Sovereign is the one who exercises power without limitation. Sovereignty is
essentially the power to make laws, even as Blackstone defined it. The term also carries
implications of autonomy; to have sovereign power is to be beyond the power of others to
interfere.
Beyond lawmaking power, two other (often contentious) aspects of sovereignty are eminent domain
(the right of the sovereign to take private property for public use) and sovereign immunity(which
offers the sovereign protection from lawsuits)

• Characteristics of Sovereignty:
According to Dr. Garner, following are the characteristics or attributes of Sovereignty:
(1) Permanence.
(2) Exclusiveness.
(3) All-Comprehensiveness.
(4) Inalienability.
(5) Unity.
(6) Imprescriptibility.
(7) Indivisibility.
(8) Absoluteness or illimitability.
(9) Originality.

31
(1) Permanence:
- Permanence is the chief characteristics of sovereignty. Sovereignty lasts as long as an
independent state lasts. The death of the king, the overthrow of the government and the addiction
of power does not lead to the destruction of sovereignty.
- We should keep in mind the basic fact that the king or the ruler exercises sovereign power on
behalf of the state and, therefore, sovereignty lasts as long as the state lasts. The death of the king
or the overthrow of the government does not affect sovereignty. This is the reason why people in
England used to say “The King is dead, long live the King”.
- Dr. Garner has beautifully summed up this idea in the following manner:
“Sovereignty does not cease with the death or temporary dispossession of a particular bearer or the
re-organisation of the state but shifts immediately to a new bearer, as the centre of gravity shifts
from one part of physical body to another when it undergoes external change”.
(2) Exclusiveness:
- By exclusiveness we mean that there can be two sovereigns, in one independent state and if the
two sovereigns exist in a state, the unity of that state will be destroyed. There cannot exist
another sovereign slate within the existing sovereign state.
(3) All Comprehensiveness:
- The State is all comprehensive and the sovereign power is universally applicable. Every
individual and every association of individual is subject to the sovereignty of the state. No
association or group of individuals, however, rich or powerful it may be, can resist or disobey the
sovereign authority.
- Sovereignty makes no exception and grants no exemption to anyone. It grants exemptions only in
the case of foreign embassies and diplomatic representatives of foreign countries on the
reciprocal basis. This does not in any way restrict the sovereignty of the state in the legal sense.
The state can abolish and withdraw the diplomatic privileges granted to foreigners.
(4) Inalienability:
- Inalienability is another characteristic of sovereignty. Sovereignty is inalienable. By inalienability
we mean that the State cannot part with its sovereignty. In other words, we can say that the
sovereign does not remain the sovereign or the sovereign state, if he or the state transfers his or
its sovereignty to any other person or any other state.
- Sovereignty is the life and soul of the state and it cannot be alienated without destroying the state
itself. Lieber has very aptly remarked in this connection: “Sovereignty can no more be alienated

32
 than a tree can alienate its right to sprout or a man can transfer his life or personality to another
without self-destruction”.
(5) Unity:
- Unity is the very spirit of Sovereignty. The sovereign state is united just as we are united.
(6) Imperscriptibility:
- By imprescriptibility, we mean that if the sovereign does not exercise his sovereignty for a certain
period of time, it does not lead to the destruction of sovereignty. It lasts as long as the state lasts.
(7) Indivisibility:
- Indivisibility is the life-blood of sovereignty. Sovereignty cannot be divided state, American
statesman Calhoun has declared, “Sovereignty is an entire thing; to divide it is to destroy it. It is
the supreme power in a state and we might just well divide it is to destroy it.
- It is the supreme power in a state and we might just well speak of half square or half a triangle as
half a sovereignty”. Gettell, has also very aptly remarked in this regard, “If sovereignty is not
absolute, no state exists. If sovereignty is divided, more than one state exists”.
(8) Absoluteness:
- Sovereignty is absolute and unlimited. The sovereign is entitled to do whatsoever he likes.
Sovereignty is subject to none.
(9) Originality:
- By originality we mean that the sovereign wields power by virtue of his own right and not by
virtue of anybody’s mercy.

• Classification of Sovereignty:
1. Legal and Political Sovereignty:
- Legal theory of sovereignty, in modern times, was first propounded by Jean Bodin (1530-1596)
in his famous book Six Books of a Commonwealth published in 1576. In Bodin’s account
sovereignty is the untrammelled and undivided power to make laws. This power we call absolute
power of the state.
- Bodin designated law as the command of sovereignty. In his view sovereignty is not only
absolute power of the commonwealth but also the legal authority and naturally none has any
claim against such authority. Legal sovereignty is based upon the contention that ultimate and
final authority resides in law-making power and since the sovereignty is law-making power it is
the legal sovereignty.

33
- Another great exponent of legal sovereignty is Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). His Leviathan
(1651) fully analyses the legal aspect of sovereignty. In this book Hobbes says monopoly of
coercive power is vested in the hands of sovereignty who is a single person. Though he made an
option that sovereignty might be vested even in the hands of a group of persons his clear
preference was for single person.
- There is practically no difference between Bodin’s untrammelled and undivided power and
Hobbes’ supreme coercive power. Both indicate something and lead to same consequences. Both
Bodin and Hobbes propounded a legal and absolute power of sovereignty.
- Illustrated by the following observation made by him in his Six Books on Commonwealth.
“There is none on earth, after God, greater than sovereign princes, whom God establishes as- his
lieutenants to command the rest of mankind”. Besides God only the prince enjoys sovereign
authority.
- The sovereign power is not subject to the command of another person and he is the ultimate law-
making power. The interesting aspect of Bodin’s theory of sovereignty was since he was political
philosopher of sixteenth century he mixed politics with religion by making God as part of
sovereignty.
- Like Bodin, Hobbes believed that the sovereign authority was the only or ultimate law-making
power. He was the only power to see that the law made by him was properly implemented. The
main aim of law and its proper implementation was to ensure “peaceful and commodious living”.
Hobbes’ writing also contains that people erected an absolute sovereign power for the
maintenance of security.
- In the state of nature there lacked peace, security, tranquility and commodious living and in order
to get all these they created absolute sovereign power. We thus find that legal aspect of
sovereignty largely focuses on the law making and law implementing power of sovereign
authority.
- Both Bodin and Hobbes were profoundly influenced by the prevailing circu stances in their
respective countries. In Bodin’s France religious strife made life of common people unbearable
and destroyed peace in society. In England social and political disorder heavily told upon the
normal life of people. Bodin and Hobbes believed that absolute power was the only remedy to
this situation and this belief led them to argue for the undivided and unlimited power of the
sovereignty.

34
m­
- We shall now deal with political sovereignty. Defining it Heywood says: “Political sovereignty is
not in any way based upon a claim to legal authority but is concerned simply about the actual
distribution of power that is de facto sovereignty. Political sovereignty, therefore, refers to the
existence of a supreme political power, possessed of the ability to command obedience because it
monopolises coercive power”.
- This type of sovereignty generally means that exercise of political power is of prime importance.
Very often people do not want to see whether the sovereign power is sanctioned by law or not;
political sovereignty is the holder of monopoly coercive force and by virtue of that the
sovereignty exercises power. It may be that people show obedience to such sovereignty but the
obedience may not be spontaneous.
- However, to the political sovereignty that does not matter anything. It will see whether people are
obeying the laws promulgated by it. In this connection it may be noted that it is not true that
political sovereignty is always based upon coercive force. In order to build up confidence in the
minds of the people such sovereignty sometimes adopts constitutional, legal and democratic
methods.
- It also poses before the people that it is democratic and respects the constitution and all legal
procedures. It has been found that political sovereignty is vested in the hands of a person or group
of persons who are closely related with the politics and less with legal affairs.

35
Module 5 : Evolution of Government

• Classification of Governments of Aristotle:

- Some writers do not make any distinction between state and government. They use government
and state in one and the same sense while giving a classification of states. Modern writers do not
agree with this type of classification.
- According to them, there can be no classification of states, as all the states are equal in so much
as the four attributes-population, territory, government and sovereignty-are essential for all the
states. American writer Willoughby is of the view that there can be no classification of states; the
states can be classified only on the basis of administration. In fact, the classification of the
governments is the classification of the states. State expresses its will through the government.
Leacock and Gilchrist also agree that there should be the classification of governments.
- Aristotle’s Classification:
- Aristotle’s classification of states is based on two principles:
- (1) The number of persons who exercise supreme power;
- (2) The ends they seek to serve self-interest or benefit of the community.
- Aristotle was of the view that when the rulers aimed at the good of the community, the states
would be a pure form of state. When the rulers in such a state became selfish, the state would be
called a perverted state.
- According to Aristotle, if sovereignty resides in one person, it is Monarchy. Its perverted form is
Tyranny. If sovereignty resides in a small minority of the population, it is Aristocracy. If this
small minority uses the sovereignty for its own selfish ends, it is Oligarchy. If the sovereign
power resides in a large proportion of the population, it is polity. Its perverted form is
Democracy.
- Aristotle’s Cycle of political change: Aristotle has not only given the classification of states or
governments, he has also tried to investigate their development and cycle of change. According to
him, change has taken place in all the forms of administration as a natural process, because the
forms of state revolve like the wheels of a cycle.
- According to him, “The first governments were kingships; probably for this reason, in olden
times, when cities were small, men of eminent virtues were few. They were made kings because
they were made benefactors and hence benefits could only be bestowed by virtuous men. But
when many persons equal in merit arose, against the pre-eminence of one, they formed a

36
 Commonwealth and set up a constitution. The ruling class soon deteriorated and enriched
themselves out of the public treasury. Riches became the path to honour and hence oligarchies
grew up.
- They passed into tyrannies, and tyrannies into democracies. The love of gain in the ruling classes
always tended to diminish their number and so it strengthened the masses. The masses, in the
end, set upon their masters and established democracies”.
- It is clear from this statement of Aristotle that first of all monarchy war established in the society
and the superior person in the society was elected as king. After some time when the kings began
to exploit the masses for their selfish ends, tyranny was established.
- People did not tolerate this type of administration for long and they gave the sovereign power to a
few intellectuals. Thus, Aristocracy was established. With the lapse of time, the character of
Aristocracy deteriorated and Oligarchy was established. But the people could not, for long,
tolerate a government, the aim of which was the benefit of the ruling class-alone. When
opportunity came, citizens as a whole made a successful revolt against such authority and
established a Polity, the supreme power being vested in the hands of a large proportion of the
population.
- It was used by them for the common good, “hen Polity became perverted, it was substituted by
Democracy. Democracy degenerates and people rise in revolt against it and thus democracy
disappears. Again the people elect a warrior-statesman as their administrator and Monarchy is
established. In this way, Aristotle’s cycle of political change revolves.

• Criticism of Aristotle’s classification:

- The cycle of political change given by Aristotle is fully corroborated by the history of the Greek
city-states. Several examples are available in modern history which proves that anarchy in
democracy is abolished by a military dictator. For example, General Ayub Khan in Pakistan, Col.
Nasser in Egypt, Gursell in Turkey and Ne Win in Burma ended anarchy in democracy.
- In spite of all this, the classification given by Aristotle has been criticised as under:
- (1) Aristotle’s classification is unscientific and quantitative:
- It is argued that his classification is not based on any scientific principle as it lays emphasis on
quantitative rather than qualitative aspect. But this criticism does not hold good Aristotle, being a
disciple of Plato, could not ignore its spiritual aspect. He has emphasised the aim f the state along

37
 with his classification. Burgess has rightly said that Aristotle’s classification is spiritual rather
than numerical.
- (2) Aristotle does not distinguish between State and Government:
- Criticising Aristotle’s classification, Dr. Garner has said, “Aristotle does not distinguish between
state and government, with the result that his classification is the classification of states, while it
ought to be of governments. This criticism of Aristotle is not justified because the distinction
between the state and the government is a modem concept”. According to Burgess, “Aristotle’s
classification is logical and the best, if his words ‘State’ and ‘sovereignty’ are substituted with
government and Rule respectively”.
- (3) Aristotle’s classification does not cover all the modem forms of Governments:
- According to Seeley and Leacock, Aristotle could not conceive the modern ‘country-states’. His
classification is of small city-states and not of big states. If his classification is accepted, we shall
have to place Absolute Monarchy, Constitutional, Elected and Hereditary Monarchy in one and
the same category.
- This will bring similarity between the Monarchy as it prevails in Saudi Arabia and Great Britain,
while both are not the same. Besides, modern forms of government are Parliamentary,
Presidential, Unitary and Federal types. Aristotle’s classification does not include and explain
these forms of governments.
- (4) Democracy is not the worst form of Government -
- According to Aristotle, Democracy is the worst form of government and he has used it in the
sense of a Rule of crowd. This type of condition prevailed in Greece in Aristotle’s time, but this is
not the condition in modern times. In modern times, the term democracy is used in a good sense
and it is considered to be the best form of government.
- (5) Aristotle’s cycle of change does not fit in with the development of modern state:
- The cycle of political change given by Aristotle is applicable only to ancient Greece and Rome
and not to modern states. For example, dictatorship of the Communist Party was established after
absolute Monarchy in Russia.
- In Germany after the First World War Emperor William II was dethroned and Democracy was
established. Democracy also failed in Germany and Dictatorship was established. After World
War II, Hitler’s Dictatorship was ended and Democracy was established again in that country’s
one part (West Germany).
- (6) There is no place for mixed Forms of Government in Aristotle’s classification:

38
- Modern governments are mixed governments. For example, Great Britain is Monarchy, and the
government in that country is Unitary and Parliamentary. There is Federal, Parliamentary and
Democratic Government m India. The U.S.A. is a democratic and the government in that country
is Presidential and Federal. These forms of government have no place in Aristotle s classification.
- (7) Aristotle’s classification is not applicable to ideocracy or theocracy:
- According to Bluntschli, Aristotle’s classification is not applicable to Ideocracy or Theocracy,
because in this type of government the supreme power is attributed to God or some other
superhuman being or to an idea. The men who exercise authority are deputies or vice- regents of
God on this earth.
- (8) Aristotle’s classification is also criticised for differentiating between Aristocracy and
Oligarchy, while modern political thinkers do not attach any importance to this difference. It is
also not possible to say where Aristocracy ends and Polity begins.

• Monarchy
- In a monarchy, one person rules the government, and no human is above them in power. The ruler
of a monarchy is called a monarch, and their position is nearly always hereditary, meaning that a
member of their family will inherit their position when they die or willingly give up their power
(known as abdicitation).
- Throughout history, monarchies have been a relatively common form of government. The ancient
Egyptian pharaohs, the Roman and Chinese emperors, and the large number of European kings
and queens ruled over monarchies.
- There are two major types of monarchies:
- In an absolute monarchy, the supreme ruler has total, unlimited power. Nobody can tell them
what to do, and they can order their people to do anything they want. This form of monarchy was
more common in the past than it is today. Some examples of modern countries with this form of
monarchy are Swaziland and Saudi Arabia.
- In a limited monarchy or constitutional monarchy, the supreme ruler has limits on what they are
actually able to do. Usually, their power is determined by a written constitution or a governing
body that can restrain the actions they want to do. Of the monarchies that still exist today, most of
them are limited monarchies, including those found in the United Kingdom and Norway.

39
- Merits of Monarchy
- The monarchical system of government has the following advantages.
- The monarchy is a symbol of national unity and dignity.
- Because of the sacredness of the institution, it is revered and respected by a large section of the
population.
- In spite of recent changes in this form of government in the modern state, it has been retained
primarily because it is sweet the conservative temperament of the people and the cost of
maintaining the institution is relatively small.
- The monarchy gives continuity to the policy of government, as it is not subject to frequent
changes.

- Demerits of Monarchy
- The monarchy system has been criticized for the following reasons:
- It is obsolete, anachronistic and out of time with the requirements of modern states. in many
cases, the rulers hold onto antiquated cultures and practice, which do not encourage development.
- The system is undemocratic, as the ruler is not elected by the people.
- The unelected king or queen sometimes supervises the elected representatives of the people such
as the Prime Minister or parliament and this incongruent political arrangement further calls to
question the democratic status of monarchy.
- The power of the ruler is not subject to any regularised check within society.
- The pomp, pageantry and affluence often associated with the institution sometimes gives the
erroneous impression that all is well with the system, and that the political system is efficient and
the performance of its functions.
- The monarch, especially in a constitutional monarchy performs only ceremonial roles which may
have no bearing on the lives of the people and it may therefore be difficult to justify the huge cost
of maintaining the royal family.
- The institution may become an obstacle to the will of the people. For example, Swaziland which
is the last remaining absolute monarchy in sub-saharan Africa has a king, King Mswati III, who
was 37 years old in 2006. He is often criticized for having 11 wives for his lavish spending while
most citizens of Swaziland live in poverty and more than 30% are Human Immuno Virus (HIV)
positive.

40
• Aristocracy
- Aristocracy is a form of government in which the rich rule largely in their own interest. An
aristocratic state is one in which the nobility rules.
- As a form of oligarchy, The aristocratic ruling class is usually small and reported for the
exploitation of the poor and the landless peasantry for the support of state works of various kinds.
- Etymologically, the word aristocracy comes from the Greek and is composed on the one hand of
aristos which means “the best” and on the other hand krátos whose meaning is “government“. In
this way, aristocracy literally means the rule of the best

- Features of Aristocracy
- Aristocracy has the following characteristics:
- In aristocracies, the government is dominated by the rich or noble.
- Predictably, the rich rule mainly in their own interest and they make no pretense about this.
- Those in positions of authority in aristocracies must persuade the people to accept their rure and
this may take the form of an ideology of service. That is, you are made to believe that you took
can prosper if you can work hard.
- There are various types of aristocracy including the land-owning aristocracy, feudal aristocracy
and military aristocracy.
- The legislature or parliament is a typical aristocratic representative assembly.

- Merits of Aristocracy
- Apart from defending the property interests of the rich, aristocratic representative assemblies also
sometimes work in the greater interest of the majority. The introduction of the social security
system in western democracies, for example, is to take care of the aged, the disabled, the
unemployed, the sick, and the vulnerable in general.
- Aristocrats provide leadership in all spheres of Life especially in the productive sector.
- Unlike autocracies, which depend on the use of force to maintain political stability, aristocracies
help to sustain political stability and continuity by using a conciliatory style of governance. In
other words, persuasion and similar mechanisms are used to make government acceptable to the
people.

41
- Demerits of Aristocracy
- The main disadvantages of aristocracy form of government are:
- Its survival depends primarily on the exploitation of the masses.
- Real political power in an aristocracy is concentrated in the hands of a few.
- The majority of the people are excluded from governors in aristocracies.
- The exploitation of the people is disguised and made less painful with the use of various tricks
and intrigues [e.g. The introduction of majority rule though it is the view who actually rule.

• Democracy
- Democracy is a political structure in which people directly exercise power, or elect members
from among themselves to represent the people, such as a parliament. It is also called the
majority rule and here can’t inherit the power. People are choosing their representatives.
Representatives participate in an election and the voters elect their member. Democracy is a form
of government in which:
- Rulers elected by the people take all the major decisions
- Elections offer a choice and fair opportunity to the people to change the current rulers
- This choice and opportunity is available to all the people on an equal basis
- The exercise of this choice leads to a government limited by basic rules of the constitution and
citizens’ rights

- Merits of democracy
- A democratic government is a more responsible form of government, is a stronger form of
government.
- The standard of making decisions is improved by democracy.
- The integrity of people is strengthened by democracy.
- The wealthy and educated have the same standing as the poor and less educated.
- Democracy helps us to fix our own mistakes.
- Demerits of democracy
- Leaders keep changing in a democracy leading to instability
- Democracy is all about political competition and power play, leaving no scope for morality
- Many people have to be consulted in a democracy that leads to delays
- Elected leaders do not know the best interest of the people, resulting in bad decisions

42
- Democracy leads to corruption since it is based on electoral competition
- Ordinary people don’t know what is good for them; they should not decide anything.

- Demerits of democracy
Leaders keep changing in a democracy leading to instability
Democracy is all about political competition and power play, leaving no scope for morality
Many people have to be consulted in a democracy that leads to delays
Elected leaders do not know the best interest of the people, resulting in bad decisions
Democracy leads to corruption since it is based on electoral competition
Ordinary people don’t know what is good for them; they should not decide anymore

43
Module 6 : Forms of Government

• Parliamentary government

- A Parliamentary government is a democratic administration in which the government is formed by the

political party that obtains the most seats in the legislature or Parliament during the federal election. This
majority party selects a leader to be Prime Minister or Chancellor. The cabinet is made up of other high-
ranking members of the party. The opposition is formed by the minority party, and its role is to confront
the governing party. If no party wins a majority in the election, a coalition government is established with
the cooperation of a few political parties.
- The term “Parliamentary government” refers to the fact that the Parliament has all the authority. There is a
difference between a Parliamentary and presidential form of government. The executive branch is distinct
in a presidential system, such as the United States, and the President is popularly chosen by the nation’s
population. In contrast, the leader of the government under a Parliamentary system is elected from the
Parliament and is frequently one of the most senior members or ministers in Parliament, which is where
the name “Prime Minister” comes from. In a Parliamentary system, the country usually has a Head of
State who serves as a ceremonial figure, similar to the Queen, but does not engage in legislation or
politics.

Primary features of the Parliamentary system

- The Indian Parliamentary system was inspired by the United Kingdom, and its constitution is considered
to be the mother of the Parliamentary concept. The same concept is also called the cabinet system or
ministerial system.
- The cabinet or Parliamentary form of government is one in which the given form of executive and
legislature are nearly closed to each other and the powers are divided between both of them. This makes
the Parliament a superior concept. There are two executives, namely the elected President, or the king, and
the Prime Minister. The President represents the State, while the Prime Minister represents the
government, and the Cabinet is accountable to the legislature.

Cabinet formation
- When a general election is completed and a Prime Minister is chosen, the Prime Minister appoints his
council of ministers, often known as his cabinet. This is the Prime Minister’s most important role. The
minister list is given to the President for them to approve. They are frequently obtained from the party’s
ring leadership. Because of the delicate nature of the Parliamentary system, well-experienced and vigilant
members are given precedence.

44
Spirit of teamwork
- In the system of Parliament, each and every minister works together as a team. They are supposed to agree
on an issue in every cabinet meeting. If they happen to disagree, the minister in question will have to
resign or will be eliminated from the cabinet. Each and every difference should be kept hidden as all the
cabinet members are going to work together for the goal; either they will win together or lose together.

Premier’s supremacy
- The Prime Minister is given utmost importance as they have unlimited powers. They are considered to be
the leader of the legislative house, the leader of the council of ministers and even the executives. The
Prime Minister is in charge of appointing, removing, and distributing portfolios, as well as overseeing the
activities of the cabinet ministers. The Prime Minister acts as a go-between for the government and the
President. In the case of the PM’s resignation, the ministerial council must resign as well.

Power coordination
- The primary premise behind this system is that two entities, such as the legislative and executive branches,
share authority. Under this setup, both organs (legislature and executive) are dependent on one another.
They interfere with other’s business in a variety of constitutional ways. Ministers, for example, propose
the bulk of legislative initiatives; they can engage in legislation, address the legislature, summon sessions,
and even dissolve the lower house, among other things. Parliament, on the other hand, has the ability to
call cabinet members’ activities into question, to propose various resolutions, and to depose the
government through a vote of no confidence. Both government institutions have several checks and
balances on one another.

Collective political responsibility

- The government is also jointly accountable to the legislature, which is another defining element of the
Parliamentary system. The operations of the cabinet can be questioned and investigated by the legislature
through a number of constitutional instruments. Ministers are only in office for as long as the legislature
believes in them. If a single minister is defeated in a vote of no confidence, the entire government must
resign. A proposal proposed by a minister must be approved by all ministers, otherwise it will result in a
vote of no confidence in the whole cabinet. Cabinet members (ministers) answer to the people through
their elected representatives. The general public can voice their concerns through their representatives, and
ministers must answer to the people.

Term

- The term of the cabinet is specified by the constitution, although not in a strict sense. A minister may be
fired or replaced at any time. Parliament can be dissolved in times of national emergency. The government
is no longer in power if Parliament is dissolved. By adopting a no-confidence resolution against any
minister, the Prime Minister, or the whole cabinet, Parliament can dismiss the government. As a result, the
future of the Parliamentary government is uncertain.

45
Two senior executives
- Another distinguishing element of the Parliamentary system is the separation between the nominal
executive and the real executive. The head of state, such as Pakistan’s President, is the titular executive.
This type of executive is just a symbolic or legally obliged head of state.
- A true executive, on the other hand, is one who has genuine state power and serves as the head of
government, such as Pakistan’s Prime Minister.

Conclusion
- The top executive of the state (Prime Minister) is not directly chosen by the people in the Parliamentary
system, but he is usually the leader of the majority party in Parliament. He appoints his own Cabinet,
which, again, should be made up of people who are not members of Parliament. The whole Cabinet is
answerable to Parliament, and if it loses the confidence of the Parliament, it must resign from office. In
contrast, in the presidential system, the top executive, i.e. the President, is directly elected by the people
for a definite term, and he appoints his own ministers (known as “secretaries” in the United States).
Neither the President nor the Secretaries are answerable to the Parliament, often known as Congress.

• Presidential Form Of Government

- A presidential system is one in which the head of state is also the head of government, and the executive
branch is independent of the legislative branch.
- The United States, for example, is governed by a presidential system.
- In presidential nations, the president is elected and is not accountable to the legislature, which cannot oust
the president under normal circumstances. However, in rare situations, such dismissal is feasible, usually
by impeachment.
- A presidential system differs from a parliamentary system, in which the leader of the government is
elected by an elected legislature.
- Hybrid systems, such as the semi-presidential system utilized in the former Weimar Republic, France, and
Poland, are also available.
- The Presidential system of government may be traced back to medieval England, France, and Scotland,
where the Monarch or Crown (King/Queen) and not the realm's estates had administrative authority
(Parliament).
- This had an impact on the United States of America's constitutional writers, who created the post of
President, for which direct elections were to be held.
- The word ‘president’ is derived from the Latin ‘praesidens’ meaning ‘governor’.

• Presidential Form Of Government- Characteristics

- Real head of the state: In this system the head of the state is the real executive head.
- Power separation: The presidential system of government is built on the notion of power separation among
the government's three departments. The executive branch is not accountable to the legislative. The

46
 legislature cannot be dissolved by the executive. The judiciary is also separate from the executive and
legislative branches.Checks and balances principle: The government's three organs are separated from one
another, yet they all check and restrict each other from abusing their authority and functions.
- President's superior position: The president has a superior position since all of the government's authority
is concentrated in his hands.
Political homogeneity is not required: All members of the cabinet do not have to be from the same political
party.

• Significance Of Presidential Form Of Government

- Stable Government: The president is chosen for a fixed term that ensures the administration's stability and
effectiveness.
- Separation of Powers: This prevents any branch of the government from becoming despotic and preserves
citizens' rights and liberties.
- Appropriate in an emergency: As the head of state and government, the president can make vital decisions
quickly and efficiently.
- Appointment of capable men: the president normally appoints professionals to lead portfolios without
regard for political affiliation.

- Drawbacks
- Presidential Form Of Government- Drawbacks
- The executive branch of government has the potential to become despotic: The president has enormous
authority and his term is set in stone. As a result, there's a chance he'll act like a dictator.
- Inter-organ deadlocks: A deadlock between the executive and legislature is a distinct possibility.
- Economic planning is incompatible with checks and balances.
- Constitutional rigidity is challenged as well because flexibility is essential to deal with changing
conditions.
- There is a lower likelihood of effective legislation being enacted since the executive and legislative
branches are not in sync.

Conclusion
Thus, the Presidential form of Government prevails as one of the best ways of Government in Democratic
nations like the United States. Whatever form of Government, its purpose should be the welfare of the people
of the country.

47
Unitary government
- Unitary governmen is a kind of government system in which a single power, which is known as the central
government, controls the whole government. In fact, all powers and administrative divisions authorities
lies at the central place. Today most of the government systems in the world are based on unitary system
of government. It is slightly different from federal model of government. In unitary government, central
government has the power to increase or curtail the power of subnational units. It can create and abolished
the same. UK, Afghanistan, Italy, China, Saudi Arabia, Spain, etc., are the important examples of unitary
government.
- The unitary government system is based on the concept of consistency, unity, and identity that’s why the
centralization of power and authority system remains at the top priority. The decision-making power rests
with the central government that are shared by the government with the lower level government when
needed. There are not so many options for change and new innovation as the people have a very limited
voice in this government system.
- There are many merits and demerits of unitary government. It is useful in the term that rules and
regulations in this government systems remain consist and equal throughout the country. Moreover, it is
less expensive as compared to the federal government because the number of powerful people remains
very low. In a time of emergency, it makes timely decisions as compared to the federal government
system. But at the same time, the concept of freedom of speech and expression always remains at a low
priority that’s why most of the principles of unitary government are much similar to that of dictatorship
system of government. Its distinctive feature is given as follows;

1. Concentration of Powers:
A unitary government is one in which all the powers of administration are vested in a single centre. The
centre is omnipotent. A unitary state may be divided into small units for the sake of administrative
convenience but the units do not have any constitutional status of their own.
In other words, the constitution does not confer any powers on the units. It is the central government which
dele gates certain powers to the units on its own accord. The units are, therefore, subordinate agents of
centre. The powers enjoyed by them are the gifts of the centre and as such these can be taken back at any
moment. The units are thus not autonomous and independent in any way.

2. Single Government:
In a unitary government, there is a single set of governmental apparatus. There is a single supreme
legislature, single executive body and one supreme judiciary. England, for example, is a unitary state. She
has one parliament as her legislature, the King-in-Council as the executive and the judicial committee of the
House of Lords as her supreme judiciary.

3. Written or unwritten Constitution:

A unitary government may or may not have a writ ten constitution. As for example, England and France are
unitary states. France has a written constitution but England has none

48
4. Rigid or Flexible Constitution:
Unlike a federation, a unitary state may or may not have a rigid constitution, e.g., the constitution of England
is flexible but that of France is slightly rigid.
5. No Special Judiciary:
There is no need of having a special judiciary with wide powers of judicial veto in a unitary government.
Even the highest court of U.K., for example, can

• Federal government
- Federal government is a type of national government in which government have powers to delegates the
power to other elected member of the states. There can be two level of federal government in a country
either it is performing through common institutions or through powers as prescribed by a constitution of
the state. It is totally opposite to the unitary government. In federation or federal government, provinces or
territories enjoys some rights as are available to the independent states. However international diplomacy,
national security foreign affairs and other kinds of international dealings are solely made by the federal
government. Pakistan, India, Brazil, Switzerland, Australia, Belgium, Canada, etc., are the significant
examples of federal government. Mostly the federal government system is referred to the United States
government. This government is based on the republicanism and federalism. In the federal system, power
is jointly shared between the state and federal governments. In the federal government system, the powers
never rest with one national government. However, there can be certain powers and authorities that remain
totally with the federal government like policies on defence, budget, international diplomacy, etc. The
hierarchy of power in federal government system starts from the federal level and then flows to the state
and then local level. Its distinctive feature is given as follows;

1. Division of Powers:
In a federal government the powers of administration are divided between the centre and the units. The
powers may be distributed in two different ways. Either the constitution states what powers the federal
authority shall have, and leaves the remainder to the federating units, or it states what powers the federating
units shall possess and leaves the remainder to the federal authority. The remainder is generally known as
residuary powers. The first method was employed in America and the second in Canada. The federal
government in U.S.A., for example, is weak in relation to the states whereas the federal government in
Canada is more powerful. In a federation both the federal and state governments are independent and
autonomous in the spheres of their powers. 'One is not subordinate to the other. Both derive their powers
from the constitution which is the supreme law of the land. The powers enjoyed by the units are, therefore,
original and not delegated by the centre

2. Separate Government:
In a federal form of government both the centre and the units have their separate set of governmental
apparatus. America is a federation of states. States have therefore separate legislatures and Separate
executives.

49
3. Written Constitution:
A federal government must have a written constitution. As a federation is a political partnership of various
states and consequently there must be a written agreement in the form of a written constitution.

4. Rigid Constitution:
The constitution of a federation should be more or less rigid. It is regarded as a sacred agreement, the spirit
of which should not be easily violated. A flexible constitution allows a scope to the central government to
curtail the autonomy of the federating states.

5. Special Judiciary:
In a federation, there are possibilities of constitutional disputes arising between the federal centre and the
units or between one unit and another. All these disputes are to be adjudicated in the light of the constitution.
For this purpose a special judiciary with wide powers must be established.
It should act as the custodian and guardian of the constitution. It should be vested with powers of declaring
any law, national or local, ultra vires if it is at variance with the articles of the constitution. The constitution
is thus the supreme law in a federation to which both the centric and the state must adhere to.

50
Module 7 :Elements of Government

• Legislature
- legislature, lawmaking branch of a government. Before the advent of legislatures, the law was
dictated by monarchs. Early European legislatures include the English Parliament and the
Icelandic Althing (founded c. 930). Legislatures may be unicameral or bicameral (see bicameral
system). Their powers may include passing laws, establishing the government’s budget,
confirming executive appointments, ratifying treaties, investigating the executive branch,
impeaching and removing from office members of the executive and judiciary, and redressing
constituents’ grievances. Members may be appointed or directly or indirectly elected; they may
represent an entire population, particular groups, or territorial subdistricts. In presidential
systems, the executive and legislative branches are clearly separated; in parliamentary systems,
members of the executive branch are chosen from the legislative membership
- The legislature is the single most important branch of government in any nation governed by the
rule of law. When law rules, the legislature matters, because the legislature makes the laws. The
central dilemma for drafters of written republican constitutions has been how to create a
legislature that will make laws that advance and protect the common good of all citizens, without
favoring one group over others. Legislatures that do not serve the common good subvert the
purposes of government by protecting some particular set of private interests, at the expense of
the people as a whole

Executive
- The executive is the branch of government responsible for the implementation of laws and
policies adopted by the legislature.
- The executive is often involved in the framing of policy.
- The official designations of the executive vary from country to country.
- Some countries have presidents, while others have chancellors.
- The executive branch is not just about presidents, prime ministers and ministers. It also extends
to the administrative machinery (civil servants).
- While the heads of government and their ministers, saddled with the overall responsibility of
government policy, are together known as the political executive, those responsible for the day-
to-day administration are called the permanent executive

51
- The term ‘Executive’ has been defined both in its broad and narrow forms. In its broad form, it is
taken to mean all the functionaries, political power-holders (Political Executive) and permanent
civil servants who undertake the execution of laws and policies and run the administration of
state.
- In its narrow form, it is taken to mean only the executive heads (ministers i.e. the political
Executive), who head the government departments, formulate the policies and supervise the
implementation of the laws and policies of the government. In the narrow form, the civil service
and its administrative functions are not included in the realm of the Executive.
- Traditionally, only the narrow meaning used to be accepted by the political scientists. However,
in modern times, the executive is defined in its broader form and it covers both the Political
Executive as well as the Civil Service.
Two Parts of Executive: Political Executive & Permanent Executive: Distinction:
- (i) The Political Executive (Ministers):
- It consists of the executive head of the state and other heads of the executive departments is
ministers. Ministers are political leaders. They are mostly elected representative of the people and
responsible for all their decisions and policies before the public. Political Executive work for a
fixed tenure of about 5 years.
- It acts as a temporary executive in the sense that it changes after every election. After completing
one tenure, ministers have to again contest elections. They can again become ministers only when
the party to which they belong returns to power as the majority party.
- The ministers are amateurs, non-experts and non-professionals. Their function is to formulate
policies and get these policies and laws approved from the Legislature. Thereafter these policies
and laws of the State are implemented by the civil servants, who work under the control of
Political Executive. The political executive heads the government. Each minister is head of a
department or some of the government.
(ii) The Non-political Permanent Executive (Civil Servants):
- It consists of the civil servants (Bureaucracy) from the lowest to the highest levels. It carries out
the day to day administration by working in the government departments. The civil servants are
politically neutral. They do not owe allegiance to any political party.
- Their job is to carry out the laws and policies of the government without any political
consideration. They are specially educated and trained persons. They are experts and

52
 professionals. They give expert advice and opinion as well as collect, classify and present data to
the political executive on the basis of which the latter takes all decisions.
- Once appointed, the civil servants remain in office till the attainment of the retirement age,
usually up to the age of 55 or 60 years. They get regular and fixed salaries and are hierarchically
organised into higher and lower relationships.

• Judiciary
- judiciary, branch of government whose task is the authoritative adjudication of controversies over
the application of laws in specific situations.
- Conflicts brought before the judiciary are embodied in cases involving litigants, who may be
individuals, groups, legal entities (e.g., corporations), or governments and their agencies
- Conflicts that allege personal or financial harm resulting from violations of law or binding legal
agreements between litigants—other than violations legally defined as crimes—produce civil
cases. Judicial decisions in civil cases often require the losing or offending party to pay financial
compensation to the winner. Crimes produce criminal cases, which are officially defined as
conflicts between the state or its citizens and the accused (defendant) rather than as conflicts
between the victim of the crime and the defendant. Judicial decisions in criminal cases determine
whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. A defendant found guilty is sentenced to punishments,
which may involve the payment of a fine, a term of imprisonment, or, in the most serious cases in
some legal systems, state-imposed physical mutilation or even death
- Judiciaries also frequently resolve administrative cases, disputes between individuals, groups, or
legal entities and government agencies over the application of laws or the implementation of
government programs. Most legal systems have incorporated the principle of state sovereignty,
whereby governments may not be sued by nonstate litigants without their consent. This principle
limits the right of litigants to pursue remedies against government actions. Nevertheless, the right
of citizens to be free from the arbitrary, improper, abusive application of laws and government
regulations has long been recognized and is the focus of administrative cases.
- Legal systems differ in the extent to which their judiciaries handle civil, criminal, and
administrative cases. In some, courts hear all three kinds of disputes. In others there are
specialized civil, criminal, and administrative courts. Still others have some general and some
specialized courts.

53
 - In many cases the conflicts that are nominally brought to courts for resolution are uncontested.
The majority of civil cases—such as those involving divorce, child custody, or the interpretation
of contracts—are settled out of court and never go to trial. The same is true for criminal cases in
the United States, where the practice of extrajudicial plea bargaining is used extensively. The
different criminal process that characterizes the United Kingdom and civil-law countries makes
plea bargaining of the sort practiced in the United States less likely—or even officially
impossible. Nevertheless, there is evidence that analogous practices for generating and accepting
guilty pleas are common in the United Kingdom and are not unknown in Germany. In cases of
plea bargaining the court’s function is administrative, limited to officially ratifying and recording
the agreement the parties have reached out of court.

• Political parties
- Political parties are essential institutions of democracy. By competing in elections parties offer
citizens a choice in governance, and while in opposition they can hold governments accountable.
When citizens join political parties, volunteer their time, donate money and vote for their leaders,
they are exercising their basic democratic rights. Participation of citizens in political parties
offers unique benefits, including opportunities to influence policy choices, choose and engage
political leaders, and run for office.
- However, in some countries political parties do not respect the rights of citizens to participate and
are not accountable to voters. NDI supports the development of vibrant, accountable and
inclusive multiparty systems that offer citizens meaningful choices and opportunities for political
participation. The Institute’s work includes knowledge and resource sharing, and aims to expand
the participation of marginalized groups including: women, youth, ethnic and racial minorities,
persons with disabilities, and gender and sexual minorities. NDI's assistance reaches across party
organizations, from grassroots party member to mid-level party officials and senior party
leaders. The Institute is the only organization to have official standing in the four largest
international groupings of political parties: Centrist Democrat International, Liberal International,
Socialist International and Progressive Alliance. Through these networks, NDI fosters peer-to-
peer exchanges and consultations. The Institute also facilitates constructive engagement between
political parties and other institutions, such as civil society, the media and election management
bodies.

54
​
​
s​
​
​
The major political parties are organized at the local (usually county), state, and national levels.
Party leaders and activists are involved in choosing people to run for office, managing and
financing campaigns, and developing positions and policies that appeal to party constituents. The
national party organizations play key roles in presidential elections.
Local party organization
Political parties operate at the local level in municipal and county elections (though many cities
choose officials — mayors and members of city council — through nonpartisan elections, in which
candidates effectively run as independents without party affiliation). In partisan elections, the party
is involved in identifying candidates, providing professional staff, and taking positions on issues of
immediate concern to voters. The party leadership recognizes that the interaction between party
workers, candidates, and voters is important.
In the late 19th century on through a good part of the 20th century, political machines flourished in
several large cities; Tammany Hall in New York, Frank Hague in Jersey City, the Pendergast family
in Kansas City, and Richard Daley in Chicago are examples. The political bosses, the mayors, and
the party leaders used their control of patronage jobs to reward party loyalty and provide a broad
range of social services. Reforms in the civil service and the growth of primary elections gradually
brought an end to machine politics.
State party organization
Political parties prepare for statewide elections. Party activists are named as electors in the Electoral
College if their party carries the state in a presidential election. Candidates for state office may be
chosen through a primary election, state convention, or caucus process. At a state caucus, party
members select their candidates. In many states, the executive officials — governor, lieutenant
governor, treasurer, and attorney general — are elected as individuals. Although the party's slate, its
candidates for office, is listed on the ballot, voters can vote for any candidate they want. In such
states, it is not unusual for voters to elect a Democratic governor and a Republican lieutenant
governor or vice versa.
National party organization
At the national level, political parties run candidates for Congress and the presidency. Each party
has its own national committee made up of party leaders, elected officials, and the chairs of the state
party organizations. The chair of the national committee is chosen by the party's candidate for
president. The Democratic and Republican national committees do not run the campaigns of their
respective presidential candidates; they play a supporting role to the campaign organizations of the

55
candidates themselves. In both the Senate and the House, each party has its own congressional
campaign committee, which raises money for congressional elections.
The national convention
The national committee loosely runs the party between national conventions. As noted earlier, a
party's choices for president and vice president are nominated at the national convention. The
delegates to the convention are already committed to vote for particular candidates based on the
results of the state primary or caucus voting. While some delegates are appointed by the state party
organization, the overwhelming majority are selected through primaries and caucuses. A party's
nominee is often determined months before the convention, which makes the choice official. The
party works on and announces its platform at the national convention. The platform is made up of
planks that explain how the party stands on the issues facing the country. The terms platform and
plank date from the presidential election of 1832, when national party conventions were first held.
Developing the platform is often the most controversial part of the convention. The Republicans, for
example, have had to work out an acceptable compromise on abortion between pro-choice and pro-
life forces within the party.

• Public opinion
1. Public is not opinion less. It has an opinion.
2. Public opinion matters in democracy as well as in other form of
governance. One can ignore it at the cost of rebellion, resistance.
3. Public opinion increasingly becomes a source of validation of rule.
In simple words we can say that public opinion is neither the opinion of all nor it is the majority
opinion. It is an opinion which is generally held by all and its purpose is to highlightthe welfare of
all. It is a consensus opinion which enjoys the support of a very large majority of people. It is not
even opposed by the minorities as it reflects a concern for the welfare of all.
Public opinion is always characterised by the following features:
1. General Agreement
It is an opinion behind which there is a general agreement or a consensus.
2. Rational/Logical:
Public opinion is rational. It is logical. Its validity can be demonstrated by logic or reason.
3. General Welfare:
Public opinion is always governed by the idea of promotion of general public welfare.

56
4. Related to all aspect of life:
Public opinion can concern any and every matter- Political, Social, Economic, or Cultural.
5. Upholds Morality
Public opinion always upholds the moral values of society. It is never against morality.
6. Not an Imposed Opinion:
Public opinion is not an imposed opinion. It is a generally held consensus opinion and is the result
of growth.
7. Neither Destructive nor Negative :
Public opinion is never destructive and negative. It is positive in content because it always
represents public welfare.
8. Based on Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression:
The right to freedom of speech and expression is the most essential condition for the birth of public
opinion.
9. Basis of Democracy:
Public opinion plays a deterministic role in a democracy. All policies of a democratic government
rest upon public opinion. The government can remain in power and work successfully only when it
is backed by public opinion.
10. Real Sanction behind Laws of the State:
Public opinion is the real sanction behind all laws and policies of a democratic state. Supremacy of
public opinion reflects the sovereignty of people, which is the very basis of a democracy

57