Pol Science Complete Notes

Contents
Nature of Political Science.................................................................................... 4

Answer in Short ................................................................................................ 4
Nature of Political Science................................................................................ 4
Long Answer ..................................................................................................... 5
Is Political Science a Science? .......................................................................... 6
Is Political Science an Art? ............................................................................... 9
Concept of State .................................................................................................. 10
Definitions of State ......................................................................................... 10
STATE AND GOVERNMENT ..................................................................... 10
ELEMENTS OF THE STATE ....................................................................... 12
Population ................................................................................................... 12
Territory ...................................................................................................... 12
Government ................................................................................................. 13
Sovereignty ................................................................................................. 14
Concept of Welfare State .................................................................................... 15
TWO FORMS OF THE WELFARE STATE ................................................ 16
THEORY OF WELFARE STATE ................................................................. 16
Philosophical Approach ...................................................................................... 18
Historical Approach ............................................................................................ 18
Legal Approach ................................................................................................... 19
The empirical tradition ........................................................................................ 20
Behaviouralism ................................................................................................... 20
Post- Behavioural Approach ............................................................................... 22
Pol and Sociology ............................................................................................... 23
Relationship of political science with Anthropology: .................................... 23
Relationship of political science with History. ............................................... 24
Relationship of political science with Economics: ......................................... 24
Relationship of political science with Jurisprudence: .................................... 25
Unitary................................................................................................................. 26
1|Page
gyanrmlnlu@gmail.com
Merits of a Unitary State ................................................................................. 26
Demerits of a Unitary State............................................................................. 26
Federal ................................................................................................................. 26
Requisites of Federation ................................................................................. 27
Distribution of Powers in a Federation ........................................................... 28
Merits of a federation ...................................................................................... 28
Defects inherent in the Federal System .......................................................... 29
Parliamentary and Presidential form of Government ......................................... 29
Presidential ...................................................................................................... 29
Features ........................................................................................................... 29
Advantages ...................................................................................................... 30
Disadvantages ................................................................................................. 30
Parliamentary .................................................................................................. 30
Features ........................................................................................................... 31
Advantages ...................................................................................................... 31
Disadvantages ................................................................................................. 32
The Legislature ................................................................................................... 32
Laws made by Administrative Departments of Government ......................... 32
Legislation by People ...................................................................................... 32
The Organization of Legislature ..................................................................... 33
Are Second Chambers Necessary? ................................................................. 33
The executive ...................................................................................................... 35
The Nominal Executive .................................................................................. 35
The Political Executive ................................................................................... 35
The Judiciary ....................................................................................................... 38
The Importance of Judiciary ........................................................................... 38
Conditions required of an Efficient Judiciary ................................................. 38
Theory of the Separation of Powers.................................................................... 39
Criticism .......................................................................................................... 40
2|Page
3|Page
Nature of Political Science
ANSWER IN SHORT
Political is the adjective of "Politics" which is derived from the Greek word
polis meaning the state. Thus, the word "Political" is commonly understood to
mean anything that is related to the state. Political Science would then be
defined as the science of the state encompassing the government and
organisation and theory and practice of the state.
Political Science is the scientific designation of the subject of our study, and
this name has been accepted by the political scientists drawn from various
countries who assembled in a meeting under the auspices of the UNESCO. It
covers the whole range of knowledge regarding the political governance of man.
According to Paul Janet, Political Science is that part of social science which
treats the foundations of the state and the principles of government have their
roots in the past and their branches swing towards the future. It is a systematic
study which goes deep into the political problems of yesterday for the benefit of
today and utilises the wisdom gained there from for the aspirations of better
tomorrow.
NATURE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
Although the central theme of Political Science is the state, excessive attention
to it tends to make political analysis static, formalistic and institutional. Also
important and relevant areas of study would be left out of the scope of political
science, if attention is focused only on the state. For instance, one could make a
study of the politics of primitive societies which are yet to evolve the state
system. Even within the modern states, diverse social processed, e.g. trade
unionism may make significant impact on public policies and actions. The
behavior of individuals and group which are not as formal as the state
organisation may determine the mode of operation of the state itself. A
scientific study of politics can hardly overlook these forced and processes that
have an important bearing on the state and its formal apparatuses. Lasswell and
Kaplanhave defined political science as "the study of shaping and sharing of
power." The change of emphasis from state to power has broadened the area of
political inquiry and shifted the focus of attention from mere structures and
institutions to actions and processes. Lasswel in his book "Politics : who gets,
what, when and how:, writes- "The study of politics is the study of influence
and the influential. The science of political states to conditions; the philosophy
of politics justifies preferences".
4|Page
Another definition is given by David Eastan which defines the nature Political
Science. According to him, Political Science is concerned with the authoritative
allocation of values for a society. It may however be added that resolution of
conflicts and allocation of values among competing groups are not the only
functions of government. Many of its functions at a point of time in history are
undertaken traditionally. Thus, rail, roads, postal services etc. are operated as
part of government's long established responsibilities. Even when new services
and facilities such as road building, educational and medical benefits etc are
provided, these may or may not be the result of conflict resolution.
The definition of political science would thus depend on the meaning attached
to the term political. The expression 'political' has been commonly used in
relation to the institutions of government. This has been the traditional meaning
of the term. A second meaning of the term attaches significance to a distinctive
set of processes or relationships irrespective of their manifestation in the
governmental or nongovernmental context. These processes or relationships
have been called power, conflict or the authoritative allocation of values.
Political Science today is concerned with both the formal institutions of
government and the processes or relationship in society that shed light on the
shaping and uses of authoritative public power.
LONG ANSWER
Common people, renowned scholars and political scientists of high repute very
often use the words politics and political science to denote the same thing that is
they use the two terms interchangeably. But a proper scrutiny and hair split
analysis will reveal that there is a difference between the terms though this
difference can easily be ignored. It is believed that the term politics is derived
from the word Polis the exact meaning of which is city-state.
In ancient Greece, polis or the city state was the most popular and general form
of political organisation. Every polis or city- state had its own form of
government, administration, management etc and all these did not depend upon
the size of the polis or city-state. Thus politics means the political affairs or
administration of polis.
Now-a-days by politics we generally mean the activities associated with the
governance of a country or area. We thus cannot separate the term politics from
the affairs of state and these affairs are associated with the administration and
decision making issues of state. Politics in this way has been inextricably
connected with state as it was in ancient Greece with the polis.
5|Page
The early definitions of political science dealt generally with state and
government.
Paul Janet, “Political Science is that part of socialscience which treats the
foundations of the State and the principles of government.”
Modern definition: In the beginning of the 20th century there developed a new
way of looking at political science. This new approach is known as behavioural
approach. The main thrust of the new view is the treatment of politics as an
activity and a process.
Harold Laswell: “Politics is the study of influence and the influential” or “the
study of the shaping and sharing of power”
Andrew Heywood: “Politics can be defined as an activity throughwhich people
make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live.”
IS POLITICAL SCIENCE A SCIENCE?

The controversy whether political science is science or not is as old as the
subject itself. Even today the controversy has not died down. There are a large
number of people, many of whom are prominent in their own fields, who
believe that to call political science a science is simply a travesty of the word
science.
The central idea of science is the experimentation and after that correct
prediction and it is unfortunate that these two have hardly any scope in political
science and because of this political science cannot be placed in the same rank
of physics or chemistry.When we call political science a branch of social
science, we invariably use the word science in a broad sense. In this sense the
word science means systematic study of any subject in a very methodical way
and to arrive at certain conclusion based on information, facts collected and
analysed in a scientific way. Thus in political science there is certain amount of
scope of prediction and generalisation which are based on scientific study and
investigations.
When one calls political science a science one need not use the word science in
a conservative and literal sense, but in a broad and unorthodox sense. For
example, in the eighteenth century the Glasgow University set up a chair of
Physics in the name of Natural Philosophy. The Moral Sciences Tripos of
6|Page
Cambridge University taught philosophy. In 1895 London School of Economics
and Political Science was established.
It is interesting to note that the persons associated with its formations used the
word ‘science’. Webb couple and many other dignitaries were associated with
this institution and they preferred the word science. Till today a very large
number of people like the word science. Politics and political science both are
interchangeably used. A few decades back there was great hesitation’ regarding
the use of the word science. But today the subject has reached such a stage of
development that there is no sign of hesitation.
W. J. M. Mackenzie in his small and illuminating work Politics and Social
Science makes the following observation which is pertinent in more than one
respects. “So far as I can judge, political science is still the name which carries
meaning to the general public. The word ‘science’ here indicates, simply that
there exists an academic tradition of the study of politics a discipline
communicated from teacher to pupil, by speech and writing for some 2500
years now. It does not mean that this discipline claims to be a material science
or that it could be improved by copying the methods of Physics and Chemistry
more exactly”. The argument of Mackenzie is unassailable.
Greek philosopher Aristotle called politics a master science that is a science
subject with great importance. In’ 1741 Hume published his essay “Politics may
be reduced to a science”. “Hume’s main objective was to show that some
constitutions necessarily worked better than others and that politics was not just
a question of personalities” (Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics).
Today attempts are being made to make the subject scientific and for this
purpose researchers, students and scholars are trying hard to make the subject
objective as well as value-free. They are also endeavouring to explain and
analyse the events systematically. Behavouralism is an example.
In support of the contention that political science can reasonably be called
science Mackenzie has drawn our attention to some of the recent developments.
He says, “Techniques of data collection and data processing have developed
enormously”. More emphasis is being given to the training in the subject and it
is gradually intensified.
Mackenzie also points out that a large number of natural scientists are taking
more and more interests in political science. For example, physical scientists are
interested in war and peace as well as disarmament treaties. Because the
decisions of politicians and statesmen considerably influence the research in
7|Page
physics and allied subjects. Today the political science is treated as a system
which means that it is a part of bigger environment.
The various units of environment influence each other. The tangible result is
political science influences other branches of social and physical science and at
the same time it is also influenced by other sciences. Hence biology, botany and
other disciplines come to be related with political science. Political science
borrows methods of analysis from these disciplines. In this way political science
is gradually improving itself and this has raised its status as a science.
Political scientists are now borrowing materials and methods from games
theory, and cybernetics. New methods of scientific analyses are being applied to
political science. Of all these methods the most important is statistical or
mathematical method. The empirical approach to the study of politics uses the
statistical method.
In past there were gulf of differences between political science and physical
science. In fact, there was a Chinese wall between the two. But today the
barriers are wearing thin. A young political scientist is well versed with the
terms and concepts of mathematics, physics and other branches of pure science.
Not only is this, the interchange between political science and other branches of
social science gradually increasing. Mackenzie says that today’s political
science is not what it was several decades ago. It is not simply political science
it is “Meta-politics”. If this is the position there is no reason to refuse to call it a
science subject. The methods of analysing political science are gradually refined
and perfected and this process will continue in future. So we conclude that
political science is a science though a science of different category.
Political Science is a Social Science:

In the last section of our analysis we mentioned that though political science is
not pure science like physics and chemistry it is undoubtedly a prominent
branch of social science. This observation is laconic in nature and therefore
requires elaboration. We have already noted Morgenthau’s definition of
political science.
For the sake of relevance we quote him again, “Political science grew not by
virtue of an intellectual principle germane to the field, but in response to
pressures from the outside. What could not be defined in terms of traditional
academic disciplines was defined as political science”. Wasby says that this
8|Page
definition of political science is true with respect to both content and method of
political science.
From the above observation we again conclude that what we declare as the
content of political science is, in fact, derived from many other subjects which
are known as branches of social science. Hence there is hardly anything like
pure political science, various aspects and matters of political science are
derived from a number of social sciences. Even political science borrows its
method of analysis from other subjects.
With the passing away of time and the development of man’s knowledge and
interest the dependence of political science upon other social sciences is
increasing. It is also to be noted here that this dependence is never a one way
traffic. Other disciplines of social science are in one way or other dependent on
political science. To sum up, political science and other disciplines of social
science are interdependent.
It is to be noted here that no science physical or social can claim purity and it is
due to the interdependence of subjects. Today we are acquainted with the terms
such as bio-physics, bio-chemistry, ethical economics, welfare politics etc.
IS POLITICAL SCIENCE AN ART?

By art it generally means “practical application of knowledge for the
achievement of a particular end”. A scientist may possess thorough knowledge
of the chemical composition of nature and characteristic of colours. But when
an artist applies the knowledge of colours in painting a picture, it is an art for
the knowledge of colours has been applied to produce a painting.
Let us see whether political science can be an art. Political Science is a body of
systematized knowledge about the State. Can this knowledge be applied in
practical situation? When drafting a constitution, knowledge of political science
is applied.
In administering the day-to-day affairs of a State, knowledge of political science
is necessary. In formulating foreign policies and in conducting diplomatic
relations with foreign States, knowledge of political science is imperative. We
observe that political science does not merely accumulate theoretical
knowledge.
9|Page
Knowledge of political science is applied by statesmen, diplomats and
administrators to achieve their respective ends in their day-today functions.
Hence, political science can also be branded as an art, if by art we mean
“practical application of knowledge for the achievement of a particular end.'”
Concept of State
The shadow of the state falls on almost every human activity. From education to
economic management, from social welfare to sanitation, and from domestic
order to external defence, the state shapes and controls; where it does not shape
or control it regulates, supervises, authorizes or proscribes. The concept of the
state has figured as the central theme of traditional political theory. R.G. Gettel
{Political Science; 1949) defined political science as 'the science of the state',
while J.W. Gamer (Political Science and Government; 1928) claimed that
'political science begins and ends with the state'.
DEFINITIONS OF STATE
Frederick M. Watkins defines the state as 'a geographically delimited segment
of human society united by common obedience to a single sovereign'.
STATE AND GOVERNMENT

Government is regarded as an essential element of the state. In actual practice,
the state is represented by the government. Governments exercise all authority
and functions on behalf of the state. However, the terms 'state' and 'government'
should not be used synonymously. 'State' represents a wider and more stable
entity than 'government'. As R.M. Maclver (The Web of Government; 1965) has
elucidated:
When we speak of the state we mean the organization, of which government is
the administrative organ. Every social organization must have a focus of
administration, an agency by which its policies are given specific character and
translated into action. But the organization is greater than the organ. In this
sense, the state is greater and more inclusive than government. A state has a
constitution, a code of laws, a way of setting up its government, a body of
citizens. When we think of this whole structure we think of the state.
Thus, so long as a state maintains its identity and independence, governments
may be formed and dissolved according to the established procedure without
affecting the character of the state. But a state itself may lose its identity when it
10 | P a g e
is suppressed and conquered by an alien power and its constitution or the
established procedure of forming a legitimate government is suspended. The
subjugated people may, however, retain or revive their feeling of national
solidarity and re-establish their state in due course. The state serves as a symbol
of unity of the people. The image of the state inspires unity among the people
and provides them with an identity as a nation. It arouses national pride and a
spirit of sacrifice among the people. Government only represents a working
arrangement to carry out functions of the state. Government commands our
obedience; the state commands our loyalty. Government may be good or bad,
efficient or inefficient, but the state will continue to be a symbol of our national
greatness. We may criticize or condemn the government, and still acclaim the
greatness of our state! It is, however, essential that our duties and obligations
toward the state should be determined by the character of the government it
creates. If the government loses its credibility, it should either be replaced
according to the established procedure, or the credibility of the state itself will
be eroded. The government should be subjected to constant watch so that it
conforms to the image of the state as the protector and promoter of our common
interests. Any theory which does not provide for a concrete control mechanism
over the government is bound to have disastrous consequences.
The idealist theory does not make a distinction between state and government. It
creates an image of the perfect state. Hegel eulogized the state, especially the
nation-state, as the 'march of God on earth'! This theory demands complete
subordination of man to the authority and command of the state, without
ensuring whether the actual government which makes such demands, conforms
to the image of the ideal state or not! The liberal-democratic theory is more
rational in this respect. It treats the state as a product of the 'will of society', an
instrument of'conflict-resolution' and of securing the common interest; then it
authorizes society to constitute a government by free choice, and demands that
the government should be responsible to the people, and should work with the
continuous consent of the people. Any political theory which creates a truly
constitutional government cannot be ignorant of the fallibility of government. It
must recognize the distinction between the state and government. Marxist
theory treats government as agency of the state. It attributes any imperfection of
government to the state itself. Accordingly, so long as society is divided into
dominant and dependent classes, any government is bound to serve as an
instrument of the dominant class. Thus, Marxist theory regards the state itself as
an instrument of class exploitation, and advocates transformation, and ultimate
withering away, of the state in order to restore 'authority' to a classless society.
11 | P a g e
ELEMENTS OF THE STATE
In the light of the various definitions of the state, it is customary to identify the
state by its constituent elements which include: population, territory,
government and sovereignty.
Population
The state is a human institution. The population is, therefore, an essential
element of the state. However, the population can constitute a state only when it
is united by the condition of interdependence, consciousness of common
interest, and general regard for a set of common rules of behaviour and
institutions. The size of population for constituting a state cannot be fixed, yet it
is always better that such population is self-sufficient to meet all the needs of
life. If it is required to procure any goods or services from other states, it should
usually be able to pay for them, although the possibility of foreign aid, as a
temporary measure, cannot be ruled out. In any case, economic self-sufficiency
is essential for the stability of a state. The population of a state need not belong
to a single race, religion, language or culture. A homogeneous population is no
longer considered an essential feature of the modern state. The modern state
claims to reconcile the interests of various groups of its citizens.
Territory
Territory is another essential element of a state. Other associations either exist
within the state or they extend their sphere to several states; they do not need
separate territory. But the state must possess a territory where its authority is
accepted without dispute or challenge. A state comes into existence only when
its population is settled in a fixed territory. Friedrich Engels, in his Origin of the
Family, Private Property and the State (1884), notes that the formation of the
state is accompanied by a division of population according to territory. In the
pre-state society when people live as nomadic tribes, moving from one place to
another in search of food, the members of the tribe are held together by the ties
of kinship. With the formation of the state, citizens are allowed to exercise their
rights and duties wherever they settle, irrespective of gens and tribes. The
organization of citizens according to locality is the common feature of all states.
Some writers, like John Seeley (1834-95), hold that a fixed territory is not an
essential aspect of a state. The nomadic tribes, who do not possess fixed
territory, do constitute a state. This view is, however, no longer held valid. The
nomadic tribes do have the institution of authority, or even government with
custombased law, but not a state. Political sociologists concede the existence of
a 'political system' in such communities, but their organization still does not
qualify to be a state. Moreover, the modern state is not a matter of internal
12 | P a g e
organization; it needs international recognition as well, so as to enjoy its rights
and perform its duties as a member of the comity of nations. International law
regards possession of a fixed territory as the essential attribute of the state.
Demarcation of physical boundaries is, therefore, essential for establishing the
real identity of a state. The territory of a state includes the land, water and air-
space within its boundary. It also extends usually to a distance of three miles
into the sea from its coast, and is known as territorial waters, which may be
sought to be extended further in times of war. Territory symbolizes the sphere
of sovereignty of the state. Territory provides for natural resources for the
sustenance of the population of the state. Territory provides for a sense of
security and immense opportunities for a fuller life for its residents; it is an
object of sentimental attachment—people love and worship their motherland
and are prepared to make supreme sacrifices for the protection and maintenance
of the territorial integrity of their state. The feeling of patriotism— the sense of
belonging to a state—binds the people of different races, with different
religions, languages and cultures, by the thread of national unity and mutual
cooperation. Like population, the size of the territory of a state cannot be fixed.
Territory is usually a geographical phenomenon, dividing different states by sea,
mountains or other big natural barriers. Sometimes territories are demarcated
mainly on a political basis rather than on a geographical basis. In such cases, the
peoples' sense of identification with a particular state becomes the basis of
territorial demarcation. Reallocation of territories can bring about a merger or
alteration of the existing states or emergence of new states.
Government
Government is still another essential element of the state. According to J.W.
Garner (Political Science and Government; 1928), 'government is the agency or
machinery through which common policies are determined and by which
common affairs are regulated and common interests promoted'. If the state
represents an abstract concept, government is its concrete form. In other words,
authority of the state is exercised by government; functions of the state are
performed by government. Laws of the state are made, declared and enforced by
government; justice is dispensed by the judicial organ of government.
Government is responsible for the maintenance of law and order and for the
provision of common services defence, issue of currency, foreign relations,
roads, bridges, and even transport, communications, water, electricity, health
and education, etc. and it is entitled to levy taxes for the provision of all such
services. Without government, the people are a chaotic mass of disjointed
particles, without common aims, common interests or a common organization.
13 | P a g e
A citizen has to deal with government of the state; any transaction between
different states, including war, takes place through the medium of their
governments.
However, government and state should not be treated as co-terminous.
Governments may rise and fall without disturbing identity of the state, so long
as they are formed and dissolved according to the established custom, procedure
or constitution of the state. But a state will lose its identity if it is suppressed by
an alien power so much so that the established procedure of forming a
government is also suspended. When the people of a state lose their right to
have a government according to the established procedure, i.e. a legitimate
government enjoying customary respect and obedience of the people, the state is
reduced to a colony of the imperial power which suppressed it.
Sovereignty
Finally, sovereignty also constitutes an essential element of the state.
Sovereignty denotes the supreme or ultimate power of the state to make laws or
take political decisions—establishing public goals, fixing priorities and
resolving conflicts—as also enforcing such laws and decisions by the use of
legitimate force. In fact, sovereignty denotes the final authority of the state over
its population and its territory. This authority may be exercised by the
government of the day, but it essentially belongs to the state from which it is
derived by the government.
It is by virtue of its sovereignty that a state declares—through the agency of the
government—its laws and decisions and issues commands which are binding on
all citizens, claims obedience thereto, and punishes the offenders. It is also by
virtue of its sovereignty that a state similarly deals independently with other
states. Commands of the state are treated as superior to those of any other
association or institution, even to the dictates of social customs or conscience of
individual, because sovereignty is the sole preserve of the state. As Max Weber
(1920) points out: The right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions
or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is
considered the sole source of the 'right' to use violence.
Other associations are either voluntary or based on custom or necessity. The
right to use legitimate coercion in its own right is the exclusive prerogative of
the state. A state continues to exist so long as it is armed with sovereignty. If a
state loses its sovereignty because of internal revolt or external aggression, the
result is anarchy and disappearance of the state as such. Some writers regard
'international recognition' as an essential element of the state. This denotes
14 | P a g e
formal recognition of the sovereignty of the state over a given territory and
population by other states. International recognition, however, is the outcome of
the sovereignty of the state, not a condition of its existence. When a new state,
like Bangladesh, comes into existence, it may be recognized by some states
immediately while other states thay withhold their recognition for quite a long
time. Much depends on the foreign policy of a state whether to recognize the
new state immediately or to delay it. USA had withheld recognition of the new
states of USSR and People's Republic of China for decades after they came into
existence, but they did exist as states. Hence, international recognition is only
incidental to the sovereignty of the state, not a fundamental element of the state
itself.
Concept of Welfare State

A welfare state is a concept of government where the state plays a key role in
the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its
citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable
distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail
themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. The general term may
cover a variety of forms of economic and social organization.[1]
There are two main interpretations of the idea of a welfare state:
A model in which the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its
citizens. This responsibility in theory ought to be comprehensive, because all
aspects of welfare are considered and universally applied to citizens as a "right".
Welfare state can also mean the creation of a "social safety net" of minimum
standards of varying forms of welfare.[2]
In the strictest sense, a welfare state is a government that provides for the
welfare, or the well-being, of its citizens completely. Such a government is
involved in citizens lives at every level. It provides for physical, material, and
social needs rather than the people providing for their own. The purpose of the
welfare state is to create economic equality or to assure equitable standards of
living for all.[3]
The welfare state provides education, housing, sustenance, healthcare, pensions,
unemployment insurance, sick leave or time off due to injury, supplemental
income in some cases, and equal wages through price and wage controls. It also
provides for public transportation, childcare, social amenities such as public
parks and libraries, as well as many other goods and services. Some of these
15 | P a g e
items are paid for via government insurance programs while others are paid for
by taxes.
TWO FORMS OF THE WELFARE STATE
There are two ways of organizing a welfare state:
According to the first model the state is primarily concerned with directing the
resources to “the people most in need”. This requires a tight bureaucratic
control over the people concerned, with a maximum of interference in their
lives to establish who are "in need" and minimize cheating. The unintended
result is that there is a sharp divide between the receivers and the producers of
social welfare, between "us" and "them", the producers tending to dismiss the
whole idea of social welfare because they will not receive anything of it. This
model is dominant in the US.[4]
According to the second model the state distributes welfare with as little
bureaucratic interference as possible, to all people who fulfill easily established
criteria (e.g. having children, receiving medical treatment, etc). This requires
high taxing, of which almost everything is channeled back to the taxpayers with
minimum expenses for bureaucratic personnel. The intended – and also largely
achieved – result is that there will be a broad support for the system since most
people will receive at least something. This model was constructed by the
Scandinavian ministers Karl Kristian Steincke and Gustav Möller in the 30s and
is dominant in Scandinavia.[5]
THEORY OF WELFARE STATE
The genesis and development of the concept of the welfare state lay in the
interaction of ideas, mainly, conservatism, liberalism and socialism, in the
unique British historical setting of a qualitative change from administrative to
ameliorative legislation. The formative period of the concept involved an
interesting application of empiricism and ideology to the problem of poverty.
The welfare state, conceived within the liberal framework, involved a social
consensus on a wide spectrum of socio economic policies. Two sociological
factors largely contributed to the growth of the concept: first, increasing
prosperity that produced a revolution of rising expectations; and second, the
hope and the fear generated by the newly acquired manhood franchise. The faith
in piecemeal social engineering, bereft of dogma, set the precedent for
expanding municipal activity and government’s interest in social reform. This,
indeed, was an ominous beginning.[6]
16 | P a g e
State help and self- help, in this context, became the two focal points of the
‘principled’ discussion on the subject of the welfare state. Herbert Spencer’s
liberalism, an apotheosis of self help, as a deductive system, had deeper
implications for welfare state activity. The notion that Spencer was opposed to
welfare state is a false one. His doctrine of non- intervention and positivistic
connotation, prima facie inconsistent with laissez- faire, but consistent with the
view of state help as complimentary to self- help.[7]
In economics, laissez-faire describes an environment in which transactions
between private parties are free from state intervention, including restrictive
regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies.[8] The phrase is French and
literally means "let do", but it broadly implies "let it be", or "leave it alone."
The problem of the period was to search some criteria for judging the
compatibility, or otherwise, of the various schemes of state welfare, vis a vis the
idea of self help. The problem of the period was to search some criteria for
judging the compatibility, or otherwise, of the various schemes of state welfare,
Vis a Vis the idea of self help.[9]
The process of laying the foundations of the concept of the welfare state, the
British political system acquired a remarkable capacity of preserving its liberal
identity against the alien ideas of French and German socialism and
Bismarckian model of the welfare state. British resistance to utopian ideals and
adaptation to new challenges and responsibility was phenomenal. Political
leaders of all hues and complexions were falling prey to democratic
compulsions and were redefining their ideals. In relation to matters affecting the
labour and the poor, they were abandoning their pitched positions in response to
pragmatism. Transport, banking, agriculture, industry, trade; in a word, a large
segment of economy, were subject to regulation.[10]
Although there never was at any time a laissez- faire state, as the existence of
Elizabeth Poor Law and factory legislation indicate, it is true that the era of
“collectivism”- a mistaken term for regulatory capitalism- started in the 1870’s
whose first lasting effect could be seen in an increased legislative activity at the
national level in the last decade of the last century. By the time Great War
intervened, the statutes had covered many areas of social reform and the pattern
of change had set in, more spectacularly, by the ‘people’s budget’, a landmark
in the march towards the welfare state.[11]
17 | P a g e
The seeds of the concept lay in the problem of poverty. Its incidence and range
assumed the form of the recurring Condition of England Question, which called
for empirical investigation and verification. The basic element in the growth of
the concept of the welfare state, however, was the two-fold realization of, one,
the inadequacy of private charity, philanthropy and the poor law to meet the
pressing demands of the poor who had acquired the new voting power; and two,
the increasing capacity of the public exchequer to bear welfares burdens. The
state helped, to the extent it was practicable, both in the formulation and
solution of the felt and publicized problems of want, disease, ignorance, squalor
and misery, in the backdrop of the widespread fear of an impending revolution,
which added urgency to efforts for solving these problems.[12]
The interaction of empiricism and ideology- conservative, liberal and socialist-
predicated the concept of the welfare state, embodying a consensus on a wide
spectrum of socio- economic policies. The development had been distinctive in
several ways. It occurred in a free society where men projected their interests
and ideas into the arena of conflict and where governments tended to take
decisions by discussions and empirical investigation of problems. The welfare
state evolved in response to the peculiar conditions of a maturing economy,
laissez- faire attitude and traditions of enlightened self- interest.[13]
APPROACHES TO POLITICAL SCIENCE

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 normative study of 1politics and is idealistic in nature. It deals
with the problems of nature and function of state, 2issues of citizenship, rights
and duties etc. Its themes are generally concerned with moral reasoning which
cannot be subjected to scientific test
Historical Approach
18 | P a g e
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 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, as exemplified by
George H. Sabine's 'A History of Political Theory'. Critics of the historical
approach point out that it is not possible to understand ideas of the past ages in
terms of the contemporary ideas and concepts. Moreover, ideas of the past are
hardly any guide for resolving the crises of the present-day world which were
beyond comprehension of the past thinkers.
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.
19 | P a g e
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.
The empirical tradition

Although it was less prominent than normative theorizing, a descriptive or
empirical tradition can be traced back to the earliest days of political thought. It
can be seen in Aristotle’s attempt to classify constitutions (see pp. 267–8), in
Machiavelli’s realistic account of statecraft, and in Montesquieu’s (see p. 312)
sociological theory of government and law. In many ways, such writings
constitute the basis of what is now called ‘comparative government’, and they
gave rise to an essentially institutional approach to the discipline. In the USA,
and the UK in particular, this developed into the dominant tradition of analysis.
The empirical approach to political analysis is characterized by the attempt to
offer a dispassionate and impartial account of political reality. The approach is
‘descriptive’, in that it seeks to analyse and explain, whereas the normative
approach is ‘prescriptive’, in the sense that it makes judgements and offers
recommendations. Descriptive political analysis acquired its philosophical
underpinning from the doctrine of empiricism, which spread from the
seventeenth century onwards through the work of theorists such as John Locke
(see p. 31) and David Hume (1711–76). The doctrine of empiricism advanced
the belief that experience is the only basis of knowledge and that, therefore, all
hypotheses and theories should be tested by a process of observation. By the
nineteenth century, such ideas had developed into what became known as
‘positivism’, an intellectual movement particularly associated with the writings
of Auguste Comte (1798–1857). This doctrine proclaimed that the social
sciences, and, for that matter, all forms of philosophical enquiry, should adhere
strictly to the methods of the natural sciences. Once science was perceived to be
the only reliable means of disclosing truth, the pressure to develop a science of
politics became irresistible.
Behaviouralism
Since the mid-nineteenth century, mainstream political analysis has been
dominated by the ‘scientific’ tradition, reflecting the growing impact of
positivism. In the 1870s, ‘political science’ courses were introduced in the
20 | P a g e
universities of Oxford, Paris and Columbia, and by 1906 the American Political
Science Review was being published. However, enthusiasm for a science of
politics peaked in the 1950s and 1960s with the emergence, most strongly in the
USA, of a form of political analysis that drew heavily on behaviouralism. For
the first time, this gave politics reliably scientific credentials, because it
provided what had previously been lacking: objective and quantifiable data
against which hypotheses could be tested. Political analysts such as David
Easton (1979, 1981) proclaimed that politics could adopt the methodology of
the natural sciences, and this gave rise to a proliferation of studies in areas best
suited to the use of quant itative research methods, such as voting behaviour, the
behaviour of legislators, and the behaviour of municipal politicians and
lobbyists. Attempts were also made to apply behaviouralism to IR, in the hope
of developing objective ‘laws’ of international relations.
Behaviouralism, however, came under growing pressure from the 1960s
onwards. In the first place, it was claimed that behaviouralism had significantly
constrained the scope of political analysis, preventing it from going beyond
what was directly observable. Although behavioural analysis undoubtedly
produced, and continues to produce, invaluable insights in fields such as voting
studies, a narrow obsession with quantifiable data threatens to reduce the
discipline of politics to little else. More worryingly, it inclined a generation of
political scientists to turn their backs on the entire tradition of normative
political thought. Concepts such as ‘liberty’, ‘equality’, ‘justice’ and ‘rights’
were sometimes discarded as being meaningless because they were not
empirically verifiable entities. Dissatisfaction with behaviouralism grew as
interest in normative questions revived in the 1970s, as reflected in the writings
of theorists such as John Rawls and Robert Nozick .Moreover, the scientific
credentials of behaviouralism started to be called into question. The basis of the
assertion that behaviouralism is objective and reliable is the claim that it is
‘value-free’: that is, that it is not contaminated by ethical or normative beliefs.
However, if the focus of analysis is observable behaviour, it is difficult to do
much more than describe the existing political arrangements, which implicitly
means that the status quo is legitimized. This conservative value bias was
demonstrated by the fact that ‘democracy’ was, in effect, redefined in terms of
observable behaviour. Thus, instead of meaning ‘popular self-government’
(literally, government by the people), democracy came to stand for a struggle
between competing elites to win power through the mechanism of popular
election. In other words, democracy came to mean what goes on in the so-called
democratic political systems of the developed West.
21 | P a g e
Post- Behavioural Approach
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. 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.
Politics and its relation with allied disciplines ( refer
https://www.politicalscienceview.com/relationship-of-political-science-with-other-
disciplines/#:~:text=Political%20Science%20is%20deeply%20related,in%20similar%20field
s%20of%20inquiry. For more disciplines or in depth content)
Political Science is deeply related to all other social sciences because the knowledge gained
about any phase of human behavior and attitudes, about the institutions that men build, or the
ideas to which they respond in the mass, cannot fail to be of use in similar fields of inquiry.
Each social science, sociology, anthropology, history, economics, ethics, psychology,
jurisprudence, geography, and political science supplements and fortifies the rest. If we
divide them into different sciences, they are distinctions within a unity as they aim to study
man in society.
22 | P a g e
All are inter-dependent and inter-related. Each contributes importantly to the advancement of
the other.
Pol and Sociology

Sociology may be defined as the science of the origin and development,
Structure and functions of social groups, their forms, laws, customs, institutions,
modes of life, thought and action, and their contribution to human culture and
civilization. It seeks to discover the general principles underlying all social
phenomena and social relationships and establish the laws Of change and
society’s growth.
They are mutually contributory. Political Science gives to Sociology facts about
the organization and functions of the State and obtains from its knowledge of
the origin of political authority and laws which controlled society. The State in
its early stages was more of a social than a political institution, and Giddings is
of the Opinion that “to teach the theory of the State to men, who have not
learned the first principles of sociology, is like teaching astronomy or
thermodynamics to men who have not learned the Newtonian law of motion.” A
political scientist must be a sociologist, and a sociologist ought to be a political
scientist. political science is a study of man’s political governance, and it is a
Specialized branch of Sociology.
It has a narrower and more restricted field to cover than Sociology. Secondly,
the political life of man begins much later than his social life. Sociology is
before Political Science. Thirdly, Sociology embraces the study of organized
and unorganized communities and the conscious and unconscious man’s
activities. The province of Political Science is the politically organized society
and conscious political activities of man.
RELATIONSHIP OF POLITICAL SCIENCE WITH ANTHROPOLOGY:
Anthropology deals with man’s racial divisions, physical characteristics,
geographic division, environmental and social relations, and cultural
development. It is a science that studies humanity about physical, social, and
cultural development. The contribution of Anthropology to Political Science is
considerable, and modem researches in the racial division, habits, customs, and
organizations of primitive man help us to know the real origin of the State and
the development of various political institutions.
We seek Anthropology’s help to prove that early society was communal in
character; that is, its basis was the group rather than the individual, whom we
now accept as our society’s unit. Anthropology also tells us that temporary
23 | P a g e
marriage was the rule rather than the exception in the early stages of society’s
development. But such a condition of society could not last for long, and
regulating management was felt.
RELATIONSHIP OF POLITICAL SCIENCE WITH HISTORY.
The relationship between Political Science and History is very close and
intimate. John Seeley expressed this relationship in the following couplet–
History without Political Science has no fruit, Political Science without History
has no root.
All our political institutions have a historical basis as they depict the wisdom of
generations. History furnishes sufficient material for comparison and induction,
enabling us to build an ideal political structure of our aspirations. In the absence
of historical data, the study of Political Science is sure to become entirely
speculative or a priori. And a priori Political Science, as Laski observes, ‘is
bound to break down simply because we never start with the clean slate.
The writings of historians, in brief, form a vast reservoir of material that a
student of Political Science can analyze into meaningful patterns and guide him
in understanding the present and outlining the future. Moreover, with its
chronological treatment, history offers a sense of growth and development,
thereby providing a base or an insight into the social changes.
RELATIONSHIP OF POLITICAL SCIENCE WITH ECONOMICS:
Till recently, Economics was regarded as a branch of Political Science. The
Greeks called Economics the name of Political Economy Aristotle, in
classifying the States declared that the key fact-is whether the State is ruled by
the rich or the poor.
All our political institutions have a historical basis as they depict the wisdom of
generations. History furnishes sufficient material for comparison and induction,
enabling us to build an ideal political structure of our aspirations. In the absence
of historical data, the study of Political Science is sure to become entirely
speculative or a priori. And a priori Political Science, as Laski observes, ‘is
bound to break down simply because we never start with the clean slate.
The writings of historians, in brief, form a vast reservoir of material that a
student of Political Science can analyze into meaningful patterns and guide him
in understanding the present and outlining the future. Moreover, with its
24 | P a g e
chronological treatment, history offers a sense of growth and development,
thereby providing a base or an insight into the social changes.
Modern economists disagree with the older point of view. They regard
Economics as a separate discipline, which seeks to inquire how a man gets his
income and uses it.The study of both Political Science and Economics is
directed to the same common end. The welfare of man can only be obtained
under an orderly society because both are inseparable. It is the State’s function
to secure these conditions so that every individual gets an opportunity for
pursuing his activities, economic activities, of course, preceding the restDespite
its treatment as a separate discipline, there IS now no difference in opinion that
Political Science and Economics are auxiliary.It is one of the important
functions of the State to see what its citizens consume. Every State is vitally
concerned with its people’s health, as the people are the State’s health.It also
becomes necessary for the State to see how commodities are produced and their
product’s nature and conditions. One may even say that government
administration’s theory is largely economic in its approach when seeking to
interpret matters Concerning the Welfare State, public financial policies, and
relationships between government and private enterprise. When the government
itself undertakes the production, it performs an economic function purely.
RELATIONSHIP OF POLITICAL SCIENCE WITH 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 community’s existence, they must accept
certain conduct rules. The rules governing society may be few or many.
every political philosophy embraces or implies a 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 lawsStrictly speaking, Jurisprudence is a
sub-division of Political Science, as it is the State that creates and maintains the
law’s conditions. But it is now treated as a separate study because of the
vastness of its scope and its specialized study of law.
TYPES OF GOVERNMENTS
25 | P a g e
Unitary
In a unitary system of government the entire governmental power is vested by
the constitution in a single central government, and local authorities not only
derive their power and autonomy from it but owe their very existence to it. In
such a system:
1. There is only one state and one government. There is only one source of
power and one will.
2. For the sake of administrative convenience, unitary states are divided into
units. But their creation as well as continuance depends on the will of the
central government and is not determined by constitution.
MERITS OF A UNITARY STATE
1. A unitary state can bring about a uniformity of law, policy and
administration throughout the length and breadth of a country.
2. In matters of defense and international relations, the strength of the
unitary state is especially manifest because in such a state there can be no
conflict of authority.
3. A unitary state has the advantage of being simple in structure and less
expensive than a federal state because of the absence of duplication of
governmental departments and services.
4. A unitary constitution is particularly suited for a small country with a
homogeneous population such as England.
DEMERITS OF A UNITARY STATE
1. Major weakness of the unitary system is the absence of strong provincial
and regional institutions and the regulation of local policies and affairs
by distant and far-off authorities.
2. Added responsibilities for local and provincial affairs places an
additional burden on the central government.
3. Central authorities often lack the necessary knowledge of local
conditions and needs.
4. A unitary state tend to suppress local initiative and discourage interest in
social problems.
Federal
As Garner remarks, a federal state is a system in which the totality of
governmental power is divided or distributed by the national constitution or
organic. In the words of Hamilton, a federal state is “an association of states
26 | P a g e
that forms a new one”. Or, as Dicey defines it, “it is a political contrivance
intended to reconcile national unity with the maintenance of state rights”.
The chief features of a Federation are-
1. The existence of one state, but many governments.
2. A formal division or distribution of governmental powers between the
central and state or provincial governments.
3. A written constitution which is supreme.
4. The ultra vires of any law of the state which is contrary to the
constitution and the setting up of a Supreme or Federal court to decide
cases.
5. Comparative rigidity of the federal constitution in order to prevent hasty
and ill-digested legislation.
6. The derivation of state or provincial authority not from the central
government, but directly from the constitution.
K.C. Wheare considers the independence of the governments in their respective
spheres as hallmark of the Federal Government. Dual federalism was
commonly used to describe the American federal system. The concept of dual
federalism was current throughout the 19th century and referred to in the
decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The division of the power between the
federal and state governments formed the “key” to the entire concept of dual
federalism, and both set of governments had exclusive area of authority and
jurisdiction. The old barriers between the federal government and the states
have broken down. Separation has been replaced by cooperation. This is a major
departure from the traditional system of dual federalism.
REQUISITES OF FEDERATION
Federations have been created by the coming together of a number of small
sovereign states with the object of establishing a common government e.g.,
Switzerland, the U.S.A. and Australia. The Indian federation of our day is an
exception to this rule. For it has been created by breaking up a unitary state into
autonomous units.
A federation can be finally established and continued if the following conditions
exist:
1. The desire for union- Among the people of various political units a desire
to create a common government for their own common interest must exist
before a federation can be created.
27 | P a g e
2. The desire for the union, but not for unity- The component units must
cherish a strong desire to maintain their individual freedom in all but
essentially common matters.
3. Geographical contiguity- Geographical nearness of various units desirous
of forming a federation strongly favors a federation. If the units are
widely separated, the desire for union cannot very well materialize.
4. Absence of inequality among the units- No units should be so powerful
and domineering as to become the master of the joint enterprise.
5. Political education of the people- People should exhibit a willingness to
obey the laws of the two governments and a particular readiness to yield
to the authority of the law courts. Violent events in India in connection
with the reorganization of states have shown that many in India still have
too much of a provincial and parochial loyalty and too little of a national
loyalty.
DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS IN A FEDERATION
Generally, any one of the following three methods may be adopted in
distributing the powers between the center and the units.
1. Powers allotted to the central government may be specifically enumerated
in the constitution and all remaining powers, with the exception of those
specifically prohibited to them, may be left with states, as in the U.S.A.
2. Just the opposite procedure may be adopted, as in the case of the
Canadian federation where the powers of the state are specifically
enumerated in the constitution, while the residuary powers left with the
center.
3. Specific powers may be assigned to the center and the states respectively,
with the residuary powers belonging to the center, as in the Indian Union.
In India, there is a third list of subjects known as the concurrent list on
which both the governments have jurisdiction. In cases of conflict the
Union government is given priority.
MERITS OF A FEDERATION
1. It affords opportunity to small and weak states to unite into a powerful
state without losing their independent and separate existence.
2. By combining, a federation becomes particularly valuable to big states
with population and with racial, cultural, and linguistic diversities.
3. Federation makes it possible for a uniformity of policy, legislation and
administration where it is necessary and for diversity where such
diversity is desirable.
28 | P a g e
4. Federation is the best system of government for trying our political, social
and economic experiments.
5. By giving local independence to the people of the units, it stimulates their
interest in public affairs.
6. On account of the distribution of powers, the central government in a
federation is relieved of the burdens and congestion created by a top-
heavy administration. This, in its turn, discourages red-tapism and
bureaucratic administration.
DEFECTS INHERENT IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM
Defects of federation are-
1. The diversity of legislative policy and administration.
2. Duplication of governmental organization, the civil service and
departments; and their complexity.
3. The danger of possible conflict of jurisdiction between the national and
state governments.
4. Heavy costs of administration.
5. The danger of secession.
American Finer says that 1) It is financially expensive since there is much
duplication of administrative machinery and procedure. It is wasteful of time
and expenditure. Much time is spent on negotiation. 2) It is confusing to the
public and has awkward results on personal rights and obligations.
Parliamentary and Presidential form of

Government
PRESIDENTIAL
A Presidential system is also called a congressional system. It refers to a system
of governance in which the President is the Chief Executive and is elected
directly by the people. The head of the government thus exists separately from
the legislature. It is a form of government where the three branches (legislature,
executive and judiciary) exist separately and cannot dismiss or dissolve the
other branch. While the legislature makes the laws, the President enforces them
and it is the courts that are responsible for exercising judicial duties.
FEATURES
1. President does not have nominal powers. He is both the head of the
executive and the head of the state. As the head of the executive, he has a
29 | P a g e
ceremonial position. As the head of the government, he acts as the chief
real executive.
2. President is directly elected by the people or the electoral college.
3. The President cannot be removed, except through an impeachment
procedure for a grave unconstitutional act.
4. The concept of Separation of powers is clearly visible in the Presidential
system. The three branches are completely separated and members of one
branch cannot be the members of the other branch.
5. The President can veto the acts of the legislature. He/She can also grant
pardon.
ADVANTAGES
1. In most Presidential systems, the President is elected directly by the
people. This creates more legitimacy than that of a leader who has been
appointed indirectly.
2. A Presidential government is more stable. This is because the term of the
President is fixed and is not subject to majority support in the legislative.
Hence, he/she does not need to worry about losing the government.
3. Since it is the President who chooses his cabinet and the executive need
not be legislators, the President is able to choose experts in various fields
to head relevant departments in his government. This ensures that only
the people who are capable and knowledgeable form part of the
government.
4. Once the election is complete and the President gains power, the whole
nation accepts him/her.
DISADVANTAGES
1. The Presidential form of governance is autocratic as it places a lot of
power in the hands of one person, i.e., the President.
2. The complete separation between the legislature and executive may lead
to conflicts and a deadlock between the executive and the legislature.
3. This system gives the President the power to choose the people of his
choice for his cabinet to form the government.
4. It leads to less accountability in the government and may also result in the
legislature and the executive playing the blame game in time of crisis.
PARLIAMENTARY
A Parliamentary form of democracy is also known as ‘Responsible
Government’. It refers to a system of governance in which the citizens elect
representatives to the legislative Parliament. This Parliament is responsible to
30 | P a g e
make the decisions and laws for the state. It is also directly answerable to the
people.
As a result of the elections, the party with the greatest representation forms the
government. Its leader becomes the Prime Minister and performs various
executive functions along with the members of Parliament appointed by the
Prime Minister to the cabinet.
Attempts to create a system of Parliamentary democracy were seen in the
European Revolution of 1848 but these did not lead to any consolidated system.
Parliamentary democracy came to be in 1918 and developed throughout the
twentieth century.
FEATURES
1. The head of state and the head of government are different under the
Parliamentary form of government.
2. It can be either bicameral (with two houses) or unicameral (with one
house).
3. The council of ministers, in this system, are collectively responsible to
the Parliament. The lower house of Parliament can even dismiss the
ruling government by passing a no confidence motion in the house.
4. The powers of government are not completely separated. The lines
between the legislature and the executive are blurred as executive forms
part of the legislature.
ADVANTAGES
1. In Parliamentary system, there is lesser tendency of disputes and
conflicts, which makes it comparatively easier to pass legislation and
implement it.
2. This type of government is more flexible as, if required, the Prime
Minister can be changed.
3. A Parliamentary democracy allows representation of diverse groups. This
system gives opportunities to various diverse ethical, racial, linguistic and
ideological groups to share their views and enable making of better and
suitable laws and policies.
4. The members of the Parliament can move resolutions, discuss matters and
ask questions of public interest to put pressure on the government. This
enables responsible governance.
31 | P a g e
DISADVANTAGES
1. Because of party fragmentation, the legislators cannot exercise their free
will and vote as per their own understanding and opinions.
2. Since the executive is formed of the members of the winning party, it is
not the experts who head the departments.
3. Since the executive is formed of the members of the winning party, it is
not the experts who head the departments.
4. Such governments might prove to be unstable. This is because the
government exists only as long as they maintain majority support in the
house.
ORGANS OF THE GOVERNMENT

The Legislature
In democratic countries, the pride of place is given to the legislature. In the
olden days, as Jenks points out, laws were not made but discovered. They were
folk laws based upon the customs of the people, and it was the business of what
governmental and religious authorities there were to discover these laws. At a
still later stage came laws by established estates which were more or less
representative assemblies. Finally, there came into being parliaments and
parliamentary sovereignty.
Membership in parliament at this time was not a position of honor and influence
to be coveted, but an onerous responsibility to be avoided. Soon, however,
representatives in Parliament realized that before supplies could be voted they
could insist upon the redressal of grievances, which a harassed king, involved in
foreign wars and domestic difficulties felt obliged to do. From this time on
began the continuous history of law making by the legislature.
LAWS MADE BY ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS OF
GOVERNMENT
In the modern State the legislature alone does not make laws. The executive
head in the United States, for example, negotiates treaties subject to ratification
by two thirds vote of the Senate.
LEGISLATION BY PEOPLE
Switzerland, which is the home of several novel political devices, has made
experiments in direct legislation by means of the referendum and initiative.
Referendum, simply means that a piece of legislation, acter being passed by the
32 | P a g e
legislature, has to be approved by a specified majority of the voters before it can
become valid.
While the referendum is negative in character in that in approves disapproves of
legislative measures, the initiative is positive in that it enables the voters
themselves to take the lead in law-making.
The Plebiscite is resorted to in ascertaining the wishes of the inhabitants of a
territory in transferring territory from one state to another or in creating new
states. This practice has been in operation in Europe since the end of 18th
century. We have witnessed the holding of Plebiscite in India also when in 1947
the people of princely state of Junagadh and its tributary states were asked to
indicate their choice between joining India and joining Pakistan. As a result of
that plebiscite, Junagadh state was merged with India.
THE ORGANIZATION OF LEGISLATURE
Bicameral legislature is usual practice everywhere, especially as regards the
center. Several of the Indian states in the new constitution possess bi-cameral
legislatures.
Where there are two legislative chambers, it stands to reason that they should be
organized differently, as regards to avoid conflict and jealously. The lower
house, which is also called the popular house, is usually elected by the people
themselves, and representation is on the basis of population and a wide
franchise. The upper house, also known as the second chamber, usually
represents interests in the community, or the states in a federation, and is
usually not directly elected.
India has two chambers at the federal center and in some of the States. The two
houses of the Indian Parliament are known as the Lok Sabha and the Rajya
Sabha. The maximum number of the members of the council of states is 250, of
whom 12 are appointed by President for their distinction in the fields of art,
literature, social service etc. The rest are indirectly elected by the state
legislative assemblies under a system of proportional representation. The seats
are distributed according to the Fourth schedule of the constitution. It is a
continuous chamber. Its members are elected for six years and one third retiring
every two years. There are 232 members at present including the 12 nominated.
ARE SECOND CHAMBERS NECESSARY?
The usual reasons given in favor of second chambers are
33 | P a g e
1) They are a useful check upon the hasty and ill-digested legislation of the
lower house
2) That in federal constitutions, they safe-guard the interest of the
component units.
J.S. Mill feared that one house alone might become ‘despotic’ and
‘overweening’ and that a second chamber was necessary in order to prevent the
‘corrupting influence of undivided power’. Sir Henry Maine went so far as to
say that ‘almost any second chamber is better than none’, on the ground that a
well-constituted second chamber provided not a ‘rival infallibility’ but an
‘additional security’. According to Lord Acton, a second chamber is the
essential security for freedom: it provides the necessary balance of power in
legislation, gives protection to the minorities, and is a good revising chamber.
Mr. S.S. Iyengar on the contrary, holds that bicameralism in democracy is ‘an
outworn creed’. According to him, the institution of bicameralism is due to ‘a
hesitant faith in democracy, and a desire to conciliate minorities’, and there is
no valid reason ‘why the popular will should seek two channels of expression,
why democracy should speak two voices.’
The introduction of second chambers in Indian provinces in the past, would
seem was to bolster up the vested interests and to put a brake on the possible
radical tendencies of the lower house, especially as regards landed property.
The classical argument against bicameralism was stated by Abbe Sieyes when
he said: ‘If a second chamber dissents from the first, it is mischievous; if it
agrees with it, it is superfluous.’ The fitting reply to this dilemma which so
paralyzes thought is in words of Finer: ‘If the two assemblies agree, so much
the better for our belief in the wisdom and justice of the law, if they disagree, it
is time for the people to reconsider their attitude.’
The argument that a second chamber is necessary in order to check hasty and
ill-digested legislation does not strike as weighty. The various readings of a bill,
submission to special committees, consultations of the public through the press
and the platform, etc., seem to be sufficient safeguards against any hasty action
being taken. Besides, on most urgent reforms, to give the power of delay to the
upper house is perhaps to court disaster in the long run, and pave the way for
popular revolution. Matters which are purely local are dealt with by the local
legislatures, and a second chamber is not necessary to protect state interests as
against national interests.
34 | P a g e
To conclude, whether second chambers are necessary or not, or reply is
that no uniform answer can be given which will be applicable to all cases.
A great deal depends on historical antecedents. The United States and
undoubtedly be poorer if their Senates were abolished. Even Great Britain
would be poorer by the abolition of the House of Lords. On the other
hand, Canada, is not likely to lose much if her Senate is abolished. So far
as constitution making for the future is concerned, a second chamber
should be an exception rather than the rule. In order to avoid waste, it
may be provided that controversial measures should be passed twice over
by the lower house, with a general election intervening if necessary,
before they take effect.
The executive
The executive plays such an important part in the modern State that very often it
is described by the inclusive term ‘government’. Finer says that the executive is
the residuary legatee in government after other claimants like Parliament and
the law courts have taken their share. It performs many functions besides the
execution of laws as laid down by the legislature and interpreted by the courts.
THE NOMINAL EXECUTIVE
It is usual to distinguish three aspects of executive. These are the nominal or
ornamental executive, the political executive, and the permanent executive. In
England, the nominal executive is the monarch, the political executive is the
Prime Minister and his Cabinet, while the permanent executive is the
administration.
In countries where the parliamentary system of government prevails, the
nominal executive has little to do with the actual governance of the country.
While government is carried on in his name, all his acts have to be
countersigned by a minister, who is responsible to the cabinet, to the legislature
and to the people at large. Many of the functions performed by the nominal
executive are ceremonial in character, as in the case of the King of England.
The king is a titular sovereign. He reigns, but does not govern. His
constitutional rights are, in the words of Bagehot, ‘the right to be consulted, the
right to encourage, and the right to warn’.
THE POLITICAL EXECUTIVE
Political executive, has atleast four distinct forms, viz., the English, the
American, the Swiss, and the French. In England, the Prime Minister and the
Cabinet constitute the political executive. They can remain in office only so
35 | P a g e
long as they command the confidence of Parliament. They are also
administrative heads of departments and, in that capacity, are responsible to
Parliament not only for policy but also for the details of administration. The
Prime Minister is not the master of his Cabinet. In this respect he is quite unlike
the American President. He is the first among equals and is responsible to the
king and country for the work of the Cabinet as a whole. The complex
conditions of the world today make it necessary for the Prime Minister to
assume more and more responsibility. From this point of view, it may be said
that he is more than primus inter pares, but less than a dictator.
The British system of government works for smoothness and harmony between
the executive and the legislature. Cabinet ministers are kept in the strait and
narrow path with parliament and their responsibility. In spite of all these merits,
what we find in actual practice is that when the party in power has an
overwhelming majority in the Commons, it tends to become indifferent to the
criticism of the Opposition and to public opinion in general.
Summing up the importance of the British Cabinet, Finer writes: ‘On the
whole… the British Cabinet system offers quick, vigorous, thoughtful and
responsible leadership; it is controlled, but not stultified; threatened but not
executed; questioned, but not mistrusted; politically partisan, but not personally
malicious; restrained as much by the spirit of responsible power as by its
institutions and sanctions; and Janus-like, it looks at once to the people and to
the Senate.’
In the American system of government, the President is the political as well as
the ornamental executive. His term of office is four years, and he cannot be
removed before that time except for treason. He is not a member of the
Legislature, and so whatever legislative programme he wishes to carry through
he can do only with the help of individual legislators or committees of
Congress. The President is almost entirely independent of the legislature. He
possesses the power of suspensive veto, which is not used unless there is reason
to think that there is popular support behind the action of the President. The
President nominates his own Cabinet members who are directly responsible to
him and not to Congress. They are not members of the legislature, and as such
their responsibility is to the President alone.
In spite of the fact that the President’s power is somewhat weakened on account
of his lack of contact with the legislature, he is one of the strongest political
officers in the world. As the executive or administrative head of the
36 | P a g e
government, as the leader of his political party, and as guide of the nation is
legislation and policy-framing, the President enjoys wide powers and influence.
The Swiss executive is indeed of a very unique kind. It consists of a board or
council of 7 members elected for a fixed term of three years by the two houses
sitting together. It is controlled by the legislature, and there is no question of
resigning because of ‘no-confidence’ motion or vote of censure. If the
legislation does not approve of the policy or measures of the Council, the
Council makes the necessary judgement and goes on with its work. One of the
seven is elected annually as the president. He is only a chairman and is not the
‘first among equals’ as the British Prime Minister. He has no more power than
his colleague. The work of the council is divided into departments and each
member is in charge of a department. The Swiss executive council is usually
known described as a collegiate or plural executive.
In France, before the Fifth Republic, the executive was a parliamentary
executive. The French ministers had the right of entry to both Chambers and
could speak in either. French ministers were notoriously unstable, the average
life of a ministry between 1878 and 1928 being nine and a half months. In the
words of Finer there was no ministry in France; there was only a collection of
ministers. And these had no real administrative control on account of their
precarious tenure. All of this has now been changed and the President of the
Fifth Republic is all in all. He has a firm grip on the government and the
ministers are subordinate to him.
Neither a non-party nor an all-party executive will really be satisfactory
solution. An all-party executive will mean continuous conflict and
friction both within the Cabinet and outside. It will mean lack of unity
and cohesion, vacillation and constant wrangling. As for a non-party
executive, it seems to be outside the range of practical politics.
Accustomed as we are to British Parliamentary tradition, the safe course
will be not to launch upon untried and novel experiments. A non-party
executive can well function in a country where there is a high degree of
public political education, and where people are well-disciplined and
leaders do not hanker after positions. It is needless to say that none of
these conditions is widely prevalent in India at present.
37 | P a g e
The Judiciary
THE IMPORTANCE OF JUDICIARY
Protection against arbitrary rule is a condition which every citizen expects a
civilized government to provide for him; and a properly constituted judiciary is
one of the best means by which this condition can be secured. It is for this
reason that it is often said that the excellence of a country’s judiciary is a
measure of the excellence of its government.
The kind of justice which prevailed in early times was a tribal conception of
justice. It did not matter whether the guilty person was punished or not.
Gradually there developed the idea of the King’s peace. It first included the
‘bootless’ crimes, i.e., crimes for which atonement could not be made by money
payment. Later on theft and other such crimes came to be included under King’s
peace. Feudal lords and the Church continued to administer their own kind of
justice for a long time, and it was not without a struggle that they gradually gave
place to the King’s justice.
In the modern state all crimes against the state, although we speak of private
law and public law. The greatest enemy of an independent judiciary has been an
all-powerful executive.
CONDITIONS REQUIRED OF AN EFFICIENT JUDICIARY
The first condition required of a good system of judiciary is independence. Fear
of the executive or of the people at large should not influence him in any way in
the performance of his duties.
Impartiality in the administration of justice is as important as independence.
Differences in wealth, influence, and social position should not weigh with the
judge. Under no circumstances the executive should be allowed to dictate to the
judiciary the kind of judgement to give especially when it is one of the
interested parties.
Besides being independent and impartial, the judge should be learned and
skilled in the profession. An incompetent judge is bound to reduce popular
regard for the judiciary. A judge should be absolutely incorruptible, upright and
fearless in the discharge of his duties.
Passing from judges to courts, it must be said that justice should be swift and
sure. To the attainment of this end, the number of judges should be large enough
to prevent delays. The judicial process should be simple, direct and inexpensive.
While ample provision should be made for the correction of judicial errors by a
38 | P a g e
well-organized system of appeals, every-thing possible should be done to
prevent prolonged and vexatious litigation. Strenuous efforts should be made by
courts to effect reconciliation and arbitration wherever possible. In this matter
of the amicable settlement of disputes the lower courts in India might be
instructed to play a useful part which they are not playing today.
Theory of the Separation of Powers

Aristotle, the father of Western political thought, distinguishes between the
deliberative, the magisterial, and the judicial powers. Although in theory
Aristotle found it easy to separate these three powers, in practice they were all
exercised by the same persons in ancient Greece.
Bodin, one of the earliest thinkers of the modern period, insists that the Prince
should not administer justice himself, but should delegate this power to an
independent tribunal, his argument being that not to separate the powers would
mean the indiscriminate mixture of justice and mercy of strict adherence to law
and arbitrary departure from it.
In his Civil Government Locke makes a casual reference to the theory of
separation of powers. According to him civil society was constituted for the
protection of life, liberty and property and the means for the attainment of these
ends are as definite as the ends themselves. These means express themselves in
a three or four-fold division of governmental activity, namely the provision for
an authority just and impartial for applying the interpretation of the Laws of
Nature as among the individuals in a community; and the executive side of it,
the provision for employing the force of the community in enforcing by
penalties the prescription in the laws.
Locke’s doctrine of the separation of powers breaks new ground. The functions
of legislation and execution must needs to be separated; and certainly it is
unwise to invest the makers of laws with the duty of enforcing them, for the
either they may exempt themselves from the operations of such laws or may suit
the laws to serve their own ends.
It was Montesquieu, who made the doctrine his own in his Esprit des Lois.
Curiously, Montesquieu gave it as his considered judgement that the stability of
the English constitution was due to its adherence to the separation of powers. It
is all agreed by all today that Montesquieu was mistaken in his interpretation of
the English Constitution. Even though the cabinet system of government which
is a direct violation of the separation of powers was mot fully developed in the
39 | P a g e
18th century when Montesquieu wrote his work, there was no clear separation of
powers even in the England of his day.
Montesquieu had a profound theory respect for liberty, which he considered to
be the greatest of all human gods. It was for the securing of this good that he
advocated the separation of powers. He realized that it was in the nature of
authority to abuse itself and that unless, therefore, clear limitations were laid
down, arbitrary rule would be inevitable. The doctrine as stated by Montesquieu
himself as:
‘When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or
body, there can be no liberty….. If the power of judging were joined to the
legislative power, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to
arbitrary control… if it were joined to the executive, the judge might behave as
an oppressor’.
The doctrine had a profound influence on the framers of the American
constitution as well as upon revolutionary France. Even today the legislature,
the executive, and the judiciary are organized independently of each other.
Thus, the president of the US who is the chief executive, and his cabinet are not
members of the legislature, and the close contact between the legislature and the
executive found in countries which have adopted the British system of
government in unknown in America.
Not only are the organs of government separate from each other, but each organ
exercises certain checks upon the rest. Thus, the consent of the same in required
to all the appointments of chief officials made by the President. War and peace
are to be declared by the Congress, and treaties entered into by the executive
require ratification by the Senate. The President has the power to vote on the
acts of the legislature, but it is a suspensive, and not an absolute veto.
CRITICISM
In modern governments every legislature performs some executive duties and
the executive has certain judicial functions. The chief value of the theory is in
emphasizing the independence of judiciary, but this end is attained more easily
by other means such as security of tenure to the judges, liberal salaries which
are independent of annual budgetary provision and freedom of the judges from
party alignments or control.
The theory admonishes the executive and administrative officials not to
interfere with the processes of law and justice. In the words of Finer, it imposes
upon each power thee need to explain itself.
40 | P a g e
Laski writes, the doctrine of the separation of powers, while making for a
certain degree of efficiency, places a premium on jealousy, suspicion and
internal friction. The nature of power is such that anybody entrusted with it
wants to press it to the utmost limit and prevents others from exercising their
power. The serious limitations of the doctrine of the separation of powers were
clearly brought out during the second term, as president of Woodrow Wilson,
when the state refused to ratify the treaty which the president had concluded. In
the picturesque language of Finer, the theory of separation of powers throws
‘government into alternating conditions of coma and convulsion’. In modern
democracies the legislature, representing the people as it does, occupies a more
important place than that occupied by the executive or the judiciary.
Another writer has said: ‘Separation of powers means confusion of powers’.
At regards the American constitution, Willoughby writes that many people
imagine that the public liberties of the American people are safeguarded by a
strict separation of powers. But the fact of the matter is that there is
considerable union of powers. The difficulty of working the American
constitution is not due to the separation of powers but is due to a joint exercise
of powers by two or more authorities.
In broad terms, the doctrine of the separation of powers is a valuable
doctrine. But even with its companion doctrine of checks and balances, it
has not proved to be a great safeguard of liberty. Nor has it been
favorable to the smooth working of government as a whole. McCarthy
and McCarthyism, for instance, have not been conducive to the protection
of the liberty of the American people. On the other hand, they held a good
many innocent people in fear and mortal dread of legislative committees
of enquiry which practiced smear tactics and “hit and run” policies.
Seeing the futility of a rigid application of the theory of the separation of
powers to modern conditions, H. Finer divides the powers of government into
resolving powers and executive powers, the former including the electorate,
political parties, parliament, cabinet and the chief of state, and the latter
including the cabinet, the chief of state, the civil service and the courts of
justice.
41 | P a g e
Duayon mein yaad rkhna 😊
42 | P a g e

Pol Science Complete Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pol Science Complete Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contents

Nature of Political Science.................................................................................... 4

IS POLITICAL SCIENCE A SCIENCE?

Political Science is a Social Science:

IS POLITICAL SCIENCE AN ART?

STATE AND GOVERNMENT

Concept of Welfare State

APPROACHES TO POLITICAL SCIENCE

The empirical tradition

There are some basic characteristics of Post- Behavioural Approach. Importance

Pol and Sociology

Parliamentary and Presidential form of

ORGANS OF THE GOVERNMENT

Theory of the Separation of Powers

You might also like