Introduction To Politics YEAR 2

Course: Introduction to Politics & Government
UNIT ONE
CONCEPTUALIZING POLITICS
1.1. What is Politics?
Throughout literature, there are various ways of conceptualizing politics. It is very difficult to
present the exact meaning and single definition of politics because it is the most controversial
topic as it is conceptualized differently by different scholars and political practitioners.
Everybody, from the common man to the political philosophers, has been interpreting it in his
own personal way, but no satisfactory solution has been found so far. These days everybody
acknowledges this fact that politics is influencing every aspect of human life. Whatever the type
of administration, political activities seem to be going on around us. We may, or may not
participate in the formal political activities; but we can't get rid of politics. But what is meant by
politics? What are its dimensions and attributes? The following section addresses the meaning of
politics as given by different scholars from various dimensions and attributes.
A. Politics as Organized Ways of Human lives
No one is unaffected by politics. Politics here is defined as all those manner and processes by
which people organize their lives together in a community. Politics arises from certain basic
facts of human existence: that people generally choose (indeed find it necessary for survival) to
live together, and that they differ in myriad ways in their opinions as to how the community
should be organized and the nature of the decisions it makes. The sources of conflict may either
be the simple fact that individuals are self-interested and greedy, never able to feel content with
their lot, or that they hold differing views on big moral questions. Disputes are inevitable
because the world’s resources are finite (no one can have all he or she wants) and the range of
opinion on moral questions is limitless. It is clear that if we are to study this subject seriously it is
necessary to make some order of a world of bewildering complexity. In that sense, politics is
about collective actions and decisions shaping the very quality of life- concerning wealth,
health, education, morality- are all essentially political in their nature. Studying and talking
about politics are a necessary part of the good life which we seek. To be denied the rights to do
this is one of the first symptoms of oppression. Human social life is not a tranquil experience.
People seem able to argue and disagree over most things- education, rights and freedoms, share
of wealth, program priority- and in general on who gets what, when, and how. Not only do
people argue and disagree and they prefer resort to violence. Today we see demonstrations, race
and identity based riots, attacks on police, attacked by police and bitter strikes. We see blood and
death as people fight for their rights, the rights of others or even the rights of animals. Some are
Page 1
prepared to die because peoples share little in common except for one thing: along with countless
other such examples they would be recognized as events in politics.
B. Politics as ‘art of the government’
This is a state (or government)-bound conceptualization and hence it sees politics as the art of
government; that is the art that government (formal sector of the state) utilized or employed in
determining the allocation of benefits, rewards and penalties among members of the society.
Politics is the art and practice of Government of human societies. Firstly, Politics is an art and
the behavior of the individual is studied in it, i.e. the study of political activities of man is
Politics. Secondly, here government means the organized power, i.e., where the activities
concerning issuing of orders and establishing of control take place. In many ways, the notion that
politics amounts to ‘what concerns the state’ is the traditional view of the subject, reflected in the
tendency for academic study to focus upon the personnel and machinery of government. To
study politics in essence is to study government, or more broadly, to study the exercise of
authority. This is a state-centered view of politics. Politics is what governments or states do. This
means that most people, most institutions and most social activities can be regarded as being
outside politics.
As a practice of government, politics can therefore be defined as the art of decision-making

concerning the common good. In other words, politics is seen as the pursuit of common goods
where art of a government become central to it. It is an art, rather than a science, because it
implies a plurality of choices, and its objectives depend on ever changing, but concrete
situations. This art requires discretion when determining means and ends, because politics can
only create provisional resolutions. It also requires decision, because deliberation alone is not
enough to lead to action. All common space implies a plurality of agents, aspirations or
viewpoints (the “polytheism of values”) and thus a framework within which these aspirations
and viewpoints can be differentiated. In connection to this David Easton (1981) define politics as
the ‘authoritative allocation of values’, in which he meant that politics encompasses the various
processes through which government responds to pressures from the larger society, in particular
by allocating benefits, rewards or penalties. ‘Authoritative values’ are therefore ones that are
widely accepted in society, and are considered binding by the mass of citizens. In this view,
politics is associated with ‘policy’; that is, with formal or authoritative decisions that establish a
plan of action for the community.
However, what is striking about this definition is that it offers a highly restricted view of politics.
As to this definition, politics is what takes place within a polity; that is a system of social
organization centered upon the machinery of government. Politics is therefore practiced in
cabinet rooms, legislative chambers, government departments, and the like, and it is engaged in
Page 2
by limited and specific groups of people, notably politicians, civil servants and lobbyists. The
limited scope of this definition can be viewed from the fact that first it sees most people, most
institutions and most social activities as being ‘outside’ politics. Businesses, schools and other
educational institutions, community groups, families and so on are in this sense ‘non-political’,
because they are not engaged in ‘running the country’. By the same taken, to portray politics as
an essentially state-bound activity is to ignore the increasingly important international or global
influences upon modern life, such as the impacts of transnational technology and multinational
corporation on the national decision-making processes, which is political in nature. Finally, this
definition has a tendency to treat politics as equivalent of party politics. In other words, the realm
of ‘the political’ is restricted to those state actors who are consciously motivated by ideological
beliefs, and who seek to advance them through membership of a formal organization such as a
political party. This is the sense in which politicians are described as ‘political’, whereas civil
servants are seen as ‘nonpolitical’, as long as, of course, they act in a neutral and professional
fashion.
C. Politics as Public Affairs (and as a Social Activity)
The third and broader conception of politics moves it beyond the narrow realm of government to
what is thought of as ‘public life’ or ‘public affairs’. In other words, the distinctions between ‘the
political’ and ‘the nonpolitical’ coincides with the division between an essentially public sphere
of life and what is thought of as a private sphere. Such view of politics is often traced back to the
work of famous Greek philosopher called Aristotle. In politics, Aristotle declared that ‘man is by
nature a political animal’, by which he meant that it is only within a political community that
human being can live ‘the good life’. From this view point, then, politics is an ethical activity
concerned with creating a ‘just society’; it is what Aristotle called the ‘master science’.
Gauchet (1992:126) correctly defines politics as “the art of association”. Both as the medium for
collective existence based on mutual relations and specific forms of action, politics is the place
where the common is negotiated. Thus, politics is not reduced to the organization of powers or
the ability to “designate the enemy,” and even less to the level of a simple system of command
and obedience. Politics is not exclusively related to the state. The mistake of reducing it to state
power is to believe that, to the extent that the state represents politics, it is society. It is not. It
does not determine social forms and cultural values. Rather, the opposite is the case: the
codification of cultural values and social forms determines the system of power. The denial of
the ontological condition of plurality leads to an unlimited privileging of unity, which violates
the social and ends in tyranny.
Page 3
The basic question here is where should the line between ‘public’ life and ‘privet’ life be drawn?
The traditional distinction between the public realm and the private realm conforms to the
division between the state and civil society. The institutions of the state (the apparatus of
government, the courts, the police, the army, the social security system and so forth) were
regarded as ‘public sphere’ in a sense that they are responsible for the collective organization of
community life. Moreover, they are funded at the public’s expense, out of taxation. In contrast,
civil society consists of institutions such as the family and kinship groups, private businesses,
trade unions, clubs, and community groups and so on. These institutions are regarded as ‘private
sphere of life’ in the sense that they were set up and funded by individual citizens to satisfy their
own interests, rather than those of the larger society. On the basis of this ‘public/private’
division, politics is restricted to the activities of the state itself and the responsibilities that are
properly exercised by public bodies. Those areas of life that individuals can and do manage for
themselves (the economic, social, domestic, personal, cultural and artistic spheres, and so on) are
therefore clearly nonpolitical. The limitation of this categorization is that it sees civil societies
out of politics and political realm. However, civil society, which comes about when the political
community is no longer regarded as a natural fact, is the concept which, posing the social as a
synonym for the private, cuts off its political dimension. Politics is no longer a dimension of the
social, but part of the public sphere. Since the community is no longer a natural fact, the well-
known answer to the question concerning what makes society possible points to the dialectic of
egoistic interests and the multiplication of exchanges: social relations are instituted by contract
and maintained by the market. Since private interests give way to the public sphere through
exchanges, civil society as the place where they occur can only come first, both chronologically
and in importance.
An alternative ‘public/private’ divide is sometimes defined in terms of a further and more stable
distinction, namely that between the ‘political’ and the ‘personal’ (see figure 1 below). Although
civil society can be distinguished from the state, it nevertheless contains a range of institutions
that are thought of as ‘public’ in the wider sense that they are open institutions, operating in
public, to which the public has access. One of the crucial implications of this is that it broadens
our notion of the political, transferring the economy in particular from the private to the public
realm. A form of politics can thus be found in the workplace. Nevertheless, although this view
regards institutions such as businesses, community groups, clubs and trade unions as ‘public’, it
remains a restricted view of politics. According to this perspective, politics does not, and should
not, infringe upon ‘personal’ affairs and institutions. The following table depicts the two views
about public/private divide as conventionally stated by various scholars.
Table: Two views of the Public/Private divide

Page 4
Public Private
The state: Civil society:
Category one Apparatus of government Autonomous bodies: businesses, trade
unions, clubs, families, and so on
Public/Political Private/Personal
Public realm: Personal realm:
Category two Government, community, civil Family affairs and domestic life
societies, commerce, work, art,
culture, and so on
To wind-up, politics as a battle-field for society designates the public dimension of the social.
Politics as ‘public affairs’ presupposes the distinction between public and private realm of life.
The political field is a space of reciprocity, where people meet not as private individuals but as
citizens, in order to act and decide in common. The fundamental role of politics is to organize
communities by holding them together. In this sense, politics institutionalizes social relations,
establishes dependencies, founds mutual belonging, and fulfills the desire to live together. It is
the place for face-to-face encounters where common business is transacted. Important point to be
raised here is ‘is there really a world beyond politics?’ Rationally speaking, in defining what is
political we must be guided not only by the nature of the issue(s) but also by the way people
react to it. If we accept that politics is about way of life and about reconciling diverse interests
then it follows that anything can be political. In that sense personal is also political. The world
that some believe to exist outside politics is a fantasy land, as Aristotle stated ‘man is by
nature a political animal’.
D. Politics as Compromise and Consensus (i.e., the ‘Art of the Possible’)
Politics as ‘the art of the possible’ is a well-known and has retains its relevance because it
encapsulates a particular view of politics as a process of participating and finding agreement
which has been attractive to western minds since the time of the famous Ancient Greek
philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC). Amongst modern thinkers, it is most eloquently expressed
by Bernard Crick as ‘politics is not just a necessary evil; it is a realistic good. Political activity is
a type of moral activity; it is a free activity, and it is inventive, flexible, enjoyable, and human.
This definition remains important for several reasons: first, it defines the pure essence of politics;
second, it stands as ethical ideals; and finally, it provides a measure against which real-world
systems may be judged.
Page 5
This view of politics relates not so much to the arena within which politics is conducted as to the
way in which decisions are made. Specifically, politics is seen as a particular means of resolving
conflict: that is, by compromise, conciliation and negotiation, rather than through force and
naked power. This is what is implied when politics is portrayed as ‘the art of the possible’. Such
a definition is inherent in the everyday use of the term. For instance, the description of a solution
to a problem as a ‘political’ solution implies peaceful debate and arbitration, as opposed to what
is often called a ‘military’ solution. Once again, this view of politics has been traced back to the
writing of Aristotle and, in particular, to his belief that what he called ‘polity’ is the ideal system
of government, as it is ‘mixed’ in the sense that it combines both aristocratic and democratic
feature. One of the leading modern exponents of this view is Bernard Crick. In his classical study
In Defense of Politics, Crick offered the following definition: “…politics [is] the activity by
which differing interests within a given unit of rule are conciliated by giving them a share of
power proportion to their importance to the welfare and the survival of the whole community”
(Crick, [1962] 2000:20).
In this view, the key to politics is therefore a wide dispersal of power. Accepting that conflict is
inevitable, Crick argued that when social groups and interests possess power they must be
conciliated; they can not merely be crushed. This is why he portrayed politics as ‘the solution to
the problem of order which chooses conciliation rather than violence and coercion’ (2000: p. 30).
Such a view of politics reflects a deep commitment to liberal-rationalist principles. It is based on
resolute faith in the efficacy of debate and discussion, as well as on the belief that society is
characterized by consensus rather than by irreconcilable conflict. In other words, the
disagreements that exist can be resolved without resort to intimidation and violence. This notion
of politics found in ancient conception of politics by Greek philosophers in terms of a forum for
democratic government. Politics appeared in Greece at the same time as democracy. Better yet, it
appeared as democracy. This is not an accident. Assuming that participation in public life is the
best way for people to improve and to exercise freedom, as claimed by the whole tradition that
runs from Aristotle to Hannah Arendt, then democracy is not “the least bad political system,” as
is often claimed by some who see it as the lesser evil. Rather, it is the best and maybe even the
only truly political system to the extent that it is the only one based on the principle of
participation of the largest possible number of people in public affairs.
Democracy, in essence, then becomes conceived first and foremost more as participatory, rather
than representative. Participatory democracy is a form of generalized reciprocity. It is to politics
what the ceremonial gift is to sociology: a means for mutual recognition within a given
community. Within this community, it achieves what the ancient right of people achieved with
respect to war: to limit hostility. It allows for the peaceful resolution of conflicts and for the
determination of opponents without criminalizing or annihilating them. On the contrary, to the
Page 6
extent that they boil politics down to simple power plays, all despotisms betray its spirit, because
they are based on confiscation.
For modern thinkers, the transition from the “natural” to the social state is explained by the quest
for security, survival and self-preservation. According to Hobbes, man enters society to avoid the
war of “all against all.” For Locke, this occurs in order to better protect individual rights already
obtaining in the natural state. As such, man is no longer political by nature, but becomes so by
necessity. His true nature is both pre-social and pre-political; he is an independent, disconnected
individual. Necessity, related to fear or interest, is substituted by telos, which is related to the
search for the best way to live together, for common goods and shared values.
While for the Ancients freedom was achieved first and foremost by the citizens’ active and
constant involvement in public life, for the Moderns, or, more precisely, for the liberals, freedom
is defined as what cannot be truly enjoyed outside the private sphere. That means that freedom is
no longer what allows for politics, but what is taken away from it. Initially, freedom is the
possibility to escape from the public sphere, to be free from politics. “Freedom begins where
politics ends.” It “is no longer connected with politics — the city — but with that part of
existence which is independent of politics.” This concept of “extracted” freedom is mitigated by
the idea that political power is only a necessary evil, that by nature all power is dangerous:
always suspected of seeking to expand, power threatens freedom, because freedom is defined as
that part of existence which escapes it. According to classical thinkers, the raison d’être of
politics is above all to allow and to guarantee the satisfaction of individual needs and the
fulfillment of private desires. The fundamental question is no longer about political power, but
its limitation. Then, the “private” individual is not only cut off, but virtually opposed to the
citizen. As D’Allonnes notes: “…In the natural community, the problem of integration now
becomes a problem of separation.” From the moment freedom is defined as part of individual
existence, detached from politics, it is not surprising that such logic — of separation and of
individual independence from power — carries the seeds of conflict between the individual and
the citizen, between the public and the private, as well as a preference for private satisfactions.”
This view of politics has an unmistakably positive character. Politics is certainly no utopian
solution (compromise means that concessions are made by all sides, leaving no one perfectly
satisfied), but it is undoubtedly preferable to the alternatives: bloodshed and brutality. In this
sense, politics can be seen as a civilized and civilizing force. People should be encouraged to
respect politics as an activity, and should be prepared to engage in the political life of their own
community. Nevertheless, a failure to understand that politic as a process of compromise and
reconciliation is necessarily frustrating and difficult (because it involves listening carefully to the
opinion of others) may have contributed to growing popular disenchantment with democratic
Page 7
politics across much of the developed world. The view of politics as a compromising and
conciliation activity might suggest that it is opposed to the idea of sovereignty and rule by a
central authority. This is wrong because differences cannot be reconciled without some
overarching authority, even if this is no more than the idea of agreement (or contract) reached
between the parties. This leads to a fourth definition; i.e., politics as authority.
E. Politics as authority
David Easton, an influential American political scientist, argued that politics is concerned with
the ‘authoritative allocation of values’ (1953:129). Authority is the right of some person or
institution (king or government, machineries of government, etc.) to make decisions affecting the
community. A woman with a gun, or a man with a large wallet, may be able to get their own way
but will not have authority if those obeying do so with a sense of grievance. Such rule is
unstable; those subjected may be expected to revolt when they glimpse their chance. Authority
therefore is derived from legitimacy.
Legitimacy refers to or deals about rightfulness; a quality that confers on a command by citizens
or/and law of the land; it is an authoritative or binding character, implying a duty to obey. It is
about the rightfulness of a regime or system of rule. Legitimacy therefore confers on an order or
command an authoritative or binding character, and thus transforming power into authority.
Legitimacy differs from legality in that the latter does not necessarily guarantee that a
government is respected or that its citizens acknowledge a duty of obedience. So legitimacy is a
moral or rational principle; it is the ground in which governments may demand obedience from
its citizens. When a government enjoys legitimacy, people will obey because they believe it right
to be ruled in this way. This is a key to the success of any political system, and explains why
military dictatorships taking power by force are soon seeking the appearance of democratic
civilian rule. The concept of legitimacy as stated by Jean Jacques Rousseau in his book entitled
The Social Contract “the strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he/she
transforms strength into right and obedience into duty” (1762:117)
In general, the allocation of scarce resources is politics and political issue. Resources here do not
mean only material resources, but human and spiritual resources are also included in them.
According to David Easton, Politics is the process by which scarce resources (human, material
and spiritual) are allocated within a social unit for the purpose of providing for human needs and
desires. In fact, the individual makes hectic efforts to get the material and non-material resources
which include the political position and offices of profit. Those resources are limited and are not
easily available. Therefore, there is competition to achieve them. Struggle is unavoidable for
achieving these scarce and priceless resources. Various types of efforts are made by individuals
Page 8
and their groups to achieve them. As a result of these efforts, the process of allocation of these
resources is called Politics. Discussing this fact about resources, H.D. Lasswell, using some
different words, says politics is about determining "Who gets what, when and how?" While it is
clear that the exercise of authority is part of politics, this presents a rather legalistic and
simplistic picture. Governments cannot always expect to possess legitimacy; in a complex
society there will be elements opposed to the government of the day, questioning and
challenging it and even seeking to destroy it. Governments can aim to maintain themselves by
deception of the masses and by force. This leads to the analysis of one of the most central
concepts in politics; i.e., power.
F. Politics as power
The fifth definition of politics is both the broadest and the most radical. Rather than confining
politics to a particular sphere (the government, the state or the ‘public’ realm) this view sees
politics at work in all social activities and in every corners of human existence. American
political scientist Harold Lasswell (1936) gave the discipline a memorable catch-phrase in the
title of his book Politics which stated the concept of politics as determining Who Gets What,
When, How? Here the essence of politics is power, and those who get most of what is going are
the powerful. Power can be defined as the ability to achieve some desired effect, regardless of
the opposition. Authority is one form of power, but a glance at the world today quickly reveals
that many regimes are based on cruder forms such as wealth, gender, physical might and
violence. As Adrian Leftwich proclaimed in what is Politics? The Activity and Its Study (2004),
‘politics is at the heart of all collective social activities, formal and informal, public and private,
in all human groups, institutions and societies’. In this sense politics takes place at every level of
social interaction; it can be found within families and amongst small groups of friends just as
much as amongst nations and on the global stage. However, what makes political activity distinct
from other social activities? What marks off politics from any other forms of social behavior?
At its broadest sense, politics concerns the production, distribution and use of resources in the
course of social existence. Politics is, in essence, power: the ability to achieve a desired outcome,
through whatever means. It is about the application of power in determining who gets what,
when and how. From this perspective, politics is about diversity and conflict, but the essential
ingredient is the existence of scarcity: the simple fact that, while human needs and desires are
infinite, the resources available to satisfy them are always limited. Politics can therefore be seen
as a struggle over scarce resources, and power can be seen as the means through which this
struggle is conducted.
Page 9
In general, politics is the study of power. Now-a-days, there is an agreement about the study of
state as power. According to Lasswell, Politics is the study of the influence. He further says that
Politics is the "study of shaping and sharing of political power". Defining power, Wiseman has
said that it is the "ability to get one's wishes carried out despite opposition." Thus, in view of
such writers power is Politics. They study the questions like as to what is Power in politics, how
is it achieved, how is it maintained, what are its aim, its ideals, its scope and bases and how is it
lost? Politics is an effort to bring about the rule of order and justice. Politics is normally viewed
as a conflict and struggle and it is said that Politics is that struggle in which those who have
power try to maintain it and make use of it and those who are out of power try to get it by
controlling the government. But it is only one aspect of power. The other aspect is that Politics is
an effort to establish law and order and justice in the society where balance is maintained in the
interests of the society and the individual and the common interest is secured. Thus, Politics is
also an effort for the establishment of law and order and justice in the society.
1.2. Rationale for studying Politics
Indeed, politics encompasses all those decisions regarding how we make rules that govern our
common life. These rules may be made in a democratic or authoritarian manner, may sanction
peace or violence, and may empower state or non-state actors (such as trade associations, media
representatives, and multinational corporations). Whatever the rules, however, politics is based
on the recognition that our lives are shared, as long as we live in common, public spaces such as
state territories. So, understanding how and where the most important political activities took
place and how they affect our day-to-day life is important.
Politics involves change. Politics is a world of flux, tensions, and transitions. Change can be
global in its consequences, no mater what it took place within sovereign states. Change can be
primarily domestic, as the case of change in policy, administrative system and institutions,
change in government and governmental system, etc. understanding how and why changes of
any sort happen and how they impacts upon our social existence enable us to be active and full
citizens. People are considered to be the rulers in democratic countries and they are given the
right to choose their representatives to rule over them. Therefore, the citizens of such countries
are more vigilant about politics. They, not only choose their representatives after every five
years, but, go on evaluating the work of their rulers daily. Thus, all citizens take active part in
politics in a democracy.
Politicians and governments are always busy in making the daily life of the citizens happy and,
consequently, it fulfils every type of their need. This work is done by those persons who are
elected rulers by the public and who run the administration according to the will of their voters.
Page 10
Thus, there is close relationship between the rulers (elected representatives) and the ruled
(voters). The solutions to diverse social problems give birth to politics. It is because of this
relationship of politics with common man's life that Aristotle has called human being as a
political being. In the views of Aristotle, political aspect of man's existence is the most important
aspect and this aspect determines the other aspects of human life. The relationship between
politics and individual life being so important, it is extremely essential to study it systematically.
Politics is the concern of everybody with any sense of responsibility because it is concerned with
everybody. So, nobody can avoid it in spite of the fact whether he has any interest in it or not.
When some individuals search for the solution of a problem and take the help of mutual co-
operation and struggle, politics comes into being. Because of this very reason, politics exists in
every association, organization be it national or/and international. Politics is a fundamental part
of human existence, a constituting element of society, i.e., there cannot be real humanity without
it. Unavoidably, politics exists, first, because man is a socio-historical being with contradictory
aspirations, and second, because social development is not set beforehand but, on the contrary, is
always undetermined. So, understanding this reality is important.
According to Herbert J. Spiro, Politics is the process by which communities of human beings
deal with their problems. Thus, we see that many human problems are being solved out of the
state and the associations concerned there with, political parties, pressure groups and elections
etc., are such fields, the study of which is an important part of politics. By Politics, L. Lipson
means "a process of active controversy." By it he means that, in every society there are limited
means for the fulfillment of the various necessities and every individual, group or organization
tries to achieve its aims by utilizing these limited means. Therefore, because of the limitation of
the means, struggle is inevitable. According to Lipson, this process of struggle goes on
constantly. In politics, we study the process of solving problem is as constant struggle. Politics
comes into being when man becomes active in solving his problem, participation in politics,
criticism of government. Discussion and getting the policy of the government amended through
agitation as peasants, labourers and businessmen are the subject matter of politics. On the basis
of the above given analysis it can be said that politics is a fundamental political activity with the
help of which man solves his problems by using limited means.
1.4. Approaches in the Study of Politics
It is obvious that some frameworks or approaches were relatively modest or ‘middle-range’, but
others have been much more ambitious in scope and claims. Moreover, despite aspirations to
scientific objectivity and rigor, they have inevitably reflected the circumstances in which they
were formulated—for instance political scientists’ underlying values, domestic political
Page 11
pressures, and funding inducements, as well as perceived changes in the developing countries
themselves. We all need to be aware of these approaches, and the surrounding debates, if we are
to read the literature critically and form our own views. The followings are some of those
approaches that have been employed in the study of politics at a different time span.
A. The philosophical tradition
The origin of political analysis date back to Ancient Greece and a tradition usually referred to as
‘political philosophy’. This involved a preoccupation with essentially ethical, prescriptive or
normative questions, reflecting a concern with what ‘should’ ‘ought’ or ‘must’ be brought about,
rather than what ‘is’. Plato and Aristotle are usually identified as the founding fathers of this
tradition. The term politikē used both by Plato and Aristotle meant the knowledge, the art, or
some other capacity that is devoted to the political affairs. For both Plato and Aristotle, the task
of political expertise was normative. What we today call values or as the ancients called ends
were central to the philosophical approach to political science. Values are the sort of things that
can induce personal and social conflict by stirring human emotions such as anger, envy, and
hatred. Disputes over quantifiable facts do not necessarily give rise to such emotions.
Such traditional writings have formed the basis for what is called the ‘traditional’ approach to
political study. This involves the analytical study of ideas and doctrines that have been central to
political thought. Most commonly, it has taken the form of a history of political thought that
focuses on the collection of ‘major’ thinkers (that span, for instance, Plato to Marx) and a
concern of classic texts. This approach has the character of literary analysis: it is interested
primarily in examining what major thinkers said, how they developed or justify their views, and
the intellectual context within which they worked. Although such analysis may be carried out
critically and scrupulously, it cannot be objective in a scientific sense, as it deals with normative
questions such as ‘why should I obey the state?’, ‘how should rewards be distributed?’ and ‘what
should the limits of individual freedom be?’
B. 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 constitution, in Machiavelli’s realistic account of statecraft, and in Montesquieu
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
Page 12
that it seeks to analyze and explain, whereas the normative approach is prescriptive in the sense
that it makes judgments 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 and David Hume. 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 idea had developed into
what become known as positivism; that is 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 inquiry, should adhere strictly to the methods of
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.
C. Scientific-behavioural approach
The key assumption of the behavioural approach or behaviouralism centers on uniformities in
political behaviour which can be stated as generalizations or theories and which are capable of
explaining and predicting political phenomena. As an approach to the study of politics, it
introduces two major elements to political science.
The first was the emphasis on the political behaviour of the individual or the group of individuals
as a central or crucial unit of political analysis and the basic building block of political science.
For example if you say the court is conservative, we mean that the judge in the Supreme Court is
conservative. Behaviouralists argue that although the institution is an important aspect of
politics, being on its own is not the real stuff of politics. In other words, institutions do not and
cannot exist physically apart from the person or groups who inhabit them. It is therefore the
behaviour of the individual within institutions rather than the formal structure and characteristics
of those institutions which should be the main focus of the political scientists. The second
element that behaviouralism brought to the study of politics was the emphasis in the use of
scientific method in political analysis. The behavioural approach insists of in the scientific
methods in making accurate statements about political phenomena, on cumulative research and
on broad generalizations. The advent of behaviouralism in political science was marked by the
emphasis on the collection of empirical political data and the use of mathematical and statistical
techniques to analyze data collected.
There are several criticisms against the behavioural approach. Critics questioned its basic
assumption and argued that political reality consists mainly of unique elements and that whatever
regularities that exist are trivial in nature. It was further stressed that political phenomena are not
Page 13
amenable to experimentation. However, despite its perceived shortcomings the behavioural

approach has greatly encouraged the scientific study of political phenomena.
D. Post-behavioural approach
The decline of behaviouralism as an intellectual force in the late 1960s led to the emergence of
new perspectives in the study of politics. There was to be a greater emphasis on the informal
processes of politics and less on state political institutions in isolation. Thus, the post-
behavioural approach emerged to promote a political science that will not be as scientific as
possible but be also socially relevant. It was eclectic in that it is supported the incorporation into
political science as many perspectives or approaches ass can throw light on the complexity of
political life, that is approach encourages borrowing from other social science discipline
particularly, sociology and psychology. Some of the new perspectives that later developed into
approaches in political science, include the systems approach, structural-functional approach, the
group approach, decision-making approach among others. Let us see some of these approaches
in some details.
1. Systems Analysis Approach
The adaptation of system theory/model to political analysis was first conceived by David Easton
in 1953. In this pioneering effort, Easton insisted that political system “is that system of
interactions in any society through which binding or authoritative allocations are made”. In
simple terms, Easton’s behavioral approach to politics proposed that a political system could be
seen as a delimited (i.e., all political system have precise boundaries) and fluid (changing)
system of steps in decision-makings. Greatly simplified his model:
Step 1: changes in the social and physical environment surrounding the political system produce
“demands” and “supports” for action or the status quo directed as “inputs” toward the political
system, through the political behavior;
Step 2: these demands and supporting groups stimulate competition in a political system, leading
to decisions or “outputs” directed at some aspect of the surrounding social or physical
environment;
Step 3: after a decision or output is made (e.g., a specific policy), it interact with the
environment, and if it produces change in the environment, there are “outcomes”
Step 4: when a new policy interact with its environment, outcomes may generate new demands
or supports and groups in support or against the policy (“feedback”) or a new policy on some
related matter;
Page 14
Step 5: feedback leads back to Step 1, it is a never ending story. Through a feedback loop
changes brought about by those outcomes after conversion, a channel led back into the system in
form of increased, intensified or modified demands and supports.
In sum, if the system functions as described, then we have a “stable political system”. If the
system breaks down, then we have a “dysfunctional political system.” Accordingly, Easton
aspired to make politics a science; that is working with highly abstract models that described the
regularities of patterns and processes in political life in general. In his view, the highest level of
abstraction could make scientific generalizations about politics possible. In sum, he described
politics in a constant flux and then politics was seen as a whole, not as a collection of different
problems to be solved. Although the model is largely abstract, it is useful as a general framework
for political analysis.
2. Structural-Functionalism Approach
This approach is an offshoot of systems analysis. It focuses largely on explaining the functions a
political system must perform to survive and defines structures or organizations which can most
efficiently perform the functions. The structures may be political parties, pressure groups or
formal government institutions performing system-maintenance functions such as informing the
electorate on important issues and allowing for wider participation in the political system.
Although the approach cannot provide a general theory for all aspects of political science,
nevertheless, it provides standard categories for different political system and therefore useful in
comparative government/politics.
3. Class Analysis Approach
This is the most radical approach in political science. The approach focuses on division of
society into classes and how this social stratification determines social conflict and social
change. However, there is a great deal of disagreement as to the basis of stratification in a given
society and the conflict it generates within the political system. Most Marxist political scientists
insist that class exist in all societies because of the nature of mode of production. They insist that
those who own the means of production take decisions that affect the lives of workers who work
for pay. It further explains that those who own the means of production continue to expropriate
the surplus wealth created by workers; and that it is this class relationship that has brought about
class antagonism and class wars/revolutions.
Page 15
4. Political Parties and Interest Groups Approach
Many political scientists believe that the legislative process in Parliament or Assembly is
primarily an institution that structures the conflict of interests and demands expressed by
political parties. The job of political scientists with this kind of concern is the analyses of the
organization and behavior of these groups in and out of Parliament, Assembly or Congress. From
the standpoint of “group theory”, and in fact passed by the legislature it expresses mainly the
prevailing distribution of influence among competing groups, each of them seeking to advance
its own particular interest, thus, we may ask what interest do these groups truly represent? In the
case of political parties, their membership, political access, and policies structured by the
electoral system very much determine their rules in the legislative or executive branches of
government. The concerns of the political scientists using this approach are: where do the
political parties draw their support from? Do their policies and programmes differ from each
other? How do they make decisions? How do they select their leaders? How do they raise money
and to what extent power is concentrated or diffused throughout the organization hierarchy?
These are the vital questions that most political scientists working within this approach must
adopt in the research aims and objectives.
5. Voting and Public Opinion Approach
Some political scientists are mainly concern with voting patterns and public opinions on political
issues. The important questions which political scientists working with this approach are as
follows: What is the “mind” of the public? How do the opinions, attitudes, and beliefs of citizens
affect the policy making political elites? What motivate citizens to vote or not to vote? Are
voters more concerned about issues or about personality of particular candidates? Is the voter
voting for a particular party because of long standing loyalty to that party, regardless of its
candidates or position to the major issues of the day? And how do the various orientations of
voters relate to their level of education, their age, sex, race, religion, income and place of
residence? These questions are vital to our understanding of the political process in any given
country.
6. Comparative Politics Approach
Any or all the above sub-disciplines in political science may be integrated into a comparative
framework. When political scientists look at the political parties or socialization processes of two
or more countries, they are able to clarify their generalizations about a particular political system
because its characteristics are highlighted by comparison with those of other political systems.
Comparative political analysis is also an aid in understanding and identifying those
Page 16
characteristics which may be universal to the political process, regardless of time or place. By
adopting the comparative approach, new fields of research have been developed. These include:
comparative studies of political elites in two countries or more, political violence, and political
corruption; political socialization, political culture, political parties and interest groups. These
sub-disciplines have benefited in no small ways from the comparative approach.
7. Political Development Approach
It became clear after World War II that students of comparative politics had overlooked a vast
reservoir of potential knowledge about the political process. The earlier focus had been on the
industrialized and modernized states of the West. The emergence of newly independent countries
all over the world forced Western researchers to examine non-Western cultures and the political
processes emerging in these countries. Researchers developed new methods and tools of analysis
and were able to examine the socio-economic and the political processes of these developing
states. Students of political development are today concerned with the effects of urbanization and
economic development on political organization and behaviour, with education, with the way
which political change and socio-economic development affect the more fundamental
differences, between various ethnic and religious groups within the same society. The study of
developing states has helped us to understand the institutions and the supporting attitudes and
behaviour that define “democracy” do not emerge suddenly from the informed intellect and good
will of those who choose to write democratic constitutions. And, in fact, all societies may be
understood to be in the process of political development. They consequently according to their
varying degree of modernization or development: the extent to which all citizens have been
mobilized by socio-economic development and cultural change for participation in politics, the
capabilities of existing political organizations for accommodating the interests and demands of
citizens, thus providing them with a sense of participation and efficacy in the functioning of
government.
8. Global/International system Approach
The study of international politics has been one of the long-standing concerns of political
scientists, due largely to the occurrence of wars and political conflicts between nations. The
focus in this sub-discipline is on the resources that help explain differences in the distribution of
international power, the circumstances that contribute to a balance of power between competing
states or to a breakdown in the balance of power, the interests represented by the alliances
between states and the pattern of conflict and cooperation between blocs of aligned and
nonaligned states; the relationships stimulated by economic trade and interdependence, and those
Page 17
institutions devoted to improving the chances of peace and international cooperation, e.g. the
United Nations Organization.
In general, it must be stressed that approaches to the study of politics in this vast swathe of the
world’s countries have in practice been extremely diverse. As discussed further below, most of
the analytic and methodological toolkit of political science has been applied at one time or
another. This includes statistical analysis, rational choice theory, and discourse theory. On the
other hand, many country-based studies have not been explicitly theoretical at all. Nonetheless it
is possible to argue that most studies of politics in developing countries have been informed to
some degree by one or other of three main dominant approaches—modernization theory,
Marxism-inspired theory, and globalization theory. These approaches or theoretical frameworks
themselves have not necessarily been directly or centrally concerned with politics; however, both
modernization theory and dependency theory have helped at least to generate more specifically
political approaches.
Page 18
Unit Two
State, Government & Political System (Regime)
2.1. The State (Meaning, elements, etc)
There is no clear definition of the state. Most broadly, however, a state is usually understood to
refer to a geographical entity made up of people who live within common boundary and share
something in common, at least a sense of common nationhood. Though not applicable to all
states of the world, peoples of one state have or believe they have the followings in common:
culture, language, history, tradition, and religion in a fixed territory (boundary). For some
scholars, the term State is interchangeably used to mean a Country or a Nation. A State is an
independent and sovereign entity with a system of law and an organized government, which has
certain administrative tasks to be carried out for its proper functioning. Other definitions have
emphasized the political authority, the monopoly of force through government and political
allegiance of citizens to the state. Some have regarded the state as moral and good society where
justice and the promotion of the general welfare of the people are established. Broadly speaking,
the state is the political form of society (a politically organized society) having legal and unified
personality under international law. What we call the state is a community of men organized for
preserving and creating order and general well-being of its members. The state exists in order to
ensure the safety of the lives, liberties and properties of its citizens.
2.2. Theories on the Origins of the State
There are different theories of a state that offer different explanation about the origin of the state.
Although there are many theories of the state, we are going to discuss four major ones in this
section.
A. The Divine Rights of Kings’ Theory
Prior to the organization of the state, tribal authority was based on traditions and conventions.
However, with emergence of a kingship system, there was a need for creating legitimating
principles to make a ruler (King) acceptable to rule the subjects. To achieve this legitimacy
politics was united with religion and the King as then presented to the people as choosing by the
Divine Will. Thus, the idea that the ruler (King) was God’s appointed agent on earth legitimized
the King’s power and made it both unquestionable and unassailable. Thus, to challenge the king
was to challenge the Divine Will (God’s authority). Because of this, later Kings/Queens could
claim descent from the first King divinely appointed.
Page 19
B. The Force theory (Might makes right): The doctrine of ‘might makes right’ is a simpler
doctrine for legitimizing state power or power between individuals or groups. This is an appeal
to force or the battlefield where the fittest survive. What this theory amount to is that ruler who
know how to get power and how to keep it are the effective and legitimate rulers. Thus, whoever
has the power to rule either by the use of force or fraud, can also legitimately claim to have the
authority to rule. Theorists who support the force theory are concerned with ensuring political
stability. According to Thomas Hobbes, all the good things of life, material and spiritual, depend
first and foremost on the security of life itself. For Hobbes, if there is no power to enforce the
will of the sovereign, then there is no government, no state, and no security.
C. Social Contract Theory: The alternative views of the origin of the state, and the principles
that legitimizes its power are found in the social contract theories. The social contract theory is
premised upon the idea that the state is a human creation by means of agreement - a social
contract agreed upon by individual in a given society. Thomas Hobbes who was the first of the
social contract theorists argued that prior to the existence of the state, life was “solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish and short” because there was no organized authority to preside over the affairs of
men. In fact, life was a free for all fight and “every man was for himself and God for us all”. It
was man, in realization that this state of nature was not benefiting them that they decided to
surrender their individual natural rights of self- government to an absolute sovereign authority by
means of a contract.
John Locke, another social contract theorist argued that because men are rational, they can be
trusted to pursue their self interest without infringing on the equal rights enjoyed by other
citizens. And because men are rational, they can be trusted to judge the legitimacy of
government as it legislates, administers, and adjudicates states laws. Although this line of
thinking would lead to total freedom and so no government as such, however, rational men
perceived the advantages of organizing a government. It can impartially settle disputes between
citizens, it is necessary to conduct foreign relations with other governments, and it is essential
authority for divining and maintaining a system of monitory exchange which allows for the
accumulation of material wealth.
D. the Evolutionary/Natural theory of the State: According to evolutionary theorists, the state
is best understood as an evolving organism that develops naturally according to some inherent
dynamics of growth. Aristotle in the forth B.C. had argued that the state developed from the
evolving interests and needs of the individual. In contrast to social contract and force theories,
the evolutionary theories believed the individual’s needs and interests have been progressively
met by the family, the clan, the tribe, and finally, by the complete community of social existence
that is best expressed by the state. The guiding principles of growth of the state has been self
Page 20
sufficiency (not self interest) and the development of ever more elaborate institutions essential to
satisfying mankind’s unique and most distinguishing characteristic reason. Finally, war and
conquest played an important role in the evolutionary emergency of the modern state and its
institution war and conquest helped the consolidation of gained territory through war. And in the
origin and development of the state, common religious worship and language had a great
influence by welding together families, clans and tribes into larger organized community better
known as the state.
2.3. Key Elements of the Statehood
Modern state has five basic essential elements, which aggregately enable it to acquire legal
personality under international system/law. These essential elements of statehood include the
People, Territory, Government and Sovereignty and recognition.
A. The People
The state as a human organization is made up of people that reside within its territory.
Membership of a state is compulsory once an individual is born into it unless he changed his/her
nationality. When we are talking about the state in terms of population we are concerned with
numbers and the characteristics of the people who composed the state’s body politic. Vacant
territory, no matter what it is large, cannot be considered as state unless it is inhabited by
population. Similarly, regardless of the size of its population all states have same legal
personality under international law. However, a state with a very small population may find it
difficult or impossible to maintain its independence against states with greater manpower and
resources.
B. Territory
An important pre-requisite for the existence of the state is its territory. Important consideration
about the territory of a state should focus on its area, geographical location, resources,
technology and climate. In the modern world there are presumably sovereign independent states
of all sizes and shapes ranging from a huge country like China to smaller ones like Luxemburg
and Monaco, with a small population and land area. Yet, China and these small states have equal
rights and status in international law. Geographical location is very important for a state’s
survival and development. It is very important that a state have natural barriers such as ocean,
sea, rivers, mountains or deserts, against powerful or aggressive neighbors or artificially created
boundaries that show where the power and authority of state starts and where it ends. No entity
can be considered as state without having own territorial jurisdiction though this may not apply
always; the best example is a Palestinian state before 2005.
Page 21
C. Government
The state exists in order to ensure the safety of the lives, liberties and properties of its citizens.
The agency or machinery of the state by which the state performs its functions is known as a
government. This is normally formed by a body of persons vested with authority to make and
enforce rules on people under their jurisdiction. The government can command society either
through voluntary obedience from part of a society or through coercion, which is the use force,
when obedience is not forthcoming. These two attributes–the ability to command and coerce,
constitute power or authority of the state. Simply defined government is a body of persons
authorized to govern or rule a country or state. To be considered as a state an entity should have
a well-functioning governmental system that govern society by making and enforcing rules and
order. There is no state without government though in some conditions the state may exist
without properly functioning government for a limited time as in the case of Somalia from 1991
to 2005.
D. Sovereignty
The term sovereignty means supremacy or the absolute and perpetual power of the state in its
domestic use means the power and authority of the state over all persons, things within its
territory. In other words, sovereignty means that the state has a general power of lawmaking and
of the enforcement of laws. State sovereignty is absolute and legal in nature in the sense that it is
binding on all inhabitants that fall within the jurisdiction of sovereignty i.e. citizens and
associations alike. There is no limitation to its legal powers. State sovereignty is indivisible in a
sense that it is the supreme, final, absolute, coercive power of the state over the people living
within the same, hence it is indivisible i.e. cannot be shared or divided by a state with another
state. State is independent of external control due to its sovereign status. Once a state becomes
independent, its sovereignty remains independent (free of external control). State sovereignty is
permanent in character because government comes, government goes but the sovereignty of the
state remains forever. In other words as long as the state exists, sovereignty continues without
interruption. Due to its sovereign status states have a monopoly over the Legitimate Use of
Force. We could state here that Sovereignty is the supreme legal authority of a state power over
its own affairs, be they internal or external.
E. Recognition
Having accepted as legal entity by international community is one basic characteristic and recent
attribute of modern state in the contemporary global politics. For a given entity to be considered
as a state it must acquire recognition by international community, and mainly by United Nations
Organization as a legal entity that acquired legal personality to act on behalf of its population. Of
Page 22
course, there is no article within international law that precisely specify the mechanism(s)
through which newly emerged state can acquire the status of legal personality in the face of
international communities or organization like UN. Recognition therefore is a political and
value-laden concept. To grant recognition to newly emerged state therefore is based mainly on
the political inclination of international community as there is no point stated within international
law that specify the procedure and mechanism through which new state is granted full (de facto)
recognition in the face of United Nations Organization.
2.4. The distinctions between State and Nation
The term State and Nation are used interchangeably by some scholars though these terms may or
may not be synonymous depending on the context in which they are conceptualized. The term
nation has two distinct meanings: It may mean a political unit (i.e. a State) and/or it may mean an
ethnological unit, (e.g. a Race.) A nation in a political sense is what Ernest Baker defines simply
as juridical organized unit or a unit organized for action under legal rule. As suggested earlier, it
is sovereign state having a definite territory, a population, a government, formal independence
and a sense of national identity made possible by a combination of both subjective and objective
factors. A nation in ethnological sense is commonly defined as a group of people who form a
distinctive community by inhabiting a definite territory and recognizing themselves as
possessing relatively homogenous set of cultural traits. Those cultural traits include a common or
related blood, a common language, a common religion, a common historical tradition and
common customs and habits.
Not all the above ingredients need to be present among the people to produce the spirit of
nationalism i.e. a sense of belonging to a homogenous unified group. In other words, a nation
need not necessarily be a state. The modern state is therefore not necessarily a unitary nation; it
may be multi-national in composition i.e. it may contain national minority or ethnic group who
may exist simply as a social group cherishing its own social manners and culture, its own
particular language or dialect and its own form of particular religious worship. Switzerland for
example is a nation with three races, four official languages and many local dialects. Great
Britain is also made up of the Irish, Scots, Welsh and the English. Both countries despite the
multi-ethnicity of their composition are pervaded by a strong sense of national unity–a somewhat
homogenous political culture and above all by a subjective sentiment of belonging together. On
the other hand, a state may lack the spirit or feelings of nationalism or of oneness among its
people and yet it remained a state. In this sense, Nigeria may still be conceived as a State but not
a nation state.
2.5. The Government (Meaning & features)

Page 23
Whenever politics is defined, government is undoubtedly central to it. In its broadest sense, to
‘govern’ means ‘to rule’ or ‘to exercise control over others.’ In a nutshell, you should understand
that for people or group of people to live together there is the need for rules guiding individuals
conducts within the larger society to ensure peace and stability. This central authority called
government, which decides what is best for the individuals and groups and how to utilize its
resources to provide the best living standard for members. The term government usually
understood to refer to the agency through which the purpose and cardinal objectives of a State
are achieved. Government could be defined as the orderly control and direction of the affairs of a
group of people in an organized society. Government is a political or ruling administration that
serves as the agent or machinery through which the purpose or goals for which the State or
Country is established are achieved. According to Wikipedia: A government is the organization,
machinery or agency, through which a political unit exercises its authority, controls and
administers public policy, and directs and controls the actions of its members or subjects.
The term ‘government’ is usually understood to refer to formal and institutional processes by
which rule and order is exercised at a community, national and international levels. In this sense,
government can be identified with a set of established and permanent institutions whose function
is to maintain public order and undertake collective actions and decisions. The institutions of
government are concerned with the making, implementation and interpretation of law; law being
a set of enforceable rules that are binding upon society. All forms of government therefore
encompass three functions: first, legislation or the making of laws; second, the execution or
implementation of laws; and third, the interpretation of laws, the adjudication of its meaning. In
broadest sense, we need government to take care of many of these things. The term government
denotes agencies of the state empowered to carry out all functions on behalf of the state. The
functions or activities of a government therefore involve the ability to make decisions and to
ensure that they are carried out. In this sense, the concept of government is usually understood to
refer to those institutions of the state and their personnel empowered to undertake the functions
of state such as maintaining the safety of lives, liberties and properties of its citizens. The term
‘government’ is usually understood to refer to formal and institutional processes by which rule
and order is exercised at a community, national and international levels. In this sense,
government can be identified with a set of established and permanent institutions whose function
is to maintain public order and undertake collective actions and decisions.
The term government usually used to connotes those agencies and personnel of the state, which
aggregately decides what is best for the individuals and groups and how to utilize its resources to
provide the best living standard for members. Among the primary duties of a government in a
society include:
Page 24
 Maintenance of law, order & control: There is the need for a central authority called
“government” to be saddled with the primary responsibility of maintaining law and order
in order to ensure peace and tranquility in the society.
 Protection of life and properties to guarantee individual’s rights and liberties: promoting
the good government and welfare of all persons in our country on the principles of
Freedom, Equity and Justice, and for the purpose of consolidating the Unity of our
people;
 Provision of basic necessities: the role of government is not only limited to providing
security to the people but also include looking after their basic needs and ensures their
socio-economic development
 To defend the nation’s corporate existence from either external invasion or internal
insurrection by providing security through Land borders, Airspace and territorial waters;
 Administration of justice and conflict resolution between the government and the citizens
on the one hand, and amongst the citizens on the other.
 It shall be the duty and responsibility of all organs of government, and of all authorities
and persons, exercising legislative, executive or judicial powers, to conform to, observe
and apply the provisions of basic statement of a national constitution.
2.6 . A Government and the State: the Differences (& Confusion)
Some consider the state and a government as synonymous while they are being different. A state
is geographical entities made up of people who have or believe they have the followings in
common though not always apply: culture, history, tradition, and others in a fixed territory
(boundary). The term State is interchangeably used to mean a Country or a Nation. A State is an
independent and sovereign entity with a system of law and an organized government, which has
certain administrative tasks to be carried out for its proper functioning. The government carries
out these administrative tasks. This entity has the right to exercise power over the territory and
the people. State is the territory in which the government can practice its authority. A state is like
an organization and the government is like the management team. A State has the following
characteristics: Sovereignty; Population; Territory, recognition and Government, which
distinguish it from any other union or association. Government, on the other hand, is a political
Page 25
or ruling administration that serves as the agent or machinery through which the purpose or goals
for which the State or Country is established are achieved. However, while State exists in
perpetuity except it collapses, governments the world over change by elections or by other
means. Another difference is that while government functionaries are visible, State exists in a
‘spiritual realm’, you only hear references made to the State but you cannot see the entity called
the State physically even though the day to day activities of the government are done in state’s
name.
Below is the summary of important distinctions between the State and government.
 The State has five key elements: population; territory; government, recognition and
sovereignty. Government is a narrow concept and it is only one element of the State. The
State is regarded as an organic-whole concept, which the government is a part thereof.
 The State is more or less permanent and continues from time immemorial whereas a
government is temporary and changes frequently. A government may come and go, but
the State continues forever.
 It is a known fact that citizens are a member of the State but not all of them are members
of the government. The government consists of only a few selected citizens. The organ of
the government consists of only a few selected citizens whereas the concept of state
denotes all citizens and all institutions of a country, not part of it.
 The State possesses sovereignty. Its authority is absolute and unlimited. Any other
institution cannot take its power away. Government possesses no sovereignty, no original
authority, but only derivative powers delegated by the State through its constitution.
Powers of government are delegated and limited.
 The State is an abstract concept whereas government is a concrete one. Nobody sees the
State and the State never acts. The government is a physical manifestation and it acts on
state’s behalf. The relationship between the State and government is that of a principal
and an agent.
 All States are identical in character and nature. Whether big or small, the characteristics
of the State do not undergo changes. But governments are of different types and they may
vary from State to State. Government may be based on democracy, monarchy, theocracy,
or oligarchy. Various political scientists have given different classifications of
government.
 Lastly, the citizens have a right to go against government and not against the State. The
State only acts through the government and the government may make mistakes and may
Page 26
be sanctioned for it but not the State. The State can do no wrong or make mistake,
therefore, the citizens only have rights to go against the government and not the State.
2.7. Types of government

Different ways of classifying governmental system exist throughout histories. Some classify
government as presidential Vs parliamentary whereas others categorize it as Federal Vs Unitary
government system. Still others identify government types as authoritarian, democratic, etc.
though such classification is the most traditional. We will focus here the most resent and modern
form of classifying governmental systems.
2.7.1. Unitary Vs federal systems of government
a) The Unitary System of Government

A government is regarded as unitary when the national or central government is supreme over
local levels of government that might exist in a given state. The central government has full legal
right to over-rule such local government units. They are not only created by the center, they owe
their existence to the center and are subordinate to the national Government. The principle that
governs a unitary constitution is Unitarianism. The word ‘Unitarianism’ means the concentration
of political power in the hands of one visible sovereign power; be it that of a parliament or a
legitimate dictator. In short, a unitary constitution means that sovereignty is exercised from one
source rather than from many sources. It is a unit centre of power, meaning that power emanates
from one source only. According to Obafemi Awolowo (1966), the only thing which
distinguishes a unitary from a federal constitution (government) is where the supreme legislative
authority in the state resides.
The following are the major characteristics or features of a unitary system of government:
 There is only one center of power from which authority flows to subordinate levels that
are created by the centre;
 The central government not only has the power to dissolve the subordinate levels it has
created, it can equally modify or reduce the powers given to them;
 The subordinate levels are created as agents of the center to administer the local areas on
behalf of the centre and to also convey the wishes of the people in the local areas to the
center where real power lies; and
 A unitary government may either operate a unicameral or bicameral legislature. For
example Ghana and Britain are unitary states, with the former operating a unicameral
while the latter a bicameral legislature.
Merits& Demerits of Unitary System of Government

Page 27
Since the logic and mechanism of a unitary government avoids the division of a country into
autonomous regions or states, it can help to preserve and promote national unity. Unlike a federal
system that promotes regionalism and tribalism, which further engender dual citizenship and
double allegiance, one supreme central government under a unitary framework will put an end to
all these divisive and centrifugal forces. In the unitary system there is no duplication of center of
power as it is in the federal states. Since decisions on all-important issues are made at the centre
it makes the costs of running the administration or of the government less expensive. The
concentration of power rather than its dispersion ensures a strong government. This is because
there is minimal diversity in a unitary state. In a unitary system of government due to much
identical culture, economic and social composition of the people in the state/country there is
usually the absence of friction, tension or rancor, that often characterize the federal system in the
struggle for “unity in diversity.” There is uniformity of laws and administration of the
government of a unitary state. This ensures that there is no overlapping or conflict of jurisdiction
throughout the state. This makes the allegiance of the citizens’ allegiance to the state to remain
undivided. Unlike in the federal system of government where citizens owe allegiance both to the
centre and the region to which they belong, such a situation that can breed separatist tendencies
is avoided in a unitary state. In short, the unitary system does not stand divided.
In a unitary system of government, power is highly centralized and concentrated in one

sovereign. This can lead to totalitarianism, oligarchy or even autocracy in the running of the
affairs of the state. It often makes it difficult for the masses to take active part in civic affairs of
their country. There is also no local initiative in a unitary system of government. This is because
the little or residual power delegated to the local authorities can be taken away from them at the
whims and caprices of the centre. The central government is not always aware of local problems;
it leaves the distant authorities with the determination of policies and the regulation of affairs,
which in fact, may be of no concern to any, except the people of the particular localities affected.
The unitary system can also easily collapse. Single central authority may easily collapse under
stress from within and without. Multiplication of centers of power serves as a safeguard against
such a danger.
b) Federalism (Federal System of Government)
Federalism is a type of governmental system in which the powers of government are divided
between self-governing parts and the national or central government. Each of these parts operates
within its own jurisdiction or sphere as defined or specified in the constitution. Put differently, in
a federation the distribution of powers between the inclusive government and the federating units
are guaranteed by the constitution of the country. In the view of Adele Jinadu (1979),
“Federalism, is usually viewed as a form of governmental and institutional structure, deliberately
Page 28
designed by political “architects”, to cope with the twin but difficult task of maintaining unity
while also preserving diversity.”
A federal state essentially has a divided government: the central or general government which
exercises power throughout the political territory, and the several constituent ones, variously
termed regional, state or provincial governments, which exercises their respective powers over
specified geographical areas of the political territory. The constitution demarcates the functions
of the Central government on the one hand and those of the constituent governments on the
other, in such a way that each tier of government is autonomous in its own sphere.
A federal form of government is one in which political power is divided between the central or
federal government and the constituent states or provinces that compose the federal union.
Furthermore, in a federal system the constituent units have some rights of existence which
empower them to perform certain functions which are guaranteed by a constitution. We should
also note that in a federation, two governments control the same group of people but with each
level handling different political matters. The allocation of responsibilities to the component
parts by the constitution, and respect of their competence in those areas is vital to the survival of
federations. The reason for this is that most federations are often the result of a political
compromise by which reluctant member-states were induced to come together in a larger union
with a promise that their desire for autonomy in certain areas will be respected.
Advantages a Federal System

A Federal system encourages unity in diversity and is a very potent instrument for national
integration in plural societies. In a federation, diversity like ethnic differences, religion,
language, economic structure, education, social welfare, etc. usually exists among the component
units of Federal arrangements therefore are attempts at bridging these gaps or divide in order to
bring about political and social unity without destroying the identity of the federating units.
Thus, the federating units are able to retain their separate peculiar identities and are not
completely submerged in it. Another advantage of practicing a federal system of government is
that it promotes economic advantages by facilitating greater economic of scale. Federalism also
encourages the possibility that what is available in one part can be of benefits to the other parts
of the country.
Another advantage is that federalism prevents the danger that of a despotic central government
that will erode into and absorb the power of the other units in the federation since the division of
powers is constitutionally guaranteed. More so, in a federal system the powers of each level of
government are clearly defined and delineated in a written constitution. This helps to curb the
centre from exceeding its authority or become autocratic. This also facilitates the establishment
Page 29
of democratic institutions and wider political participation by the citizens. In other words, more
people are able to take part in the government of the federation either at the state, region or at the
local or grass root levels of governance. This encourages the development of local talents, which
may not be the case under the unitary system. These local talents can also be nurtured to become
national leaders in future.
A Federal system of government leads to efficient administration, because the allocation and
dispersal of powers to the various tiers of government help to reduce the work load at the
disposal of the inclusive government, without at the same time over loading the federating units.
By preventing administrative overstretch federalism is thus a deterrent against an unwieldy and
complicated administrative structure which may lead to inertia and possible collapse of
government apparatus. Federalists are of the opinion that multiplicity of centers of authority in a
federation allows for flexibility while competitions among the different levels of government
encourages complementarily of views, arising from forces, within and without. According to
them, unlike the single government in a unitary system that acts like a leviathan that can
overpower the subordinate units it has created, this is not possible in a federal system where
there are many levels of governments and centers of authority covering a vast territorial.
A federal system of government encourages healthy rivalry among the component units, which
in turn breeds varied social and economic developments. The Nigerian federation of the first
republic is a good example of this point, because during this period, with good and high level of
leadership, the various regional government were competing among themselves in the provision
of infrastructures and welfare facilities to their people. This brought about development of the
regional level of governance.
Disadvantages of a Federal System

The first disadvantage of a federal system is that it involves high cost in running the
administrative structures (i.e. government ministries departments and agencies) that are
duplicated or multiplied at all levels. The diversity of groups in a federation along ethnic,
language and religious lines, if not well managed, may also create problems for a federal system.
The salience of ethnic or regional solidarity groups and militias in a given federal system are
indicative that the country’s federal system is still being threatened by these divisive and
disruptive centrifugal forces.
By the nature and dynamics of a federal system it is also slow blamed for not being able to take
quick decisions. The need to strike a workable balance and compromise among the different
groups that usually inhabit a federation may impair the capacity of the state to take quick
decisions or respond promptly to issues that demand urgent attention of the government. This
Page 30
problem is further worsened by the bicameral structure of the legislature in most federal states
where the concurrence of both chambers is normally the requirement before a major legislation
can be passed. Added to this is the often rigid nature of the constitution of most federal states in
which the advantage of flexibility is lost.
A federal system may also engender uneven development of its component parts. This may come
about due to differences in resource endowments, or access to it; inequality in educational
opportunities. Because of this, states have no alternative than to pursue different socio and
economic policies and programmes which may further intensify the differences among them.
This may lead to inequality among various constitutes of a federal system. Despite the provision
for division of powers among the different levels of government, there are cases where conflict
of jurisdiction may also hamper harmonious relationships, particularly between the central
government and the state, on one hand, or between one state and the other, on the other hand.
Federal states also face the possible danger of secessions because of some in-built mechanisms to
guarantee the autonomy of the states. At times some of these provisions may be interpreted by
overzealous leaders to pursue the agenda of self-determination.
Presidential Vs Parliamentary System of Governments
Presidential System of Government

In presidential system, the same person ( a president) who holds the title of head of state is also
head of government. The real political or executive power is combined with the ceremonial
powers and are both exercised by a single man who is also addressed as the Commander in Chief
of the armed forces. The executive headed by president is the government and it is headed by the
president who is also the head of the executive. The president is normally elected directly
through popular votes and the election to the office of the president is independent of the election
to the legislature. The whole country constitutes a single constituency to the president. On
assumption of office the president is seen as the symbol of national unity, a magnet of loyalty, a
centre of ceremony and chief administrator for the nation.
The presidential system is characterized as that type of government in which the three organs of
government, that is the legislature, the executive and the judiciary are separated and co-ordinate
in power, each of them acting independently within its own sphere. The holder of the office of
president is often called executive president, because he is solely responsible for the
implementation of legislative decisions. The Executive president is both head of state and head
of government. He has the power to sign a bill into law. He/she can however refuse signing a bill
if he/she is sufficiently convinced that the content of the bill does not conform to his programmes
Page 31
or if it contain some anomalies, until the adjustments are made to make the bill conform to the
president’s fancies. The President addresses the joint session of the National Assembly, prepares
the annual budget. The President he is also the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, which
confers on the occupant of that office the power to declare war to defend the independence,
sovereignty and territorial integrity of his country.
Presidential System of Government combine two offices in one. The combination of the office of
head of state and head of government makes for quick and prompt decisions, especially on rare
occasions when delays or vacillations may be dangerous for the corporate existence of a nation.
The single executive has the merit of unity, energy and dispatch though this is not, of course to
deny the virtue of collective discussion and consultation. The system also allows a President to
have a free hand in appointing his ministers and other government appointees. It is possible for
ministers to be chosen from outside the president’s party. This is due to the insulation of the
president from Party Politics under the presidential system of government. The presidential
system of government is anchored on the twin mechanisms of separation of power and checks
and balances. This is not the case in the parliamentary system where power what operate is a
fusion of power among the three organs of government. The President under the presidential
system has a fixed tenure in office, usually a four-year period before another election is due,
when he can seek for a re-election for another term in office. There is adoption of veto power by
the president in the presidential system of government, the president is constitutionally
empowered to refuse to assent any bill passed by the legislature that he considers to be against
public interest, but it isn’t a feature in the parliamentary system of government. The constitution
is the supreme law in the presidential system. This is unlike most parliamentary system where
supremacy lies with the parliament.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Presidential System of Government

Regarding its merits, presidential system allows quick and decisiveness in Decision-making. The
president is at liberty to either consult his ministers or any of them, or refuse to seek their
opinion in taking decisions. This promptness in decision-making therefore makes the response of
government to issues, especially in situations where any delay in taking action may be
dangerous. Similarly, one major advantage of the presidential system of government is that the
President has a free hand in appointing his ministers and other government appointees. Ministers
could be chosen from outside the president’s party, a situation that confers high degree of
latitude on the president to select the best materials from any part of the country.
Presidential system has also merits of Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances. The
mechanism of separation of power enhances the effective performance of each arm of
government in its functions while checks and balances also ensures that a president who by
Page 32
nature is dictatorial can be brought under constitutional checks. The combination of the two
devises will obviously improve the performance of government as whole and its capacity for
optimal service delivery. The fixed tenure in office enjoyed by a president under the presidential
system makes for the stability of the government and the continuity of policies. A stable
government also allows for both medium and long term planning, rather than the instability that
characterizes a parliamentary system of government. A new general election can be called in a
parliamentary system any time a vote of no confidence is passed on the government. Final merit
of presidential system is that of its insulation from Party Politics. The president is often described
to be above party politics. This therefore offers him unlike the Prime Minister in a parliamentary
system who is enmeshed in party politics to view every issue on its merits and not solely, and
sometimes unwisely, according to party dictates.
However, presidential system has some drawbacks. Among others, it may leads to a friction
among Government Organs. Separation of powers can cause delays in the execution of
government programmes, especially in situations where executive-legislative relations are not
properly managed. It is also criticized by its lack of flexibility in Tenure of Office. The
operation of the presidential system has been criticized for being too rigid and not amenable to
changing circumstances. Another disadvantage of the Presidential system is that it is very
expensive to run. The parliamentary system is considered to be more cost effective since it is
from the elected members of the parliament that the Prime minister and other ministers, who
constitute the nation’s cabinet, are appointed. This arrangement is economically more efficient
than that of the presidential system, which requires elected members of the legislature to resign
before they can be appointed as ministers. It was also criticized for absence of Party Discipline.
Parliamentary System of Government

Parliamentary system of government is the system of government in which the office of the head
of government is different from head of state. The head of government performs the real and
executive function whereas the head of state performs the ceremonial functions. In the
parliamentary system of government, the prime minister, who is the head of government,
performs the substantive executive functions. The prime minister is usually appointed by the
head of state from the party that controls majority seats in the legislature. The head of state, like
the Queen in Great Britain performs ceremonial duties like welcoming foreign dignitaries,
presiding over important national functions or ceremonies, signing bills into law in the
parliament and addressing the parliament at the beginning and the end of parliamentary life. The
position of head of state in parliamentary system is usually filled by person who are free from
any political position but on his personal quality for a nation. In Britain however the position of
head of state is heredity.
Page 33
In a parliamentary system of government the Prime minister occupies a pivotal and key position;
he appoints ministers from the elected members of House of Commons, and they are all
answerable and accountable to the parliament for the discharge their functions. The prime
minister is the chairman of the cabinet and he has primary responsibility for the execution of
policies. A Parliamentary system of government is otherwise referred to as a responsible
government. Parliamentary government is responsive to public opinion, and acts in accordance
with what it judges to be the wishes of the majority of the people. A very important feature of a
parliamentary system is that government is accountable to parliament. This is based on (a) the
principle that ministers are drawn from parliament and (b) that government has to have the
support of the majority of members of House of Commons in order to survive. Two doctrines
stem from this third meaning (1) Collective Government Responsibility and (2) Individual
Ministerial Responsibility to Parliament. In parliamentary system of government all members of
the government are collectively responsible for the successes/failures of the government and all
ministers, not just departmental ministers concerned, must collectively share moral responsibility
for its policies. Implicit in the doctrine is the notion that all ministers are bound to support
government decisions before the public, parliament and the party, and at the very least, must
refrain from openly criticizing government policy.
Parliamentary system of government is characterized by the fact that the head to state is different
from the head of government; the head of state performs the ceremonial functions while the
Prime Minister performs the executive functions. Similarly, the theory of separation of power is
not strictly observed in the parliamentary system of government, since there is no separation of
powers between the executive and legislature, the cabinet members are also members of the
legislature; they both take part in drafting bills but in the presidential system of government,
there is clear cut separation of powers. In the cabinet system of government, the executive
depends on the legislature for its existence since there is fusion of power but in the presidential
system of government no organ of government depends on the other for its existence since they
have distinct functions to carry out, and also acts as watch dogs over one another. Moreover, in
the parliamentary system of government the opposition party is officially recognized, i.e. the
party that is strongly recognized with the majority seats in the legislature forms the government
while the other party constitutes the opposition. In the parliamentary system of government,
though constitution is supreme, rather the primacy lies with the legislature, or the parliament as it
is called in Britain. In the parliamentary system of government there is existence of party
discipline (adherence to party ideals and proposal) if the party discipline is weak the party in
power would find it difficult to maintain a majority in the legislature and so some of its policies
may be defeated. It is also essential that ministers must come from the same party with the prime
minister in the cabinet.
Page 34
Regarding the merits, parliamentary system of government curbs autocracy and dictatorship in
government. It is very difficult for the system to breed or produce dictators since the government
is always conscious of the fact that if it does, it will incur the wrath of members of parliament
which may lead to the passing of a vote of no confidence on it. Parliamentary system promotes
dedication and efficiency in government. The ministers at party caucus must have thoroughly
discussed proposals/bills before bringing them to the parliament for consideration. This ensures
quick approval of policies and enacted of laws since members of the cabinet also sit in
parliament where they see to their passage. There is a lot of merit in the concept of collective
responsibility and ministerial responsibility which is built on the principle that the cabinet should
be united in all its decisions. This makes the cabinet as a body and the ministers as individuals to
be careful about their conduct in office because it may have far reaching implications on the
stability and survival of the government.
The parliamentary system is equally more democratic responsive to public opinion. This is
because the cabinet is not responsible to the Prime Minister who appoints them, but to the
parliament. The presence of an officially recognized opposition party in a parliamentary system
of government makes the ruling party or the governing coalition to be conscious of its
responsibilities to the electorate. For this reason the government is always alert to alternative
views that may be canvassed by the opposition so as to know where to improve its performance.
The role of the opposition party therefore is not only to constructively criticize the government
as an effective watchdog, but also to see itself as the government in waiting or as an alternative
government, that is ready to take over the government should the situation arises. The fusion of
power which ensures that cabinet members are also parliamentarians promotes mutual
understanding between the legislative and the executive branches of government. The fact that
members of the executive also sit in the legislature as lawmakers ensures that process of decision
making is faster. The parliamentary system is less expensive to run because ministers are chosen
from elected members of parliament.
However, parliamentary system also has its own drawback. Among others, parliamentary system
violates the principle of separation of powers and the expectations that liberty of the citizens and
rule of law will be guaranteed. A major disadvantage of fusion of powers is that it may lead to
needless bottleneck in the relationships among the organs of government and complexity in
administration of government. There is also the danger of personality clash or conflict of interest
between the head of state and head of government in a parliamentary system of government.
Another disadvantage of the parliamentary system of government is that it can also throw up a
person who is not countrywide popular or known as a Prime Minister. Unlike the presidential
system, which requires the leader of government (president) to have a countrywide appeal before
he can be elected, the requirements for the office of a Prime Minister are less stringent.
Page 35
2.8. Political System (Regime)
A regime or political system is understood as a set of rules, conventions and norms ruling the
governmental process. To this end, a regime is determined based on the manner by which power
is legitimated and organized, and the relationship between rulers and citizens in relation to the
guarantee of rights.
Classifications of government are closely linked to what are called ‘political systems’. However,
the notion that politics is a ‘system’ is a relatively new, only emerged in the 1950s, influenced by
the development of system theory. Traditional approaches to government focused upon the
machinery of the state and examined the constitutional rules and institutional structure of a
particular system of government. System analysis has however broadened the understanding of
government by highlighting the complex interactions between it and the larger society. A
‘system’ is an organized and complex whole, a set of interrelated and interdependent parts that
form a collective entity. Systems analysis therefore rejects a piecemeal approach to politics in
favor of an overall approach: the whole is more important than its individual parts. Moreover, it
emphasizes the importance of relationships, implying that each part only has meaning in terms of
its function within the whole. A political system therefore extends far beyond the institutions of
government themselves and encompasses all those processes, relationships and institutions
through which government is linked to the governed; i.e., the whole society.
One of the difficulties of establishing a new system of classification, however, is that there is no
consensus about the criteria upon which such a system should be based. No system of
classification relies on a single all-important factor. Nevertheless, particular systems have tended
to prioritize different sets of criteria. Among the parameters most commonly used are the
following:
Who rules? Is political participation confined to an elite body or privileged group, or does
it encompass the entire population?
How is compliance achieved? Is government obeyed as a result of the exercise or threat
of force, or through bargaining and compromise?
Is government power centralized or fragmented? What kinds of check and balance
operate in the political system?
How is governmental power acquired and transferred? Is a regime open and competitive,
or it is monolithic?
Page 36
What is the balance of power between the state and the individual? What is the
distribution of rights and responsibilities between government and citizens?
What is the level of material development? How materially affluent is the society, and
how equally is wealth distributed?
How is economic life organized? Is the economy geared to the market or to government
planning, and what economic role does government play?
How stable is a regime? Has the regime survived overtime, and does it have the capacity
to respond to new demands and challenges?
In general, the above-mentioned criterions encompass both the political, economic and cultural
factors used aggregately to classify political systems (regimes) in to different categories. Based
on these criterions five different regime types can be identified in the modern world:
1. Western polyarchies: these regimes are broadly equivalent to regimes categorized as

‘liberal democracies’ or even simply ‘democracies’. Their hinterlands are therefore North
America, Western Europe and Australia, and thus such regimes are a product of the first
two ‘waves’ of democratization: the first occurred between 1828 and 1926 and involved
countries such as the USA, France and the UK; the second occurred between 1943 and
1962 and involved ones such as West Germany, Italy, Japan and India. Although
polyarchies have in large part evolved through moves towards democratization and
liberalization, the term polyarchy is more preferable to ‘liberal democracy’. So, the term
‘polyarchy’ literally mean ‘rule by many’, and refers generally to the institutions and
political processes of modern representative democracy.
Accordingly, polyarchial regimes are distinguished by the combination of two general

features. In the first place, there is a relatively high tolerance of opposition that is
sufficient at least to check the arbitrary inclinations of government. This is guaranteed in
practice by a competitive party system, by institutionally guaranteed and protected civil
liberties, and by a vigorous and healthy civil society. The second feature of polyarchy is
that the opportunities for participating in politics should be sufficiently widespread to
guarantee a reliable level of popular responsiveness. The crucial factor here is the
existence of regular and competitive elections operating as a device through which the
people can control and, if necessary, displace their rulers. Of course, all states that hold
multiparty elections have polyarchial features. Nevertheless, western polyarchies have a
more distinctive and particular character. They are marked not only by representative
democracy and a capitalist economic organization, but also by a cultural and ideological
orientation that is largely derived from western liberalism, in which there is a widespread
acceptance of liberal individualism.
Page 37
Western polyarchies are not alike, however. Some of them are biased in favour of
centralization and majority rule, and others tend towards fragmentation and pluralism.
This fact leads to the distinctions between ‘majority’ democracies and ‘consensus’
democracies.
 Majority democracies are organized along parliamentary line according to the

so-called ‘Westminster Model’, the model applied by the UK system, but in a
certain respect, also applied by New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Israel and India.
Majoritarian tendencies are associated with any, or all, of the following features:
single-party government; lack of separation of power between the executive and
the assembly; an assembly that is either unicameral or weak bicameral; a two
party system; a single-member plurality or first-past-the-post electoral system;
unitary and centralized government, and an un-codified constitution and a
sovereign assembly.
 Consensus or consensual democracy, in contrast, is characterized by a diffusion
of power throughout the governmental and party systems. The USA and western
European states model of pluralist democracy is based very largely on
institutional fragmentation enshrined in the provisions of the constitution itself. In
this model consensus is underpinned by the party system and a tendency towards
bargaining and power sharing. Consensual or pluralistic tendencies are often
associated with the following features: coalition government; separation of power
between the executive and the assembly; an effective bicameral system; a
multiparty system; proportional representation; federalism or devolution; and a
codified constitution and a bill of rights.
2. New democracies: These regimes are the product of the 1970s and the 1980s third wave
democratization process that hit most countries in Africa, Latin America and, most
significantly the collapse of communism and overthrow of right-wing dictatorships in
Greece, Portugal and Spain and other former USSR colonies of East and Central
European countries. However, this regime most often associated with the political culture
of post-communist regimes of newly independent central and eastern European states
such as Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and others. This regime type exhibits some of
the key features of liberal-democratic governance, which is characterized by the adoption
of multiparty elections, and market-based economic reforms. Such political system is
associated with post-communist regimes and many of the states are ‘countries in
transition’, best classified as new democracies or semi-democracies. The process of
democratic transition in these countries has been both complex and difficult, highlighting
Page 38
the fact that democracy should not simply viewed as that ‘default position’ for human
societies. New democracies not only lack developed democratic political cultures and
internal political instability but they also have to handle the strains produced by external
forces of globalization as well as rapid internal change. They represent regime in
transition where there is effective state regulation side by side with the development of
market-led economic system.
3. East Asian regimes: the rise of East Asia in the late 20 th century may ultimately prove to
be a more important world-historical event then the collapse of communism. Certainly,
the balance of the world’s economy shifted markedly from the west to the east in this
period. Of course, the notion that there is a distinctively East Asian political form is a less
familiar one. The widespread assumption has been that modernization means
westernization. Translated into political term, this means that industrial capitalism is
always accompanied by liberal democracy. However, this interpretation fails to take
account of the degree to which polyarchical institutions operate differently in an Asian
context from the way they do in a western one. Most importantly, it ignores the
difference between cultures influenced by Confucian ideas and values and ones shaped
by liberal individualism. This has led to the idea that there are a specific set of Asian
values that are distinct from western ones.
Though there is differentiation among them, most East Asian regimes tend to have
similar characteristics. First, they are oriented more around economic goals than around
political ones. Their overriding priority is to boost growth and deliver prosperity, rather
than to enlarge individual freedom in the western sense of civil liberty. This essentially
practical concern is evident in the ‘tiger’ economies of East and South East Asia (those of
South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia), but it has also been
demonstrated in the construction of thriving market economy in China since the late
1970s. Second, there is a broad support for ‘strong’ government. Powerful ruling parties
tend to be tolerated and there is a general respect for the state. Although, with low taxes
and relatively low public spending, there is little room for the western model of the
welfare state, there is nevertheless general acceptance that the state as a ‘father figure’
should guide the decisions of private as well as public bodies, and draw-up strategies for
national development. This characteristic is accompanied, third, by a general disposition
to respect leaders because of the Confucian stress on loyalty, discipline and duty. From a
western view point, this invests East Asian regimes with an implicit, and sometimes
explicit, authoritarianism. Finally, great emphasis is placed on community and social
cohesion, embodied in the central role accorded to the family.
Page 39
4. Islamic regimes: the rise of Islam as a political force has had a profound effect on
politics in North Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia. In some cases, militant
Islamic groups have challenged the existing regimes, often articulating the interests of an
urban poor since the 1970s disillusionment with Marxism-Leninism ideology. In other
cases, however, regimes have been constructed or re-constructed on Islamic line. Since
its inception in 1932, for example, Saudi Arabia has been Islamic state. The Iranian
revolution of 1979 led to the establishment of Islamic Republic, an example later
followed in the Sudan and Pakistan.
As for Islamic regimes, Islam is not, however, and never has been, simply a religion.
Rather, it is a complete way of life, defining correct moral, political and economic
behavior for individuals and nations alike. The ‘way of Islam’ is based on the teaching of
the Prophet Muhammad (570-632) as revealed in the Koran, regarded by all Muslims as
the revealed word of Allah. Political Islam thus aims at the construction of theocracy in
which political and other affairs are structured according to ‘higher’ religious principles.
Nevertheless, though Muslim themselves have however objected to the classification of
any Islamic regime as ‘fundamentalist’, for some scholars, political Islam has assumed
clearly contrasting forms, ranging from fundamentalist to pluralist Islamic regime, the
former is found in countries like Malaysia.
5. Military regimes: whereas most regimes are shaped by a combination of political,

economic, cultural and ideological factors, some survive through the exercise, above all,
of military power and systematic repression. In this sense, military regimes belong to a
broader category of authoritarianism. Military authoritarianism has been most common in
Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia, but also emerged in the post-
1945 period in Spain, Portugal and Greece. The key feature of military regime is that the
leading posts in the government are filled on the basis of the person’s position within the
military chain of command. Normal political and constitutional arrangements are usually
suspended, and institutions, through which oppositions can be exercised, such as elected
assembly and a free press, are either weakened or abolished.
Although all forms of military rule are deeply repressive, this classification encompasses
a number of regime types. In some military regimes, the armed force assumed direct
control of government. The classical form of this is the military ‘junta’ most commonly
found in Latin America. This operates as a form f collective-military government (i.e.,
totalitarianism) centered on the command council of officers who usually represent the
three armed services: the army, the navy and air force. The second form of military
Page 40
regime a military-backed personalized dictatorship. In these cases, a single individual

gains pre-eminence within the junta or regime, often being bolstered by a cult of
personality designed to manufacture charismatic authority. In this form of military
regime, the loyalty of the armed forces is the decisive factor that upholds the regime, but
the military leaders content themselves with ‘pulling the strings’ behind the scenes.
6. Dictatorial Political System
Essentially, all other political systems that do not share the same characteristics of the
above, except the military regime are dictatorial in nature. In this section, we attempt to
bring out the basic elements that are common to all the dictatorial regimes in the history
of mankind. The dictatorial ideologies that we shall be considering here are:
authoritarianism, totalitarianism, fascism, autocracy, tyranny, etc. For our purpose, they
are classified as follow:
Authoritarianism represents various forms of autocratic rule in which political authority

is concentrated in the hands of one person or a small group of persons. This may be seen
as oligarchy, that is, government by few individuals that are considered as elites. These
could be in the military, that is, when the military regime is in power, it is usually made
up few persons that constitute themselves as ruling clique. In such a system political
power is highly centralized and the power which the regime wields is arbitrarily used.
Like all dictatorial regimes, political power is in the hands of one person or an oligarchy.
Since dictatorship implies irresponsible exercise of political power with no moral or
political control or restrain, no election and political opposition is allowed, etc. Political
opposition may exist both in theory and not in practice. In practice, in a dictatorship,
opposition may be emasculated. In a situation where opposition is allowed to exist, it is
usually in a small scale and the regime at times adopts benevolent policies, which is aptly
described as “enlightened dictatorship or despotism”. A despot is a tyrant who induces
fear on his subjects to compel obedience. A tyrannical ruler does not obey the
constitution if there is any; arbitrarily laws are made without regard to fundamental
human rights and rule of law. Despotism and tyranny are extreme versions of
dictatorship. In this case, despotism and tyranny display various forms of total control of
the entire public and private life of the citizens. The citizens are subjected and subjugated
in various ways by the leaders as it were in Fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini, Nazi
Germany of Adolf Hitler, Communist Russia under V. I. Lenin, Stalin, and so on.
Fascism & Nazism are also considered by some as authoritarian ideology which grew up
on the 20th century. Fascism as a political doctrine or ideology was rooted from
Page 41
totalitarianism. Fascism a political theory came in Italy in 1922, during the expression
which followed World War I. The Fascist leader Benito Mussolini spread the doctrine of
fascism in all the nooks crannies in Europe. Fascist leader was seen as the most superior
and controls all the instruments of coercion and violence. The leader believed in war and
not peace. To Mussolini, “war is to man what maternity is to a woman”. The central
political idea of fascism is the creation of a truly sovereign state with a sovereign
authority. The state dominates all other forces within the country and is at the same time
guiding the sentiments of the masses, educating the masses and looking after the interest
of the masses. According to Mussolini, fascism is against international peace, socialism,
pacifism, democracy and individualism. Fascism is thus, the totalitarian organization of
government and society by a single party dictatorship which is intensely nationalist,
racist, militarist and imperialistic. Nazism which was a political movement in which
Adolf Hitler ruled Germany between (1933-1945) shares the same political ideas or
doctrine with fascism, except that Adolf Hitler emphasized the superiority or supremacy
of the Aryan race, while fascism emphasized the supremacy of the leader over the state.
Both fascism and Nazism were all rooted from totalitarianism.
Totalitarianism is an advanced form of authoritarianism. In an authoritarian government

as earlier alluded, power is concentrated in an individual or in the hands of a group.
Monarchies, oligarchies, and military governments are examples of authoritarian
governments. Just like these forms of government, totalitarian state, does not allow
majority of citizens any direct or institutionalized role in the process of decision-making.
There are important limitations to political parties and elections. The political rulers often
place greater emphasis on force and coercion to obtain political conformity and
obedience. Totalitarianism therefore is a doctrine based on the use of terror or force to
compel obedience. The entire life political, economic, and social is in the hands of the
state, represented by the leaders. Examples of totalitarian regimes or states include fascist
Italy under Mussolini, Nazi Germany the Soviet Union under Stalin. Communist China
under Mao Tsetsung also pursued the goal of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
All these political ideas and movements share some common characteristics. The followings are
some of these basic characteristics of dictatorship:
The state defines the rights of individuals and what constitutes crimes against the state;
The conception of the state as a moral absolute deserving of unquestioning obedience by
all;
Totalitarian state control all aspects of life of the citizens;
The use of secret police or ‘Gestapo’ or ‘KGB’ to terrorize and intimidate the citizens
and political opposition groups;
Page 42
The concentration of political power on few individuals;

There is usually one political party like the then Soviet Union, where the C.P.S.U
(Communist Party of the Soviet Union) was the only political party that was allowed to
exist, opposition party was outlawed;
Totalitarian state or regime is intolerance of socialism and liberalism;
There is emphasis on the use of propaganda as an instrument of control and terror;
There is the belief in the superiority of a particular race, which became a deliberate state
policy in Germany. Fascism opposes to international law, fundamental human right; etc.
Unit Three
Political Ideologies
3.1. What is Ideology?
Ideology is a very crucial aspect in the study of politics. It is a gateway to the understanding of
political action and indeed, interpenetration of politics and political system. Ideology is a
systematized and interconnected set of ideas that direct and guide the action of political leaders.
It is the fundamental principle or philosophy of government and any political movement by
which the socio-economic and political organization of society determined and operates. It
contains ideals, ends and purposes that the society should pursue. Ideology as a philosophy
explains the nature of man’s humanity, an economic program which suggests the appropriate
political structure for the pursuit through the relevant economic program of the ideals of
humanity.
3.2. Characteristics of Ideology
Regardless of their differences in roots and conceptual origins as well as on their basic
assumptions, the followings are commonly shared by most political ideologies:
Most ideologies tend to arise in conditions of crisis. The varying scope of an ideology can
also be seen from the range of facts or phenomena which a given ideology seeks to
incorporate.
Page 43
Ideology is a systematic pattern of political thought. Just, like a theory, ideology is an

abstraction from reality embodying only the most essential elements of the reality it seeks
to describe/explain and change;
Each ideology includes both empirical and normative elements. The empirical elements
consist mostly of the features of reality, social, political or economic, which are more or
less observable, while the normative element in an ideology consists of all those features
of reality which even though not observable are considered desirable;
Most ideologies tend to be exclusive, absolute and universal in character. Each
ideological system is usually characterized by a claim of exclusive relevance to the
problems of a given age and time;
All ideologies also share the main feature they claim universality for the aims and
objectives which they seek to attain. For example, the capitalists believe that it is a
universal system, and the socialists attempt also to universalize the system.
Ideology is a persuasive argument designed to motivate active involvement on the part of
its adherents.
Ideology undergoes development but is resistant to fundamental change in its world view.
3.3. Functions of Ideology
In view of the nature and importance of ideology for society in general, it follows that ideology
performs very useful functions in the organization of modern society. These functions include:
 Legitimization of Leadership: This implies that those who occupy political authority
often justify their positions and actions on the basis of certain principles so that ideology
provides government with legitimacy and helps it obtain compliance from the people.
 It guides, supports, restrains and rationalizes political action. Ideology can act as a great
mobilizing energy to galvanize mass political action.
 A cognitive structure for looking at the society generally. By so doing a given ideology
enables members of a society to explain, justify and order several existential conditions
which would otherwise prove impossible to master or explain. Thus, in the hands of the
ruling class it can be and often is a potent instrument for the consolidation of state power.
 Ideology provides a prescriptive formula, a guide to individual action and judgment. This
has to do with the legitimation of the acts of those in positions of power, for it is only
when the exercise of power is seen as to conform to certain ideological norms and values
that the power of force can be transformed into authority, power based on the felt need to
comply without force.
 Ideology also serves as an instrument for conflict management and the integration of
society since it limits the basic value and issue areas over which the members of society
Page 44
can disagree. Ideology has been found to be potent tool in the process of consolidating
state power. It provides the basis for addressing issues as they affect the society instead of
personalizing them.
 Ideology provides individual or groups a means of self-identification. This helps to
satisfy specific personal needs, a means for self-evaluation and social solidarity.
 Guide to policy choice and assessment of conduct. It provides the framework for making
policy choices by the government and the parameters for assessing the conduct of
officials and the performance of government.
3.4. Types of political ideologies

Different types of political ideologies exist and each of them reflects the political tradition of
their origin in explaining the reality on what it should be. The followings are some of them.
a) Liberalism
The theoretical roots of liberalism can be found in the seventeenth-century writings of John
Locke and the eighteenth-century works of Adam Smith. These early liberals are known as
classical liberals. In the nineteenth century, liberalism was modified by theorists such as T. H.
Green and Jane Addams. This later form of liberalism is termed modern liberalism. Though they
are differing in their position about the role state/government, liberalism as ideological
movement encompasses the following basic elements: greater emphasis on human being as
individual rather than as a social group; recognition of individual as rational person having the
capacity of perfect reasoning; individual freedom with a given priority to individuals equality
and justice; equality of individuals, notably in the form of legal equality (equality before the law)
and political equality (one person, one vote; one vote, one value), and with the recognition of
inequality among it advocate equality of opportunities and belief in meritocracy; the recognition
of diversity and importance of tolerance; the drive for consensus and constitutionalism.
However, the following versions of liberalism exist.
Classical Liberalism: The central theme of classical liberalism is a commitment to an extreme

form of individualism. Liberalism is an individualist creed, which developed in the 17th and 18th
century mainly as a reaction against unrestricted absolute monarchs in Europe. The development
of capitalism and Western democracy arises from the doctrine of liberalism. Liberalism was an
ideology or doctrine which became pervasive among the European potentates or bourgeoisie (the
middle class businessman, intellectual professionals, etc.). The ideology arose as a movement
against monarchical absolutism and the church in Europe during the late eighteenth century. The
underlying principles of classical liberalism include: the recognition of the rights of individuals
to opportunities to demonstrate their innate potentials; the conception of the duty of government
Page 45
to be restricted to the protection of the individual and his rights to own property; and the
recognition of the right of individuals to equal economic and political participation.
In general, classical liberalism was an ideology that tends to imply a deep unsympathetic attitude
towards the state and all forms of government intervention. It considers state as ‘necessary evil.
It is ‘necessary’ in that, at the very least, it establishes order and security and ensure that
contracts are enforces. However, it is ‘evil’ in that it imposes a collective will upon society, thus
limiting the freedom and responsibilities of individual. The classical liberal ideal is therefore the
establishment of minimal state, with a role that is limited to the protection of citizens from the
encroachments of fellow citizens. This position is underpinned by a deep faith in the mechanism
of free market and the believe that the economy work best when left alone by government.
Laissez faire capitalism is thus seen as guaranteeing prosperity, upholding individual liberty and
ensuring social justice.
Modern Liberalism: Modern liberals are characterized by a more sympathetic towards state
intervention, which imply support for ‘big government’ rather than ‘minimal’ government.
Modern liberals make the following revisions to liberal theory: They argue in favor of
interventionist government and expansive liberty. Interventionist government is government that
takes a role in regulating economic and social interactions. Expansive liberty is the objective
sought by the interventionist government. Green justifies his revised form of liberalism by
pointing to what he considers to be the unacceptable implications of classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism, he writes, views freedom in terms of freedom from state intervention.
Someone is free, as the classical liberals see it, if he or she is not being regulated by or dictated
to by government. For Green, this definition of freedom is too narrow. He prefers to define
freedom as broader, more expansive, and more inclusive. Green’s liberty is freedom to expand
the boundaries of human potential and make a creative contribution to society.
Modern liberalism’s expanded outlook conceptualizes liberty as maximizing individual potential

and using that potential to be a contributing member of a society. It is a liberty involving living
fully and actively, using one’s talents and fulfilling one’s potential. Consider the ramifications of
this revised definition of freedom. Think about hypothetical person Mary Smith. Let’s say that
she is unemployed and living in a homeless shelter. She is free to make personal choices in terms
of where to look for a job, what kind of job to seek out, and how many hours to spend at the
shelter or looking for employment. Of course, she is also free to make choices on private matters
of conscience—whether to believe in God or not, whether to support capital punishment or not,
and so on. Despite her freedom of thought and opinion, however, let’s say she is demoralized by
her poverty and feels defeated and hopeless.
Page 46
Green argues that an interventionist state is needed to promote the cause of this new expansive
liberty, which is often called ‘‘positive liberty.’’ States should not be limited to the protection of
individualism (Locke and Smith are incorrect) but should intervene in society on behalf of those
whose positive liberty is violated. Modern liberals such as Green supported government action to
help those who lacked the resources needed to develop their own potential. Modern liberals have
called for government assistance to working women and men who could not, in the absence of
laws supporting them, demand that employers provide safe working conditions and increased
wages. Modern liberals have also proposed that laws be enacted to regulate the amount of hours
that employees could be required to work and that laws are passed to promote regulations to
further public health. Did such laws interfere with negative liberty? Of course they did, Green
argued. It was government’s job to intervene in society and restrict the liberty of one person or
group if that person or group happened to be carrying out actions that denied others the
opportunities of pursuing the fullest realization of human potential (expansive liberty).
Green’s theory provides insights on the logic of modern liberal ideology. First, we can see from
Green’s writings that modern liberals believe that state intervention can promote and enhance
individual freedom. Defining freedom as expansive liberty, modern liberals assert that state
regulations protecting health, education, workplace conditions, and generally promoting the
well-being of the less powerful sectors of society prevent exploitation and the denial of (positive)
liberty. Increased state intervention in society can lead to increased levels of expansive liberty.
Second, modern liberals are not as willing as are classical liberals to accept economic inequality.
According to modern liberals, someone who is poor may have a difficult time realizing his or her
potential; therefore, poverty is an impediment to expansive liberty and should be remedied by
laws enacted by the interventionist state. In other words, modern liberals believe in both natural
equality and economic equality. Third, modern liberalism promotes the social welfare of society.
Indeed, we can see the parallels between Green’s ideology and the logic of welfare policies
designed to help the marginalized to achieve their potential.
Liberal Democracy: Democracy as a political ideology originated from the Greek City State of
Athens. The version of Athenian democracy was quite different from the contemporary liberal
democracy. The difference lies in the number or category of people who were eligible to
participate or vote. For instance, the numerous slaves in Greek Society, all women and much
property–less people were excluded. Similarly, before 1860s, the US Constitution formally
excluded black slaves from citizenship and voting rights were given to only people holding
property. Interestingly, also, after slavery was formally abolished there were restrictions on black
people’s political and civil rights, until 1960s following the Black Civil Rights Movement. The
growth of modern liberal democracies dates back from the 1970s and 1980s. The 1970s saw
Page 47
quite number of West European States moving towards democratic rule after many years of
authoritarianism. The world today has fully embraced liberal democracy.
Liberal democracy is a political system and political ideology of contemporary world that
advocate the principle that:
Periodic “free and fair” elections take place to determine how governments are formed
and how the legislature is constituted, with free political competition for groups and
political parties and some reasonably efficient system for assuring majority rule; and
Fundamental civil liberties are protected by law and constitutional safeguards, while legal
enactments and rules are equally and impartially enforced by an independent judicial and
legal system.
In general, the liberal conception of democracy emphasizes majority rule, protection of civil
liberties. It is reasoned that without the protection of civil and political liberties the government
will become tyrannical; although there is always a limit to the enjoyment of such liberties. All
liberal democracies guarantee to the citizens the rights of political participation in one form or
the other, but such rights are limited through certain laws. For examples, there are laws against
armed subversion, terrorism and other undemocratic actions that undermine the general
principles of democracy.
b) Conservatism
Conservatism is an ideology that is generally thought of as seeking to conserve or preserve some

reality of past order and ways of life of a society. Like liberalism, however, conservative
ideology is complex and multidimensional. There is no single form of conservatism. Indeed, we
have already discussed one type of conservatism—classical liberal conservatism. Classical
liberal conservatives argue for small government and thriving capitalism. However, a second
group of conservatives draw their ideas from the eighteenth-century teachings of Edmund Burke.
These Burkean conservatives are called traditional conservatives. Though modern
conservatives’ ideology differs dramatically from that of the classical liberal conservatives,
conservatism in general is characterized by the following basic elements: belief in tradition (the
desire to conserve past tradition and custom); pragmatism (a belief in the limitation of human
rationality) and human imperfection (pessimistic human nature); organicism (viewing society as
organic whole rather than as a collection of individuals); hierarchy (belief in social position and
status difference as inevitable nature of human society); belief in the exercise of authority from
above; and strong belief in property ownership as a source of security and measurement of
Page 48
independence from government. But there is some differences between traditional and modern
conservatives.
Traditional Conservatism: British philosopher Edmund Burke (1729–1797) was both a scholar
and a member of the British parliament, and in his both capacities, he opposed what he saw as
the errors of liberalism. Burke begins his discussion of political ideology with a critical analysis
of human nature. He emphasizes two points. First, Burke argues that human nature is not
characterized by rational supremacy. Although individuals have the ability to reason, according
to Burke, the ability is severely limited. As for him, most people do not reason clearly and he
believes that people are often irrational, emotional, and unpredictable. Individuals most certainly
do not possess the kind of reasoning capacity accorded to them by Locke and the classical
liberals. In short, Burke explains, individuals are incapable of using their reason to run their own
lives smoothly. Secondly, not only do people less rational than liberals believe them to be, but
they are also naturally unequal, according to Burke. Burke asserts that differences in natural
talents divide people into different levels of abilities. Traditional conservatives such as Burke
seek to emphasize a different point, namely that people naturally differ in political capacity.
Some individuals are more capable of ruling than others; some individuals are better suited for
political decision making than are others. Thus, society is best arranged when individuals who
are natural rulers do the ruling. To call for equality in the laws and to demand that all people be
placed on the same (equal) level of decision making would be erroneous, according to Burke.
Moreover, Burke rejects classical liberalism’s emphasis on natural rights. Classical liberals are
wrong when they contend that the purpose of government is the protection of natural rights. This
emphasis on rights confuses citizens, Burke asserts. People hear about having natural rights, and
they begin to mistake rights for promises of power. As Burke explains it, if someone is told he or
she has a right to something, he or she begins to expect it, begins to demand it. These demands
place undue pressures on society, as people clamor for the power to enjoy all that they are told
they have a natural right to possess. Thus, Burke concludes, although natural rights technically
exist in an abstract, analytical sense, they should not be the basis of government decision
making, nor should they be stressed in political speeches and platforms. If governments stress
rights, they engender grandiose expectations among the populace. Government should take care
of human needs rather than protect natural rights, according to Burke. Burke believes that
humans have a fundamental need for order and control. Given the less than fully rational
impulses of human nature, Burke writes, people have a fundamental need for stability, for a
guiding direction in their lives, to render social existence meaningful and harmonious all of
which are the roles of government.
Page 49
Moreover, Burke pointed that reason cannot be considered a trustworthy guide to ethical decision
making because reason alone is insufficient to generate ethical clarity. Second, if reason is so
very weak, reason is inadequate as the primary or only basis for individual decision making and
self-guidance. If an individual cannot depend on reason to deduce any laws of nature, to figure
out the consequences of any potential decisions, or to logically select between any possible
alternatives, then this individual’s reason has left him or her completely helpless. Something
beyond reason is needed. Something solid and trustworthy is needed. Traditional values are
needed. Instead of looking to reason for answers, look to the moral guidelines passed down by
generations of women and men. These guidelines have comforted humanity, provided solace
during periods of crisis, represented moral clarity during times of uncertainty, and offered
encouragement and strength during times of ethical confusion. Traditional values teach us right
from wrong in a way that reason, as we saw earlier, cannot. Reason can only confuse us by
suggesting that there are no moral absolutes (because any side of any ethical dilemma can be
made to look rational). Burkeans believe, if we come to know the difference between trends and
traditional moral values. A trend is something new and different, such as a fashion or a fad.
Traditional moral values, in contrast, are based on what endures after fads are long forgotten.
Morality should not be like fashion. It should not go out of style just because it is old. Indeed, the
older the moral teachings,
Burkeans are conservatives in a very literal sense, seeking to preserve older, tradition-oriented
moralities, not replace them with something new in the name of progress. Civil institutions
should teach traditional morality, according to Burke. Civil institutions are nongovernment
organizations within society. Examples include families and religious institutions. By passing
along long-standing moral values from one generation to the next, civil institutions prepare
individuals to live peacefully and orderly. When civil institutions are operating in this manner,
society functions smoothly, without the violence and disruption caused by upheavals such as the
French Revolution. Governments are to support civil institutions by providing a secure setting in
which they can operate. In protecting and nourishing these institutions, governments become part
of a larger mission, participating in the grand process whereby each generation connects itself to
those who came before, as the teachings of the past are conserved.
Each of these points leads Burke to another conclusion. Morality is more important than
unencumbered individual freedom. Individual freedom must be compromised so that individuals
conform to the teachings of traditional values. Freedom should not include the freedom to act in
an immoral manner. People should not insist on the freedom to act out any impulse or desire.
Thus, traditional conservatives believe in freedom, but freedom with boundaries. It is not to
someone’s benefit, for example, to go out and do whatever is pleasing but destructive. It is not
your true need to indulge your irrational and impulsive self. That would be comparable to living
Page 50
so boundlessly that you destroy yourself. In the nineteenth century, English Cardinal John Henry
Newman expressed this idea by contrasting good uses of liberty with bad ones. With regard to
freedom of opinion, for example, Cardinal Newman explained that proper uses of liberty upheld
morality, whereas improper exercises of liberty violated moral traditions. Thus, traditional
conservatives favor freedom limited by an acknowledgment of the duty to live in compliance
with goodness. Burke describes the society he favors in a revealing passage from Reflections on
the Revolution in France. In the good society, we live according to the laws of God, as passed
from one generation to the next by traditional authorities.
Neo-conservatism: Contemporary traditional conservatives share Burke’s goal of elevating the

moral lives of their societies. For example, one can look to the Conservative Party of Norway
and find Burkean concerns expressed throughout the party’s program. Most European
Conservative Party program expressed support for Christian values and committed itself to the
preservation of the moral values of the country. Like Burke, the party proclaimed that individuals
require the guidance provided by the teachings of traditional institutions. Very significantly, the
party rejected the classical liberal conservative call for limited government. The state’s role
should not be minimal, because the state’s purpose is to support strong civil institutions that can
provide the moral certainties needed by citizens. In contemporary U.S. politics, traditional
conservative ideology has many proponents. Burkean ideals are also articulated in many
antiabortion arguments made in recent years by Republicans such as Robert K. Dornan of
California. Individual freedom, it is believed, should be curtailed if that freedom veers into areas
in which ethical taboos are violated.
c) Socialism
Socialism has often been misinterpreted because of its complex nature. It is perhaps, the most
complete political ideology because its goals are all encompassing. It is both an economic system
and social, political and moral philosophy. Socialism can be conceived as an ideology and also a
political movement or a method to bring about social, economic and political transformation.
Socialism refers to a system, in any country of the organization of economic production,
distribution and exchange. It is a system in which the major factors of economic production,
distribution and exchange are in the hands of the state.
The word socialism, coined in the early 1800s, referred to an ideology arguing that citizens are
best served by policies focused on meeting the basic needs of the entire society rather than on
serving the needs of individuals as individuals. From its inception, socialism has been critical of
competing ideologies (such as classical liberalism) that rank individualism above the common
good in terms of political priorities. Early socialists such as Henri de Saint-Simon (1760–1825),
Page 51
Robert Owen (1771–1859), and Charles Fourier (1772–1837) taught that competitive
individualist societies destroyed the possibility of collective harmony. Individuals are capable of
living cooperatively, they insisted, and the socialist society would prove it. Saint-Simon
envisioned socialism as a large, complex social system in which scientific planners would
coordinate economic activity to ensure that goods were produced in exactly the proper quantity
and distributed evenly throughout society so that neither waste nor shortages occurred. Owen and
Fourier believed in small self-sufficient cooperative societies in which socialism consisted of
living in such a manner that all community members shared both the responsibility of laboring
and the wealth produced by it.
Socialism is a political movement for the establishment of a socialist system of government. It is

also a method as well as a doctrine for the organization of socialist political parties and trade
unions. Socialism represents a stage or epoch in the historical transformation of societies from
capitalism to communism. Socialism is a protest against capitalism, which emphasizes private
ownership of property or means of production, distribution and exchange. Communism is the last
stage of socialism, which will lead to the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat or
workers. Leon Baradat (1997) provides three basic features of socialism. In other words,
socialism can be divided into three basic features. Two of them ownership of production and
establishment of the welfare state, are mechanical and are not necessarily related to each other.
The third is the belief in the socialist intent, which is the most fundamental aspect of socialism
and must exist together with one or both of the mechanical feature, otherwise, true socialism
cannot be said to exist. We shall return to these issues later in this section.
In the development of socialism, it is traditionally understood to mean the application of

collective production and consumption to an entire nation. The argument is that socialism
became feasible with the Industrial Revolution, when the resources for national coordination of
an economy had come into existence. Rosseau opposed great differences in property ownership
among citizens because the disparity would create unequal political powers among them. This is
the foundation of socialism, as it advocates for economic equality as fundamental to a just
society. It is only in an environment of economic equality is the full potential of each individual
completely free to develop. Hence, though primarily economic in nature, socialism is also a
political ideology. Socialism is based on the premise that individuals should produce as much as
they can, and in the spirit of social conscientiousness, to share their product with the society at
large. By this means, it is assumed that each will get the greatest benefit, thereby creating the
best possible life for all.
Utopian socialism movement developed from a sincere desire for equality within the society and
from genuine compassion for the masses at the bottom of the social structure. Members of this
Page 52
movement concluded that lavishing sumptuous wealth on some while allowing others to languish
in squalor was immoral, since the economy produced enough for all to live comfortably if goods
were distributed more evenly. Many utopians believed that there was an ideal equalitarian social
order that, if discovered and implemented, would lead humanity to a more profound level of
prosperity and happiness. Utopian socialists also believed that only the workers create wealth,
therefore, they held that society should adjust its social, economic, and political systems to
prevent unequal distribution of wealth.
The utopian socialist movement originated with the help of three personalities – Saint-Simon,
Robert Owen, and Charles Fourier. Important as these utopians socialists were to the
development of socialism, their influence is largely limited to their own generation. For more
important to socialist theory was Karl Marx. Prior to Marx, the basis of the proposed socialist
societies had been the humanitarian hope that people would treat each other better as their
material conditions improved. Though Marx was compassionate as he never based his
conclusion of socialism on a humanitarian desire for a better life. His theory postulates certain
“laws” of human motivation and conduct (economic determinism and dialectic materialism). It
concludes that socialism is the unavoidable goal of human historical development. This view
became so dominant and superior to his predecessors that he captivated the socialist movement
until his death in 1883.
The origin of socialism is traced to pre-Revolutionary France. Jean Jacque Rousseau, though not
a socialist, gave leftist foundations of equalitarianism on which socialism is based. After the
French Revolution, utopian socialists deplored the suffering caused by early capitalism and
claimed that humanity was destined to live communally. But the failure of utopian socialist to
explain adequately and in a more scientific manner about social relationship that informed
Marx’s “scientific socialism”, which came to dominates the movement. After Marx’s death the
socialist movement shattered into three distinct and competitive variants. First, the orthodox
school, which rejected any significant change to Marx’s works and rapidly became obsolete. The
second was the revisionists and the Fabians that challenged most of the fundamental Marxist
theories preferring more gradual and peaceful development of the socialist goals. Their ideas had
a great impact on almost every modern non-Marxist socialist movement in Europe and America.
The third is Marxism-Leninism that developed after Marx’s death.
V. I. Lenin was more practical than Marx, though his ideology was not as consistent as Marx.
The central argument of Marxism-Leninism is that capitalist institutions such as imperialism
discouraged the spontaneous proletarian revolutions that Marx had predicted. Lenin created an
elite group of dedicated revolutionaries who would lead the rebellion and govern after the
capitalist system collapsed. When the bourgeois ruler had been replaced by the dictatorship of
Page 53
the proletariat, a system that rewarded people according to their work would be established.
Through education, material rewards, and elimination of the worst dissidents from society, the
proletariat would grow until it was the only economic class in the society. Then the system
would evolve into the classic Marxist utopia communism.
Scientific Socialism of Karl Marx: Scientific socialism is an attempt to demonstrate or apply

scientific interpretation of human history. It is argued that man is governed by material needs and
this reduces him to an “earth bound beast with no spark of the lofty and divine” (William E.
Bernstein, 1993, p.34). As Karl Marx lived during a time when belief in science was at its peak.
Marx believed that he had discovered the economic laws that governed human, social
development; hence, his supporters called his theory scientific socialism. It is assumed that
humanity was on the verge of a new era of knowledge and understanding of things. Engels, who
was a collaborator with Karl Marx, was convinced that Marx had done for social history what
Darwin had done for biological sciences. To Engels, as Darwin discovered the law of
development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the developmental law of human history.
The idea of scientific socialism according to Marx is to distinguish it from utopian socialism.
The essence therefore is that revolution which will sweep away class exploitation by the
bourgeoisie of workers and class privileges would inevitably occur out of a class struggle
between the ‘haves’ (bourgeoisie) and the ‘have nots’ (proletariat). Scientific socialism rests on
the theory of historical materialism, which is in terms of dialectics of history. The underlying
principle of materialism is a protest against capitalism. The work of Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels Das Kapital is a critique of the capitalist system. Marxism posits a materialist
interpretation of human history. It is assumed that the mode of production of goods and services
and the manner of exchange of these goods and services constitute the bases of all social
processes and institutions. Marx insists that it is the economic structure that determines the
politics. In other words, the most fundamental assumption in Marxism is economic determinism.
Economic determinism suggests that the primary human motivation is economic. “It is not the
consciousness of men that determines their existence”, Marx argues, “but their social existence
that determines their consciousness”, that is, what we value and what we do politically is
determined by our economic circumstances. This view has gained a lot of ground in academic
discourse in political economy, that economics plays an important part in determining political
behaviour. Marx saw all societies as composed of two parts: the foundation and the
superstructure. The foundation of any society is the material condition. In other words, the
economic system is at the base of the society. Marx divided the economy into two basic factors:
the means of production and the relations of production. The means of production are the
resources and technology at the disposal of a particular society, and their interrelationship
Page 54
determines the kind of economic system the society enjoys. The relations of production (or social
classes) are determined by the foundation. The superstructure is composed of all nonmaterial
institutions in the society, and each is arranged in a way that suits the ruling class. The
superstructure includes the values, ideology, government, education, law, religion, art, and so on.
The basis of Marx’s argument for violence was his perception of the dialectic process. He
believed that technological change cannot be stopped: Resources will become depleted, and new
means of production will inevitably evolve, resulting economic change. When the economy
changes, economic determinism dictates that the entire foundation of the society must be
transformed, forcing a change in its superstructure as well. Economic change cannot be
prevented, because it forces social change, which, in turn drives political change. Violence is
seen as necessary in this process because the rulers who control the economy feel their economic
and political power threatened by the uncontrollable changes taking place in the means of
production. Marxist historical theory is the basis for the belief that Marx created a “scientific”
theory of socialism. The dialectic is part this theory was taken from the thinking of Hegel.
Basic Features of Socialism:
 Public Ownership of Production: The concept of public ownership and control of the
major means of production is a fundamental principle of socialism. This is through
nationalization and in advanced Western states cooperatives as a mean of socializing the
economy.
 The Welfare State: This is to allow for equitable distribution of wealth throughout
society. What is much more important to the socialist is the distribution of the goods and
services and not just the production. For instance, in the 1930s, President Frankline
Roosevelt introduced the new Deal, to give capitalism a human face. At this time,
programmes such as social security, government supports for agriculture, unemployment
and workers’ compensation, welfare programmes, federal guarantees for housing loans,
government insurance for saving deposits, and so on were introduced.
 The Socialist Intent: Baradat (1997) argues that the first two features are mechanical in
nature and not necessarily related to each other. To him, a society could socialize many,
or even all, of its major means of production and still avoid creating a welfare state.
The goal of socialism is to set people free from the condition of material dependence that has
imprisoned them since the beginning of time. The true socialist looks forward to a time when the
productive capacity of the society will have been increased to the point at which there is
abundance for all. As the general material conditions of the society improve, the specific
differences in material status among individuals will decrease. This is as a result of technology
Page 55
that has created a situation in which people can produce enough to satisfy all their basic needs.
Since there will be plenty for all, traditional property values such private ownership, the use of
money, and the accumulation of luxuries by one class while others live in squalor will disappear.
Socialism is an economic equivalent of democracy with individual political equality. Hence,
socialism is compatible with democracy, since it is to the individual economically what
democracy is to the individual politically
d) Marxism
The contributions to socialist ideology made by German theorist Karl Marx (1818–1883) are so
vast and complex that his theory of socialism has come to be known specifically as Marxism.
Marx was greatly influenced by German philosopher Georg W. F. Hegel (1770–1831), who
believed that historical development takes place through a series of dramatic changes producing
increasingly comprehensive systems of knowledge. With each epoch of historical development,
new and old ideas clash and compete. New ways of thinking and conceptualizing reality emerge
from the conflict, according to Hegel. One finds in Marx’s work many parallels with Hegel, not
the least of which is the notion that history moves forward from the push and pull of conflict and
that each new period of history is a creative response to what has gone before. As abstract as this
sound, these ideas are important in providing glimpses of some of the most concrete dimensions
of Marx’s theory. For example, Hegelian influences are discernible in Marx’s understanding of
class conflict and social change.
Although Marx is known as a socialist, the majority of his writings focus on analyzing
capitalism. This is not surprising when one realizes that Marx lived under a capitalist system and,
as a student of politics, wrote primarily about what he could observe. With his friend and
collaborator Frederich Engels (1820–1895), Marx published The Communist Manifesto in 1848.
In this and other works, Marx analyzed many facets of capitalist society. The better one
understands capitalism, Marx contends, the more clearly one sees the rational basis for socialism.
In his analysis of capitalism, Marx begins by noting that capitalism is an economic system in
which most people come to be members of one of two large classes. This division of people into
two basic classes contrasts with the more complex class systems of antiquity and feudalism, in
which numerous classes existed. The two prominent classes under capitalism are the proletariat
and the bourgeoisie. The proletariat is the class that lives primarily by selling its labor power
(laboring ability) for a wage. The bourgeoisie is the class that lives primarily by purchasing the
labor power of others and using this labor to operate the factories and businesses owned by the
bourgeoisie. Thus, generally, the proletariat consists of people who work for wages and the
bourgeoisie consists of people who own businesses and hire employees. Very importantly, Marx
was aware that many members of the bourgeoisie also work; indeed, business owners often have
Page 56
interminable workdays and remain at the office longer than any single employee. However, if an
individual’s economic position is premised on the ability to hire workers and run a business
through the employees’ labor, then this individual is a member of the bourgeoisie. At the same
time, a member of the proletariat might supplement his or her income by taking in boarders,
growing his or her own food, and so forth. If, however, an individual needs his or her wage in
order to live, then the individual is a member of the proletariat.
In he analysis, Marx did not define class in terms of income levels. He has not come up with a
formula for determining how much money one needs in order to qualify as rich or poor. Rather,
he has defined class in terms of functions. If person ‘A’ functions in society by selling her labor
power in return for a wage, she is a member of the proletariat, regardless of how high or low her
wage may be. In contrast, if she functions as someone who operates a factory by employing
wage laborers, she is a member of the bourgeoisie, whatever her income level. This point is
crucial to remember because when Marx later speaks of abolishing class, it is necessary to
remember how he defines class. Because he does not define class in terms of income levels, he
does not define the abolition of class in terms of eradicating income differentials.
According to Marx, under capitalism, conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is
inevitable. This is the case because both classes are rational. Both pursue what is in their
respective interests. Consequently, the bourgeoisie and proletariat clash over the price of wage
labor. It is in the interest of the bourgeoisie to lower the price of labor, whereas it is in the
interest of the proletariat to raise it. Neither class can afford to abandon its interests, according to
Marx. For example, if a capitalist pays a higher wage than that paid by rival capitalists, the
generous capitalist will be unable to compete with his or her peers and will be ruined. Thus, the
rational capitalist will pay subsistence wages to the employees. Subsistence wages are defined by
Marx as the lowest possible wage for inducing sufficient numbers of capable workers to fill job
openings. That is, the rational capitalist will pay only so much as he or she must in order to
recruit qualified workers to come into the business and do the jobs. All capitalists will be
motivated to compete successfully with their peers, so each will be inclined to pay subsistence-
level wages. For the proletariat, of course, this means that every possible employer is operating
according to an identical logic, one that is not exactly favorable to the proletariat.
Moreover, unless a capitalist holds back a part of the value created by employees through their
labor, the capitalist will have nothing for him-or-herself. Therefore, the capitalist keeps some of
the value created by workers; this value is called surplus value (it exists as a surplus above and
beyond what is returned to the workers in the form of wages) or profit. Yet the existence of profit
is testimony to the fact that the workers have created a value in excess of that paid to them in
wages. They are creating more worth than the amount reflected in their paychecks, and because
Page 57
their existence depends on their ability to earn these paychecks, their lives are insecure as long as
wages are meager. As you can see from just this short discussion both proletarians and capitalists
live or die by the decisions surrounding the price of wages.
According to Marx, the state plays an important role in preventing the conflict between the
classes from erupting into daily riots and rebellions. If workers rise up and attempt to take over a
factory and demand higher wages, the state’s law enforcement officers will suppress their
rebellion. The state’s judicial officers will prosecute, and the state’s legislative officials may
even respond by writing new laws to prevent future rebellions. In short, the state will work to
prevent class conflict by enforcing law and order, which, under capitalism, indirectly supports
the bourgeoisie’s continued pursuit of profit through the payment of subsistence wages to
workers. Logically, Marx points out, one can see that the class that benefits most from the status
quo also gains most from the state’s protection of the status quo.
For Marx, however, capitalism is an entire social system. It involves more than states, wages,
and profits. Capitalism also includes certain ways of thinking about the world and
psychologically responding to it. For example, Marx believed that life under capitalism became
an emotional ordeal for many proletarians/workers. Alienation is a term he used to describe the
emotional, cognitive, and psychological damage done to the proletariat by capitalism. Alienation
means loss. According to Marx, workers are vulnerable to different kinds of alienation. One type
of alienation is alienation from the self. A worker alienated from his or her self has lost a sense
of self-awareness and identity. Such a worker may go through the workday ‘‘on automatic
pilot,’’ barely aware of him- or herself as an individual with a mind, with thoughts, with a
history, with feelings. Workers such as this live through the day, but they do not experience the
day any more than the machines in the factories experience it. Proletarians are also likely to
suffer alienation from the work process, from other workers, and from society, according to
Marx. The creative, productive, and collaborative dimensions of working and living are lost to
the proletarian, who has become almost as lifeless as the tools he or she uses. Not only has life
become joyless, but the alienated worker does not even know any more that it is not supposed to
be this way.
According to Marx, just as capitalism affects the psyche, it also influences the intellect. Marx
asserted that intellectual systems (ideologies, for example) are shaped by the political and
economic systems in which they arise. In other words, the existence of capitalism makes some
ideas useful and, therefore, renders them means of obtaining and holding power. As Marx put it,
each political-economic system needs its own ideology to justify itself as moral and ‘‘natural.’’
In a capitalist society, the prevailing ideology will be one that proclaims private property as
natural (because the bourgeoisie can use this idea to help legitimize its class power). The
Page 58
prevailing ideology will also uphold individual freedom as a fundamental right. The idea of
individual freedom is useful to the bourgeoisie because it allows the bourgeoisie to argue that
making profit is simply an element of individual freedom. In addition, the bourgeoisie can
always justify paying the proletarians less than the value created by the proletarians by
proclaiming that if the proletarians do not like working for them, the proletarians have the
individual freedom to quit and find other jobs. That is, the ideology of individual freedom is used
to distract attention away from questions about fairness, social needs, and basic economic
equality. Ideology is used to justify the economic dominance of the bourgeoisie.
As a student of Hegel, Marx saw in all these dimensions of capitalism evidence of not only
tension and strain, but also eventual progress. On the one hand, capitalism is inherently
contradictory, according to Marx, and thus doomed to fall apart as a consequence of its own
clashing pressures. For example, as capitalists pursue their self-interest and pay workers
subsistence wages, they set in motion a logic whereby most people (wage earners) are paid so
little that they cannot purchase the goods and services produced by capitalism itself. Under-
consumption is a danger and forces capitalists to compete for foreign markets. On the other hand,
capitalism is much more than a system in which contradictory forces threaten disorder and chaos.
Capitalism, according to Marx, is also progressive. It has given humanity many wonderful gifts
and has inspired innumerable positive developments. Has Marx begun to contradict himself in
praising capitalism like this? Absolutely not, he assures his readers; he is merely viewing
capitalism in all its complexity.
What is positive and beneficial about capitalism? In promoting the pursuit of self-interest (for
example, high profits for the bourgeoisie), capitalism pushes people to be extremely competitive.
Out of this competition come technological advances, scientific discoveries, mechanical
inventions, and productive innovations, all of which contribute to the creation of an abundance of
goods and services. Every capitalist is driven to discover the most efficient way to produce the
best-selling, most appealing product in order to become the next billionaire. This competitive
drive for profits encourages the rise of expanding cities, huge corporations, and centralized
banking, each of which facilitates producing and selling at unprecedented levels by bringing
workers, know-how, technology, and money together in close proximity for maximum use. The
drive for profits further stimulates international trade and cross-cultural contact, as the
bourgeoisie traverse the globe in order to sell more goods. Society becomes more worldly and
sophisticated, as urban centers and international communications expose people to ways of living
and thinking beyond those taught by their own local traditions. Old-fashioned loyalties weaken;
traditional notions of religion, family life, relations between men and women, and the like begin
to die out because capitalism forces people to adjust to technological innovations and adapt to
Page 59
incredibly diverse ways of interacting with people and products. Marx applauds these
developments as spectacular by-products of economic development.
The challenge of socialism, according to Marx, is to find a way to build on the positive features
of capitalism while eradicating the negative ones. Marx’s solution is as follows: The socialist
society will abolish class and thereby end the conflict between the bourgeoisie and proletariat,
and it will distribute the abundant resources created by capitalism in a way that addresses social
needs. Abolishing class entails ending the distinction between selling and purchasing labor
power. That is, under socialism, all able-bodied adults will work and share ownership of the
goods and services produced. These goods and services will be publicly managed, at first by
state officials and later by local citizens. Public managers will centrally plan how goods and
services will be produced and managed, Marx argues, so that they can examine the society as a
whole and see what is needed, where it is needed, and how much is needed in order to most
efficiently fulfill the needs of all. Credit, communications, manufacturing, transportation,
agriculture, and other crucial industries will be operated and monitored by these state planners so
that no individual can sabotage the collective good by demanding that his or her individual rights
and needs take priority over the needs of society. Once class distinctions have been completely
eradicated (and all people recognize that their interest is in working to ensure the welfare of the
society as a whole), monitoring by state planners will be unnecessary and the state, no longer
having any function to serve, will fall into disuse, according to Marx.
Marx emphasized throughout his writings the fact that socialism will construct itself in relation
to a preexisting capitalism. For example, in explaining his theory of how socialism will be
brought into being, Marx writes that violent revolution will be necessary for destroying
capitalism and instituting socialism in most societies. He writes of the socialist revolution as a
majoritarian movement, involving massive numbers of workers. Notice the assumption behind
this statement: Capitalism is needed because it creates an economic structure in which the
majority of people are wage laborers. In addition, Marx argues, in some societies—Great Britain
and the United States—peaceful organizing for socialism may work to bring socialists to power.
Here, the capitalist democratic structures of society are so well developed that socialists may be
capable of campaigning openly for socialism without suffering violent repression and being
forced to fight for socialism outside the legal structures. Note, again, however, how the presence
of capitalism is presented as a variable conducive to the eventual movement toward socialism.
e) Marxism-Leninism (Communist Ideology)
Marxism-Leninism is a form of socialism articulated by Russian theorist and revolutionary

Vladimir Iylich Ulyanov, whose revolutionary name was Lenin (1870–1924). Lenin took certain
Page 60
ideas from Marx and added some of his own to create Marxism-Leninism, often referred to as
communist ideology. Lenin’s life was fascinating and dangerous. He was exiled in 1895 to
Siberia for his opposition to the Russian czar, worked with socialists in Western Europe prior to
World War I, and returned to Russia during World War I to assume leadership of the Bolshevik
Revolution, which led to the establishment of the Soviet Union. As the Soviet Union’s first
leader, Lenin worked toward socialism (as he defined it) by enacting policies whereby the state
assumed extensive control over industry and by creating a political framework of one-party
government.
Marxist-Leninist ideology argues that socialists should organize their struggle against capitalism
by creating a vanguard party to lead the revolution against capitalism. The Marxist-Leninist
party is to serve as the vanguard, or leader, of the proletariat, according to Lenin. Lenin
envisioned the vanguard party as highly structured and centralized, with each member
scrupulously upholding the party’s policies. To make sense of Lenin’s ideas on the party, it is
necessary to realize that he formulated his theory with pragmatic considerations in mind. Like
Marx, Lenin believed that working-class movements would be susceptible to repression by
hostile governments. To survive this repression, Lenin asserted that socialists needed to be united
among them-selves and sufficiently organized to endure long periods of antisocialist activity.
Not only was the tightly controlled vanguard party designed to survive governmental attacks, but
it was also organized to instruct and teach. Party leaders were to educate workers in the
intricacies of socialist ideology and guide them through a learning process whereby they would
come to understand the necessity of overthrowing capitalism through violent revolution. The
vanguard party was a necessary element in the process of socialist organizing, for it brought to
the revolutionary movement the expertise, discipline, and leadership needed to create socialism,
according to Lenin. Once the revolution was successful, according to Lenin, the vanguard party
would manage society in the interest of the workers. The party would suppress any opposition
forces, as well as manage the economy. In these arguments, we find elements of the ideological
basis for the repression of potential opposition forces carried out by the former Soviet Union.
Marxist-Leninist socialism is also associated with the theoretical concept of imperialism. Lenin’s
concept of imperialism is important in explaining two ways in which Lenin developed socialist
theory beyond Marx’s original contributions. First, Lenin used the concept of imperialism to
explain why older capitalist societies had survived into the 1900s, despite Marx’s arguments that
they were beset by internal contradictions. Second, Lenin’s theory of imperialism provided an
explanation for why the prospects of socialist revolution in societies lacking capitalist traditions
were so promising.
Page 61
Lenin defined imperialism as a stage of capitalism. Specifically, it is a stage at which capitalists

begin to export capital and use this capital to build industries abroad. In searching out a site for
new industries, capitalists choose a location most conducive to their interests (making large
profits). A location in a developing country in which cheap labor is abundant is especially
attractive to capitalists. Capitalists go into this location, hire employees from the local pool of
low-cost labor, and make enormous profits. Profits are brought back to the capitalists’ home
country, where the capitalists spend lavishly. Refueling of this money into the home economy
spurs economic growth and development, the benefits of which raise the standard of living of all
groups. As living standards improve, even the proletariat of the home country notices a higher
quality of life. This point is crucial, according to Lenin, because it means that the workers in the
home country to some extent become middle class and status quo–oriented in their outlooks.
Such workers lack revolutionary zeal and see themselves as beneficiaries of capitalism.
Imperialism thus boosts the well-being of capitalist societies and enables them to fend off, at
least temporarily, the destructive consequences of their own internal contradictions. Workers in
the foreign country, however, are suffering. Their low wages make the capitalists superrich,
Lenin argues. Such workers have an interest in opposing capitalism. These workers, living in the
country sought out by the imperialist-minded capitalists, possess a revolutionary potential.
Logically, therefore, Lenin saw revolutionary possibilities in a developing society—a society

into which capital had been invested but that had not yet developed long-standing capitalist
processes in which the proletariat had become complacent as a result of comparatively high
living standards. Lenin’s theory was appealing to some socialists who hoped to organize socialist
movements in developing countries. For example, Mao Zedong (1893–1976) could find in
Lenin’s work an ideological rationale for socialist revolution in China, despite the fact that China
was not a capitalist society and lacked the sizable proletariat discussed by Marx in Marx’s theory
of revolution. Mao became communist leader of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 and
governed until his death in 1976.
Social Democracy: Social democrats (also known as democratic socialists) reject Marxism-
Leninism. They see Marxism-Leninism’s advocacy of a vanguard party as authoritarian. Social
democrats believe in integrating socialism and democracy. Unlike Marxist-Leninists, social
democrats support peaceful, legal efforts to work toward socialism, and they believe in
multiparty competition and civil liberties. They view socialism as a way of organizing society so
that all groups are guaranteed some level of social well-being and economic security. They
propose to distribute society’s riches among all sectors of the population by enacting public
policies very similar to those advocated by modern liberalism. Indeed, social democrats support
extensive welfare programs. Such programs, they contend, can promote economic self-
determination, just as democracy promotes political self-determination. Historically a party of
Page 62
social democracy, the Labour Party of Great Britain has moved toward liberalism under the
leadership of centrist Labour leaders such as Tony Blair. In fact, the party’s 1997 general
election program omitted the word socialism altogether.
The Finnish Social Democratic Party embraces democracy as well as economic policies designed
to improve the social and economic positions of workers. The party rejects communism
(Marxism-Leninism) in favor of free elections. It calls for economic reforms such as shorter
workdays, flexible working hours, low interest rates, and full employment. In like fashion, the
party of Catalonia’s socialists specifically links socialism and democracy together and views the
two as mutually reinforcing means of creating conditions of both fairness and liberty. In the
United States, leaders like Frank Zeidler have embodied the vision of democratic socialism. Born
in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1912, Zeidler was sometimes referred to as a ‘‘sewer socialist.’’
What was a ‘‘sewer socialist’’? This designation referred to someone who believed that all
citizens should be able to live in a home with indoor, reliable plumbing. Zeidler was elected
mayor of Milwalkee in 1948 and served until 1960. His administrations were known for their
support for public housing, city beautification projects, civil rights reform, and for the
implementation of the state of Wisconsin’s first educational television station. Zeidler became
chairman of the Socialist Party of America. At the time of his death in July 2006, he was the last
surviving person to have held the position of mayor of a major U.S. city as a self-identified
Socialist.
Social democrats take from socialism a commitment to serving the needs of the entire society.
They share Marx’s dissatisfaction with the inequities in the bourgeoisie–proletariat relationship
whereby the bourgeoisie ends up with profit while the proletariat suffers alienation and makes
subsistence wages. These socialists have a vision that can be traced back to the story of the year
of the release of debts in the Book of Deuteronomy. Property should be redistributed so that it is
shared by all, they argue. As the Catalonian Social Democratic Party puts it, a socialist society is
one in which nobody sees his or her basic needs overlooked. What would democratic socialism
look like in the United States? The Socialist Party of America believes it would include support
for racial equality, gender and sexual equality, the rights of citizens to participate in corporate
decision making, public ownership of many businesses as a means of reducing economic
inequality, and environmental protection.
The debates between Marxist-Leninists and social democrats illustrate that socialist ideology is
varied and diverse. In looking at Marxism-Leninism and social democracy in the context of
historical questions in the field of political theory, one finds that both forms of socialism have a
complex relationship to previous political philosophies. Both Marxist-Leninists and social
democrats believe that society should aspire toward more than a Hobbesian blueprint for
Page 63
survival. They tend to share with Plato a commitment to organizing society so that a larger vision
of justice is realized. The Marxist-Leninists also share with Plato a view supportive of elite
(philosopher-kings or vanguard parties) decision making. Marxist-Leninists and social democrats
decry the inequalities of capitalism and look to socialism as a more egalitarian system than
capitalism. In addition, Marxist-Leninists reject Madison’s argument for intentionally weakening
state power through a system of checks and balances; however, social democrats often support
such measures as consistent with democratic decision making. In terms of debates between
fundamentalism and Millian individualism, Marxist-Leninists are opposed to both sides. They
reject religious fundamentalism outright but also reject individualism if individualism is used to
weaken the decision making of the vanguard party and, with it, progress toward socialism. Social
democrats reject fundamentalism but, as noted earlier, try to reconcile individualism, democracy,
and socialism.
f) Dictatorial Ideologies
Essentially, all other political ideologies that do not share the same characteristics as democracy
are dictatorial in nature. In this section, we attempt to bring out the basic elements that are
common to all the dictatorial regimes in the history of mankind. The dictatorial ideologies that
we shall be considering here are: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, fascism, autocracy, tyranny,
etc. In this write up, we classified all of them as dictatorship.
Authoritarianism represents various forms of autocratic rule in which political authority is

concentrated in the hands of one person or a small group of persons. This may be seen as
oligarchy, that is, government by few individuals that are considered as elites. These could be in
the military, that is, when the military regime is in power, it is usually made up few persons that
constitute themselves as ruling clique. In such a system political power is highly centralized and
the power which the regime wields is arbitrarily used.
Like all dictatorial regimes, political power is in the hands of one person or an oligarchy. Since
dictatorship implies irresponsible exercise of political power with no moral or political control or
restrain, no election and political opposition is allowed, etc. Political opposition may exist both
in theory and not in practice. In practice, in a dictatorship, opposition may be emasculated. In a
situation where opposition is allowed to exist, it is usually in a small scale and the regime at
times adopts benevolent policies, which is aptly described as “enlightened dictatorship or
despotism”. A despot is a tyrant who induces fear on his subjects to compel obedience. A
Page 64
tyrannical ruler does not obey the constitution if there is any; arbitrarily laws are made without
regard to fundamental human rights and rule of law. Despotism and tyranny are extreme versions
of dictatorship. In this case, despotism and tyranny display various forms of total control of the
entire public and private life of the citizens. The citizens are subjected and subjugated in various
ways by the leaders as it were in Fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini, Nazi Germany of Adolf
Hitler, Communist Russia under V. I. Lenin, Stalin, and so on.
Fascism is a kind of ideology which grew up on the 20th century. Fascism as a political doctrine
or ideology was rooted from totalitarianism. Fascism a political theory came in Italy in 1922,
during the expression which followed World War I. The Fascist leader Benito Mussolini spread
the doctrine of fascism in all the nooks crannies in Europe. Fascist leader was seen as the most
superior and controls all the instruments of coercion and violence. The leader believed in war
and not peace. To Mussolini, “war is to man what maternity is to a woman”. The central political
idea of fascism is the creation of a truly sovereign state with a sovereign authority. The state
dominates all other forces within the country and is at the same time guiding the sentiments of
the masses, educating the masses and looking after the interest of the masses. According to
Mussolini, fascism is against international peace, socialism, pacifism, democracy and
individualism. Fascism is thus, the totalitarian organization of government and society by a
single party dictatorship which is intensely nationalist, racist, militarist and imperialistic.
Nazism which was a political movement in which Adolf Hitler ruled Germany between (1933-
1945) shares the same political ideas or doctrine with fascism, except that Adolf Hitler
emphasized the superiority or supremacy of the Aryan race, while fascism emphasized the
supremacy of the leader over the state. Both fascism and Nazism were all rooted from
totalitarianism.
Totalitarianism is an advanced form of authoritarianism. In an authoritarian government as

earlier alluded, power is concentrated in an individual or in the hands of a group. Monarchies,
oligarchies, and military governments are examples of authoritarian governments. Just like these
forms of government, totalitarian state, does not allow majority of citizens any direct or
institutionalized role in the process of decision-making. There are important limitations to
political parties and elections. The political rulers often place greater emphasis on force and
coercion to obtain political conformity and obedience. Totalitarianism therefore is a doctrine
based on the use of terror or force to compel obedience. The entire life political, economic, and
social is in the hands of the state, represented by the leaders. Examples of totalitarian regimes or
states include fascist Italy under Mussolini, Nazi Germany the Soviet Union under Stalin.
Communist China under Mao Tsetsung also pursued the goal of the dictatorship of the
Page 65
proletariat. All these political ideas and movements share some common characteristics. The
followings are some of these basic characteristics of dictatorship:
The state defines the rights of individuals and what constitutes crimes against the state;
The conception of the state as a moral absolute deserving of unquestioning obedience by
all;
Totalitarian state control all aspects of life of the citizens;
The use of secret police or ‘Gestapo’ or ‘KGB’ to terrorize and intimidate the citizens
and political opposition groups;
The concentration of political power on few individuals;
There is usually one political party like the then Soviet Union, where the C.P.S.U
(Communist Party of the Soviet Union) was the only political party that was allowed to
exist, opposition party was outlawed;
Totalitarian state or regime is intolerance of socialism and liberalism;
There is emphasis on the use of propaganda as an instrument of control and terror;
There is the belief in the superiority of a particular race, which became a deliberate state
policy in Germany. Fascism opposes to international law, fundamental human right; etc.
UNIT FOUR
POLITICAL THEORIES (MEANING, SIGNIFICANCES & TYPES)
4.1. Introduction
Politics and political process represent all those activities concerned primarily with the
management of human’s collective life through the state. From classical period onwards,
political speculation has been about: how fundamental political activity is; how it provides the
groundwork for human civilization which distinguishes man from all other living creatures; and
to inquire into the basic problem of ‘how to live together’ in a community because living
together is necessitated by human nature and forms the core of individual life. Political theory
seeks to understand, explain and analyze the political phenomena and prescribe ways and means
to rectify the shortcomings. Political theory is a complex subject. The number of political
theorists is very large, and the interests and commitments of those engaged in this field have
been so different that we are faced with the difficult task of answering a simple question: What is
political theory? Moreover, because of the diversity and changes in the socio-economic
Page 66
circumstances, there have been substantial changes both in the subject matter of political theory
and the methods of studying it.
4.2. What is political theory?
At the most general level, political theory is ‘a body of knowledge related to the phenomenon of
the state’. While ‘theory’ refers to ‘an explanation to systematic knowledge’, ‘political’ refers to
‘matters of public concern’. According to David Held, political theory is a ‘network of concepts
and generalizations about political life involving ideas, assumptions and statements about the
nature, purpose and key features of government, state and society, and about the political
capabilities of human beings.’ Again, according to W.C. Coker, ‘When political government and
its forms and activities are studied not simply as facts to be described and compared or judged in
reference to their immediate and temporary effects, but as facts to be understood and appraised in
relation to the constants needs, desires and opinions of men, then we have political theory. On
the basis of these definitions, we can conclude that political theory is a framework and body of
knowledge by which we can study the phenomena of the state and society both in philosophical
as well as empirical terms. It not only involves explanation, description and prescription
regarding the state and political institutions but also evaluation of their moral philosophical
purpose. It is not only concerned with what the state is but also what it ought to be.
4.3. Characteristics of political theory
Political theory is an intellectual and moral creation of man. Generally, it is the speculation of a
single individual who is attempting to offer us a theoretical explanation of the political reality i.e.
the phenomena of the state and its relationship with broader socety. Every theory by its very
nature is an explanation, built upon certain hypothesis which may be valid (or not) and which are
always open to criticism. So what we find in political theory is a number of attempts made by
thinkers from Plato onwards to unravel the mysteries of man’s political life. They have given so
many modes of explanations which may or may not convince us but to which we cannot pass any
final judgment.
Political theory is largely an attempt to seek the truth as the thinker sees it and it is usually
expressed through a treatise such as Plato’s Republic, Aristotle’s Politics, Hobb’es’ Leviathan, or
Rawls’ A Theory of Justice. Secondly, political theory contains an explanation of man, society
and history. It probes the nature of man and society: how a society is made up and how it works;
what are the important elements; what are the sources of conflict in the society and how they can
be resolved. Thirdly, political theory is discipline based. It means that though the phenomena
which the theorist seeks to explain remains the same i.e. the state, the writer may be a
Page 67
philosopher, historian, economist, theologian or a sociologist. Thus we are confronted by a

variety of political theories, each distinguished by a discipline on which it is based. Fourthly,
political theory not only comprehends and explains the social and political reality but is also
actively engaged in hastening the process of history. The task of political theory is not only to
understand and explain but also to device ways and means to change the society. As Laski put it,
the task is not merely one of description of what it is but also a prescription of what ought to be.
Thus political theory recommends agencies of action as well as means of reform, revolution or
conservation. It contains programmes that embody both ends and means. Political theory plays a
double role: to understand society and to suggest how to remove the imperfections. And lastly,
political theory also includes political ideology. Ideology in simple language means ‘a system of
beliefs, values and ideals by which people allow them to be governed’.
4.4. Significances of political theories
The significance of political theory can be derived from the purpose it serves or supposed to
serve and the task performed by it. Political theory is a form of all embracing system of values
which a society or its proponents adopts as its ideal with a view to understand the political reality
and, if necessary, to change it. It involves speculation at higher level about the nature of good
life, the political institutions appropriate for its realization, to what end the state is directed and
how it should be constituted to achieve those ends. The significance of political theory lies in
providing the moral criteria that ought to be used to judge the ethical worth of a political state
and to propose alternative political arrangements and practices likely to meet the moral
standards. The importance of political theory lies in providing (i) a description of the political
phenomena, (ii) a non-scientific (based upon philosophy or religion) or a scientific (based upon
empirical studies) explanation, (iii) proposals for the selection of political goals and political
action, and iv) moral judgment.
4.5. Major Schools of Political Theory
There are several competing political theories or approaches that provide different explanation
and assumptions for basic political questions such as “Who’s running the game of politics,”
“Who wins, who loses,” and “Who plays and who doesn’t play?” “Whose interest should get
priority and Why?” Pluralism, Corporatism, Elitism, and Marxism are among such competing
political theories that will be addressed in detail under this chapter.
Page 68
A). Pluralism
Pluralism is a political theory emerged from western political culture where there is liberal
political tradition such as West Europe, US and Australia. Pluralists judge society not by its
actual equality but by its equality of political opportunity. They contend comparatively equal
chance of individuals to participate in government. By mobilizing resources (collecting
signatures on a petition, for example) they can make existing groups share their influence, or
they can create new organizations that will compete with established ones. It stresses on
individual liberty and equality and hence human being is seen as individual rather than as
organic whole. The priority in pluralism is how to maximize individual’s civil liberty and
political equality and equality of opportunity rather than social equality or equality of outcomes.
Pluralism is a doctrine of diversity. Pluralism is the theory that a multitude of groups exist in a
country having different interests and priorities. Because pluralism take its starting point to be a
modern society in which there are different interests, popular power is realized through group
activity, the working of political parties and pressure groups or interest groups, each of which
represents one of the many interests into which a developed society is split. Pluralist perspectives
salute and emphasize this diversity of interest, and like liberal theorists they see this variety as a
necessary and positive dimension of social life. Since the participants in this process constitute
only a tiny fraction of the populace, the public acts mainly as bystanders. So it is groups of
society that represent interests of individuals, not the whole populous, that govern a country.
Pluralism is a Group Theory of Democracy. Pluralism argues that no one is all-powerful. They
do not claim that power is likely to be distributed equally. The sources of power are unequally
though widely distributed among individuals and groups within society. Power is fragmented and
diffused, and the basic picture presented by pluralists is of a political marketplace where what a
group achieves depends on its resources and its ‘decibel rating’. An individual or group that is
influential in one realm may be weak in another. In other words, according to pluralists, society
is dominated not by a single elite but rather by a multiplicity of relatively small groups, some of
which are well organized and funded, some of which are not. Although a few are larger and more
influential than the others, the scope of their power, far from being universal, is restricted to
relatively narrow areas such as defense, agriculture, or banking.
For pluralists politics is nothing except the struggle among groups for controlling the activities of
the government or influencing its decisions. Politics is understood or seen as an act of conflict
Page 69
and cooperation among various groups in society. Pluralism is a highly empirical theory based
upon observable phenomena. According to the pluralists, power is ‘an ability to influence policy
outcome‘. Any actual decision-making reveals that it is impossible to identify a single group or
elite which dominates policy making. Decision is a complex process which involves bargaining
among a plurality of individuals and groups, and the final outcome is a compromise. It claims
that power in the modern democratic societies does not belong to single elite but to different
groups and interests who compete for influence, are able to share power, and influence the
decision-making at some level or the other. Rejecting both the Marxist and the Elitist notions, the
pluralistic theory lays stress on the plurality of factors affecting policy outcome. The decisions
arrived at may not be the best but the desired one and result of compromise and agreement
among a variety of different groups. Since power is a type of influence, it does not belong to a
single factor like wealth, but can be anything like ability, reputation, popularity, charisma, or
general favorable position with regard to any value. Power is not simply property that can be
given to one group or denied to another on the basis of social and economic position.
In general, pluralism is a Group Theory of Democracy. People participate in politics by their

membership in groups, and these groups, through competition and compromise, create public
policy. Pluralists are convinced that public policy emerges from competition among groups.
Since relatively few people participate actively in this process, power, it might seem, would be
concentrated in few hands. There are four key concepts in the pluralist argument:
 Fragmentation of power: No one group is dominant, therefore all must bargain. Power is
divided, though not equally;
 Bargaining: The government acts as a referee in this process. The government will make
sure the “rules of the game” are followed and can intervene to help weaker groups;
 Compromise: The inevitable result of the competition among relatively equal rivals is a
series of compromises. Accommodation is made easier by the fact that most individuals
are members of many groups; and
 Consensus: Underlying the entire process is a basic agreement on the general political
ideals and goals of society. Agreement on rules and results is the “cement that holds
society together.” Specific examples include agreeing on the importance of civil liberties
and the goal of equality of opportunity.
Perhaps the most influential exponent of pluralist theory, and certainly very important for the
study of policy processes, has been Robert Dahl. Dahl (1958) argues that power in many
Western industrialized societies is widely distributed among different groups. No group is
without power to influence decision making, and, equally, no group is dominant. Any group can
Page 70
ensure that its political preferences and wishes are adopted if it is sufficiently determined. Dahl
and colleagues argue that their position is not that power is equally distributed. Rather, pluralist
theory argues that the sources of power are unequally though widely distributed among
individuals and groups within society. The dominant theme in the work of Dahl is that
government agencies are one set of pressure groups among many others. So it both pursues its
own preferences and responds to demands coming from outside interests.
No one single group possesses power to the exclusion of others. Interests such as industrial,
agricultural, businessmen and consumers, housewives, students and others balance each other in
the pursuit of their own ends. Politics acts as a ‘honest broker’ and is independent of any
particular interest. The individual has his views represented in policy-making, not only through
elections but also through the participatory mechanism of group politics. The pluralist notion
thus emphasizes major feature of the process of government decision making, the plurality of
actors involved, the emphasis on subjective rather than objective interests and the fact that the
policy outcome seldom reflects the values preferences of one single group. However, the
pluralists also accept the fact that only a very small minority of the population organized into
groups determines the policy in most areas. It is sufficient if the ordinary people join a group.
Pluralism was however an attack on earlier work that stressed power concentrations. Dahl
maintains that the ruling elite model has not been examined properly. He draws attention to the
fact that power involves a relationship between political actors (individuals, groups, etc.) and he
emphasized that power must be studied in cases where there are differences of preferences
between actors. This can be criticized by pointing out that much power is not likely to be very
visible. It is exercised more covertly and through the subtle cultural processes which influence
how people determine their activities and interests. This is not a satisfactory model for
democracy (it is too indirect and it is impossible to generate the ‘general will’ through such
diversity). Pluralism provides a misleading optimistic picture of the way power is organized in
those societies described as pluralist. Many feel that consensus on democratic ideals masks the
real inequity of economic and social distribution of benefits, that the majority of people have no
part in the political game, and those powerful elites prevent issues from ever reaching the public.
Other critics point to the political inflation of too many groups choking government with too
many demands (hyper-pluralism).
B). Elitism (Elite Theory)
Page 71
The origin of Elite Theory lies most clearly in the writings of Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941),
Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), and Robert Michels (1876-1936). In 20th century, the significance
of organizational control and institutional position is underlined as key political resources.
Important in this context was the creation of bureaucratic systems of administration to carry out
the increasing responsibilities taken on by the state from the 19th century onwards. In connection
to this, the term elitism may be used to describe a situation in which power is concentrated in the
hands of a limited number of people. Elite theory is the sociological or political science analysis
of elite (i.e., ruling class) influence in society - elite theorists regard pluralism as a utopian ideal.
Elitism is a two class theory of politics. For elitists two classes of people appear in any
civilization; a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class, always the less numerous,
performs all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages that power brings.
The second, and more numerous, class is directed and controlled by the first, in a manner that is
now more or less legal, now more or less arbitrary and violent.
Elites may be defined as persons who, by virtue of their strategic locations in large or otherwise
pivotal organizations and movements, are able to affect political outcomes regularly and
substantially. Put differently, elites are persons with the organized capacity to make real political
trouble without being promptly repressed. They consist not only of prestigious and “established”
leaders–top politicians, important businessmen, high-level civil servants, senior military
officers–but also, in varying degrees in different societies, relatively transitory and less
individually known leaders of mass organizations such as trade unions, important voluntary
associations, and politically consequential mass movements.” Some synonyms for "elite" might
be "upper-class," "aristocratic," or "big-headed" indicating that the individual in question has a
relatively large degree of control over a society's means of production. This includes those who
gain this position due to socioeconomic means and not personal achievement.
However, these terms are misleading when discussing elitism as a political theory, because they
are often associated with negative "class" connotations and fail to appreciate a more unbiased
exploration of the philosophy. Political elites achieve their position in a number of ways: through
revolutionary overthrow, military conquest, the control of water power (key resource in oriental
societies), or the command of economic resources. Bottomore (1966) makes a distinction
between the political elite (individuals who actually exercise power in a society at any given time
and include members of government, high administration, military leaders and politically
Page 72
influential families of aristocracy or royal house, and leaders of powerful economic enterprises)
and the political class (comprising the political elite but also leaders of political parties in
opposition, trade union leaders, businessmen and politically active intellectuals, so basically
elites from other areas of social life). The question how power is exercised can be answered by
emphasizing the importance of economic power. Elite theory represents an important alternative
to pluralism.
The essence of Elitism is that power is concentrated in the hands of a small group of people in
the society who take day-to-day decisions of the government. The rulers in the political system
are few in number compared with the ruled. The term Elite originally meant the ‘elect ‘or the
‘best’ class of a society. Politically it means that societies are always dominated by a minority
(elite), the selected few, who take major decisions within the society and who concentrate power
in their own hands. These small elite can consist of administrators, dictators, warriors, wealthy
men, religious priests or any other group of men in the society. Though the composition of elites
may change over a period of time, i.e. they continue to circulate, but they are always present.
‘History is a graveyard of aristocracy‘.
Elitist rejected the Marxist view that political power is determined by economic class structure
but declared that power belonged to men who exercise political skill. And it must always be so
because of two reasons: i) a minority can organize itself better, and ii) it has some attributes
which are very influential in the society they live. Similarly Mosca wrote that the rule of
governing elite is ensured by its superior organization and caliber; the domination of an
organized minority over the unorganized majority is inevitable. The distinguishing character of
the elite is the aptitude to command and exercise political power. Michels formulated the famous
rule of ‘iron law of oligarchy by which he meant ‘rule of the few‘. He declared it as ‘one of the
iron laws of history, from which the most democratic modern societies, and within those
societies, the most advanced parties, have been unable to escape. The elite rule applies to all
societies irrespective of their being liberal, socialist or communist.
The Elite theory claims that power in the society is the preserve of particular social groups and
they hold power not only because they are highly organized but also because they possess certain
special qualities such as physical power, ability, skill, wealth, superior race etc. The elite have
more power since political, economic and ideological powers are all concentrated in their hands.
The nature of elites was investigated by a number of writers such as Karl Mannheim,
Schumpeter, Anathony Down, Raymond Aron, Bottomore, Robert Dahl, C. Wright Mills etc.
Mills, for example, in his book The Power Elite declared that three interlocking groups which
dominated the ‘command power‘ in American society were the political leaders, corporate
Page 73
leaders and the military leaders. Most of these elites groups, thought not elected controlled the
direction of American politics. The struggle for power virtually took place among these
contending elites with the result that men in authoritative roles change from time to time, but
power remained within the elite groups and never percolated to the masses. Even in democratic
societies, government decisions and initiative of policy lie with the elites, unrestrained by
masses.
Concern with the functioning of elites in politics is as old as the study of politics itself. However,
the development of elite theory in the twentieth century was a reaction against Marxism and
Western European socialist movements. Whereas Marxism emphasized the unified power of a
particular class, the elitist theory argued that due to the separation of ownership and control of
industry, such minorities were not necessarily owners of the means of production but might
wield a variety of power resources. Any future society, whether socialist or communist, would
also be subjected to minority rule. Genuine democracy was impossible in the face of elite rule.
Power is not the monopoly of a particular group or a class. In understanding why elites develop,
the crucial point is political and not economic. The elites are organized and the masses are not.
Thus if politics is power, then this power belongs not to a particular class but to a minority of
elites in the society.
Some critiques of Elite Theory include the difficulty that exist to understand elite behavior
regarding whether they are devoted for interests of the society or to their own personal interests
while they made decisions. The difficulty is not merely that elite behavior is poorly understood;
it always contains enough elements of arbitrariness, capriciousness, or simple lack of obvious
explanation to defy deterministic explanation. It must also be recognized that elite theory is
distasteful to many because it rules out the more ideal aims and outcomes that are regularly
voiced by intellectuals, mass movement leaders, and even loosely predicted by social scientists.
Elite theory has no place for idealized visions of democracy or social revolution, nor does it have
a place for the spread of new values that dispose human beings toward a consistent and thorough
altruism. Human conflicts inevitably dilute social cohesion and constitute political problems that
elites must manage as best they can. However well or poorly they accomplish this task, elites are
the central actors in politics, but the theory that centers on them is unlikely to have many
enthusiastic adherents.
Many democrats and social radicals have rejected elitists’ ideals and they have sought to
demonstrate that particular elites are not those with superior endowments or organizational
capacities, but merely persons who are socially advantaged in power competitions. Adherents of
this view have argued that the existence of elites can be terminated either by removing the social
Page 74
advantages that some people enjoy or by abolishing the power concentrations that spur
competitions among them – remedies that often go hand-in-hand. There are no historical
instances, however, where these remedies have been successfully applied in a large population
for any significant length of time. Critics of the power elite cite a lack of unity within and among
elites and the overreliance on a conspiracy theory.
C). Marxism (Marxist political theory)
Liberal-individualistic (pluralist) political theory was challenged by Marx, Engels and their
subsequent followers in the later half nineteenth century by their ‘scientific socialism’. While
socialism extends back far beyond Marx’s time, it was he who brought together many ideas
about the ills of society and gave them a great sense of urgency and relevancy. No political
theory can ignore the study of Marxist history, politics, society and economics. The knowledge
of Marxism has put us in a better position to analyze the socio, economic developments.
Marxism introduced a new concept of philosophy conceived as a way to the liberation of

mankind. The task of knowledge, according to Marx, is not only to understand the world but also
to change the material conditions of human life. He insisted that the salvation is to be found by
man in this world itself and it laid in the revolutionary reconstitution of the present society and
the establishment of a socialist society. His complaint against liberal capitalism was that it was a
civilization of property, inequality and family fortune for a few and most degrading conditions
for the vast number of people. Socialism was an attempt to secure the necessary, if not sufficient,
conditions for the realization of emancipation of mankind. It is the establishment of a society on
rational basis—a society in which ‘man shall not be exploited by man’, a society in which men
will have the full opportunity to develop their potentialities and personality, a classless and
stateless society in which ‘the free development of each shall be the condition for the free
development of all’.
Marxist political theory is a theory of social change and revolutionary reconstitution of society.
In this context, Marxism consists of three inter-related elements; that are (i) an examination and
critique of the present and past societies. This is known as Dialectical materialism and historical
materialism; ii) the notion of an alternative model against a society based upon exploitation and
divided among classes. The new society is based on the common ownership of the means of
production in which human potential will be allowed to freely develop its manifold facets. Such
a society will be classless and stateless; iii) how to being about such a society’. Though there was
a general agreement that capitalist system was unstable and crisis-ridden but the advent of
Page 75
socialism required a revolutionary action by the proletariat, whose growing impoverishment will
lead to revolution, and establishment of a socialist state and society.
The central themes of Marxist political theory are mode of production, class division, class
struggle, property relations, revolution and state as an instrument of class domination. Marxism
also examined the nature of rights, liberty, equality, justice and democracy but came to the
conclusion that in a class divided society, they are the prerogatives of the propertied class. Real
liberty and equality can be achieved only in a classless and stateless society. Thus whereas
liberal political theory was associated with the establishment of modern liberal capitalist
democratic state, Marxist political theory preoccupied itself with the establishment of a socialist
state through revolutionary action.
Marxism as the economic, social and political theory and practice originating in the works of
Marx and Engles, has been enriched by a number of revolutionaries, philosophers, academicians
and politicians. It has also been subject to a variety of interpretations. Marxism today is seen,
above all, as the ideology that sustained the Soviet empire until its collapse and – increasingly
unconvincingly – is argued to continue to hold sway in China. But it must be remembered that
Carl Marx’s original model postulated a theory of history in which the means of production is a
dominant and determining force. So this takes the issues about the determination of policy in a
very different direction so that it attempts to suggest that a power structure determined by the
means of production is of dominant importance. In advanced Western industrialized societies the
capitalist mode of production dominates, giving rise to two major social classes: the bourgeoisie
(owners of the means of production) and the proletariat (those who work for the bourgeoisie).
According to classical Marxist theory, the social structure of a capitalist society is essentially a
‘class structure’.
Marxists analyzed the distribution of income and wealth, and changes in this distribution over
time, demonstrates the continued concentration of wealth in a small section of the population.
The question he then asks is whether this economically dominant class exercises decisive
political power. In other words, he explores the relationship between economic power and
political power. He argues that the state is not a neutral agent, but rather an instrument for class
domination. Marxists suggests three reasons why the state is just an instrument of bourgeois
domination in capitalist society: similarity in social background between bourgeoisie and
members of the state elite (senior positions in government, civil service, military); power of
bourgeoisie to use pressure through personal contacts and networks and through the associations
representing business & industry; and state is constrained by the objective power of capital. So
the state acts as an instrument, which serves the long-term interests of the whole bourgeoisie.
Marxists thus suggests that state expenditure serves the interest of monopoly capital, and that a
Page 76
class-conscious political directorate (acting on behalf of monopoly capitalist class interests) runs
the state.
For Marxist theory the social structure of a capitalist society is essentially a ‘class structure’. The
two classes that confront each other in a capitalist society are the bourgeoisie (the owners of the
means of production) and the proletariat (who work for the bourgeoisie). The class struggle will
intensify, as the nature of competitive production forces the bourgeoisie to systematically reduce
the rewards going to the proletariat. This process of ‘immiseration’ will eventually lead the
increasingly unified proletariat to rise up to overthrow the bourgeoisie. That revolution will lead
to the replacement of capitalism by socialism. As a result, the class struggle will intensify and
will eventually lead to the increasingly unified proletariat to rise up to overthrow the bourgeoisie.
To this end, violent revolution is needed that is inspired and led by proletariat class that
eventually replace capitalism with communism as a system of government..
D). Corporatism (Corporatist theory)
There is also a particular attention will be given to a consideration of a body of theory that can be
seen as in many respects a precursor of network theory, the theory of corporatism. While it
would be argued that much of this theory has been discredited, it is important to look at it, not
merely because of the place it occupies in the evolution of theory but also because corporatist
tendencies can still be identified in the policy-making systems of some countries. What then is
given primary attention is a variety of approaches to the examination of the policy process,
which stress the extent to which interest groups are aggregated into networks or policy
communities to provide more coordinated systems of power.
Corporatism, according to Schmitter, is a system of interest representation. It is a system of

economic, political, or social organization that involves division of the people of society into
corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labor, military, patronage, or scientific
affiliations, on the basis of common interests. Corporatism is based theoretically upon the
interpretation of a community as an organic body. The term corporatism is based on the Latin
root "corpus" meaning "body". The theory indicates that there is a need to pay attention to the
ways in which powerful interest or pressure groups outside the state and groups within the state
relate to each other. It tends to develop a single model, which gathers the ‘parties’ to this
relationship into three overarching groups: Capital, Labour and the State.
Page 77
One of the main types of corporatism is economic tripartism involving negotiations between
business, labor, and state interest groups to establish economic policy. Schmitter analysed two
forms of corporatism: state and societal. State corporatism is authoritarian and anti-liberal (top-
down). The label is applied to the political systems of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, used to
reduce opposition and reward political loyalty. In contrast, societal corporatism originated in the
decay of pluralism in western European and North American political systems (bottom-up). The
emerging societal corporatism came to replace pluralism as the predominant form of interest
representation (the need to secure conditions for capital accumulation – e.g. concentration of
ownership and competition between national economies – forced the state to intervene more
directly and to bargain with political associations).
Moves towards the development of representative systems of powerful economic interest groups
which share a preference for a particular model of state regulation or which are characterized by
closer and more dependent links with the state. Neo-corporatism defines a model for the
transmission of requests from society to the state, which must pass through the major functional
associations of interests, in particular those of the greatest economic importance: the trade unions
and employers' associations. In such systems, the social categories that make them up are limited
in number, and explicitly recognized, or created, by the state, which consequently offers them a
monopoly of representation and lays claim in exchange to certain influence, for example over the
selection of the leaders and the voicing of demands.
In their criticism of pluralism, theories of corporatism and neo-corporatism tend to stress the
autonomous role of the state as a third collective actor in the processes of social exchange and
bargaining. Neo-corporatist models differ from those of corporatism, both of the nineteenth-
century pre-industrial type and of the Fascist authoritarian type, in the extensive constitutional
autonomy of the groups involved and in the voluntary nature of the institutional integration of
the social categories in conflict. Neo-corporatism favored economic tripartism which involved
strong labor unions, employers' unions, and governments that cooperated as "social partners" to
negotiate and manage a national economy. They developed mainly in the post-war period, in
connection with the increased state intervention in the economy and with the growing
involvement of the central trade union and employers' associations in economic planning and
incomes policy. Unions and employers’ groups came to share the state’s power and became
‘governing institutions’. They were incorporated into the governmental system. Incorporation
means the inclusion of major interest groups into the governing process and not their
subordination. The effect of incorporation is to maintain harmony and avoid conflict by allowing
these groups to share power.
Page 78
In their criticism of pluralism, theories of corporatism and neo-corporatism tend to stress the
autonomous role of the state as a third collective actor in the processes of social exchange and
bargaining. However, the theory of corporatism paid little attention to interests outside the key
productive processes. It belonged to a world in which political conflict could still be seen as
involving interaction between the state and the two big organized groups highlighted by Marxist
theory: capital and labour. It may be seen as dated, if not by a realization that the world was
more complicated than that, then at least by recognition that the structure of interests in the
modern ‘post-industrial’ world is rather different. However, this theoretical work thus draws our
attention to the possibility that collaboration within networks may be a feature of the policy
process. Several models of corporatist theory can be identified and some of them are presented as
follow.
The Iron triangles model
It is a model of policy networks and policy communities. This model has suggested that there
may be a variety of separate linking systems between interests within government and those
outside, which is termed as ‘Iron triangles’. These are defined as a three-sided, mutually
advantageous relationship between members of Congressional Committees, Bureaucrats, and
interest groups. Most of the Congressional Committees and Subcommittees have relationships
with the agencies whose programs they authorize and appropriate money for. The committees
and the bureaucrats from the agencies have close relationships with interest groups that want to
influence policy. The iron triangle is a form of client politics, that is, it is only beneficial to few,
but a large part of society will pay the cost. They are also very difficult to penetrate or influence
from outside of the iron triangle. It should not be assumed that these relationships are simply
one-way. Pluralist theory can be seen as stressing the amount of competition between groups to
try to influence the state. Marxist theory goes to the other extreme of regarding the state as the
‘creature’ of capitalism. An alternative view is that sides need each other–the pressure groups
need to influence policy, the institutions of the state need support from powerful groups outside
it.
The advocacy coalition approach
In his work to refine the way in which policy implementation process is analyzed, Paul Sabatier
has developed what he calls an advocacy coalition’ approach. This theory sees the policy
process–from policy inception through to implementation–as involving as ‘advocacy coalition’
comprising actors from all parts of the policy system. It consists of actors from a variety of
institutions who share a set of policy beliefs. In short, it entails the coordinated action between a
Page 79
large numbers of actors from different institutions at multiple levels of government, aggregated
into a manageable number of units. It is all about realizing the coalition’s belief systems (goals,
perceptions, policy preferences).
Critiques of Corporatism
The problem with the policy community and policy network theory is that it offers a description
of how policy decision processes are organized, but not any explanation of why they are
organized in that way. The network theory in particular describes rather little except that most
activities involve networks. It lacks explanatory power and more like provides a ‘framework’
rather than a theory. Drawing our attention to the importance of networks and policy
communities tells us little about how they actually influence the policy process. Moreover, it
tends to provide too stable a picture of the world of policy makers. While the fluidity of networks
is recognized, and that there may be overlapping networks and networks within networks, there
is a difficulty in giving any sense of dynamism to the resultant process. Recognition of the need
to explore issues about networks in terms of interactions between actors, and to site them in a
wider environment, helps to deal with this.
UNIT FIVE
POLITICAL ACTORS: POLITICAL PARTIES, INTEREST GROUP, etc.
UNIT SIX
OVERVIEW OF POLITICS & POLITICAL SYSTEM OF ETHIOPIA
Page 80

Introduction To Politics YEAR 2

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

Introduction To Politics YEAR 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Course: Introduction to Politics & Government

1.1. What is Politics?

A. Politics as Organized Ways of Human lives

B. Politics as ‘art of the government’

As a practice of government, politics can therefore be defined as the art of decision-making

C. Politics as Public Affairs (and as a Social Activity)

Table: Two views of the Public/Private divide

D. Politics as Compromise and Consensus (i.e., the ‘Art of the Possible’)

1.2. Rationale for studying Politics

1.4. Approaches in the Study of Politics

A. The philosophical tradition

B. The Empirical tradition

amenable to experimentation. However, despite its perceived shortcomings the behavioural

1. Systems Analysis Approach

3. Class Analysis Approach

4. Political Parties and Interest Groups Approach

5. Voting and Public Opinion Approach

6. Comparative Politics Approach

7. Political Development Approach

8. Global/International system Approach

2.1. The State (Meaning, elements, etc)

2.2. Theories on the Origins of the State

A. The Divine Rights of Kings’ Theory

2.3. Key Elements of the Statehood

2.4. The distinctions between State and Nation

2.5. The Government (Meaning & features)

2.6 . A Government and the State: the Differences (& Confusion)

2.7. Types of government

2.7.1. Unitary Vs federal systems of government

a) The Unitary System of Government

Merits& Demerits of Unitary System of Government

In a unitary system of government, power is highly centralized and concentrated in one

b) Federalism (Federal System of Government)

Advantages a Federal System

Disadvantages of a Federal System

Presidential Vs Parliamentary System of Governments

Presidential System of Government

Advantages and Disadvantages of Presidential System of Government

Parliamentary System of Government

2.8. Political System (Regime)

1. Western polyarchies: these regimes are broadly equivalent to regimes categorized as

Accordingly, polyarchial regimes are distinguished by the combination of two general

 Majority democracies are organized along parliamentary line according to the

5. Military regimes: whereas most regimes are shaped by a combination of political,

regime a military-backed personalized dictatorship. In these cases, a single individual

6. Dictatorial Political System

Authoritarianism represents various forms of autocratic rule in which political authority

Totalitarianism is an advanced form of authoritarianism. In an authoritarian government

The concentration of political power on few individuals;

3.1. What is Ideology?

3.2. Characteristics of Ideology

Ideology is a systematic pattern of political thought. Just, like a theory, ideology is an

3.3. Functions of Ideology

3.4. Types of political ideologies

Classical Liberalism: The central theme of classical liberalism is a commitment to an extreme

Modern liberalism’s expanded outlook conceptualizes liberty as maximizing individual potential

Conservatism is an ideology that is generally thought of as seeking to conserve or preserve some

Neo-conservatism: Contemporary traditional conservatives share Burke’s goal of elevating the

Socialism is a political movement for the establishment of a socialist system of government. It is

In the development of socialism, it is traditionally understood to mean the application of

Scientific Socialism of Karl Marx: Scientific socialism is an attempt to demonstrate or apply

e) Marxism-Leninism (Communist Ideology)

Marxism-Leninism is a form of socialism articulated by Russian theorist and revolutionary