MPS001 IN ENGLISH

MPS001 Political Theory
Where every problem is solved of IGNOU.
The Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), established by an Act of Parliament in 1985,
World largest open University http://ignou.ac.in/
Mr. Manish Verma (M.A Political Science, B.Ed. , IGNOU Teacher ) Our aim is to reach the
unreached. I'm an educator of IGNOU students and trying to guide through my YouTube
channel https://www.youtube.com/c/ManishVermaLPA more than 8 years ago.
This channel helps you to Dream, Achieve & Succeed.
Successfully Joined us by millions of students.

We would like to thanks to the IGNOU Students
for the incredible support. We provide IGNOU
B.A & M.A Notes, Important Question with
Answer for the final exams, Solved
Assignments. And Online Classes. Subscribe our
YouTube channel: Manish Verma.
☏ +91 8368259468, 9599279672, 8882104776
✉ Gmail – manishvermaignou@gmail.com
ⒸManish Verma
©THE COPYRIGHT ACT 1957. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including Photocopying, recording, or other
electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the
case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted
by copyright law.
1|Page
1. What is political theory and why should we study it?

Answer-
What is Theory?
The first term is a theory that you need to know; otherwise you will not understand anything of
political theory.
The English word ‘Theory’ comes from the Greek word ‘Theoria’ which means “a looking at,
viewing, beholding”. In a sense of ancient Greek, the theory is to gain knowledge of a particular
phenomenon through thoughtfulness and intellectual insight. In general, the theory implies an
analytical framework.
But proponents of empiricism think that knowledge, which is based on some predetermined
self-reflection and make a conclusion based on that, cannot be called as theory.
According to them theory refers to Determines the inter-relationship between the various
information obtained from the experience and presents it in a coherent and meaningful way.
But the problem is that if the theory is based on only information by experiences then how we
define the concept of Freedom, Equality, and Justice, and so on.
So in general you can say that theory is a systematic study for systematic knowledge about a
particular phenomenon based on abstract ideas, rational character, generality, and non-
speculation in nature. The prime goal of the theory is to find out the human achievable truth.
What is Political?
Now you have to understand what politics is. Political mainly refers to power or authority. It
also refers to influence, control, and use of physical force or threat.
In Newspaper, we see a variety of issues related to the rape, racism, gender equality, political
party, March against the government. Now the question is, are these political issues?
Yes these issues are political because of all these issues related to power. And all these are
linked to the government institutions. So it can be said that political refers to the power to take
All Rights Reserved © Manish Verma YouTube, IGNOU Notes, Solved Assignments visit https://joshbadhao.com/
2|Page
decisions by the government institutions about common life or society. Here political refers to
power with (a government institution) and power to (common people and society).
But is it not 100 percent true. Rajeev Bhargava in his book (Political Theory: An Introduction)
explain political very accurately. He has used an example of women’s organization protesting
against the exclusion or unequal treatment of women.
So far as political has meant that the Woman Organization has never belonged to the political.
Because the Woman Organization is not part of the government organization.
But protest by women’s group is political. Their act is political. Women have long struggled
against some social practice. Unequal treatment over them means the use of power over them
by men or any social practices. Exercise of power in any type linked to the political and it refers
to power over also.
What is Political Theory?

The main point of this article is political theory. You have already got the meaning of Theory
and Political and now you will learn what it means when these two words sit together.
If theory refers to the systematic study for systematic knowledge about a particular
phenomenon or issues then, political theory is the systematic study for systematic knowledge
about political phenomena or issues.
Again, it can be said that political theory is a theory that deals with political matters. Political
theory is related to the science and philosophy of political affairs.
A British political scientist David Held nicely defines political theory as “a network of concept
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”.
3|Page
Why Should We Study Political Theory?

At the beginning of this post, I have highlighted some points about why should we study
political theory. Now it’s time to explain those points clearly so that you are able to understand
the importance of political theory.
No political theory means problems without a solution. You are part of a particular society. You
should understand that society from where you belong. The political theory makes it easy for
you.
People in every society carry ideas. From those ideas you can understand your position in that
society. Political theory helps us understand those concepts and helps us to realize our identity.
You ask yourself who are you? If your answer is you are a citizen of a particular country. Then
what do you mean by citizenship? The idea of citizenship is shaped by political theory and it has
its universal applicability. Just like this our concept of equality, freedom, rights, justice, etc, all
are shaped by political theory. Political theory decides how we look at our society as a political
animal.
Suppose you are a worker and your question yourself why are you so deprived? To find the
answer, you need to understand classes of society or the hierarchy of society. Karl Marx’s
theory of class struggle helps you to understand the notion of class. And you will also get the
answer to why you are so deprived of this hierarchical structure of society.
Conclusion
From the above discussion, it can be concluded that how much need for political theory in our
life, society, and the world as well. It helps to think, helps to find out the solution to problems
that are happening in our political world and it also gives the reasons for our every action of
political life.
4|Page
Again, it can say that no political theory means political problems without solutions. Every
subject grows because of its theoretical dimension. The theory makes a subject as a separate
academic discipline.
2, What is the relationship between multiculturalism and liberalism? Explain.
Answer-
Multiculturalism started to manifest itself in the political realm after 1980s. There are two main
events that triggered the rise of multiculturalism: Firstly, after the fall of communism in Eastern
Europe, nationalism has become the prominent element of the democratization process.
Secondly, a new wave of nationalism has risen among some groups in Western democratic
countries.
It has been observed that even the Western states that built on liberal values could not
completely overcome the problems regarding ethnic and religious groups in their societies.
Now, we live in more and more diversified and multicultural societies. Immigration and
minorities have been an imminent part of the debates of everyday politics for a very long time.
The politicians include their views and policies in their electoral campaigns, surveys are held to
get more information about public opinion and more importantly political theorist are looking
for new ways and perspectives as coping or integrating strategies. For instance, the question of
the illiberal minorities and the risk of them to violate the liberal principles was always there as a
problematic and debatable one.
Thus, this case brings us two important questions to discuss: To what extent should we protect
the minority rights and how should we recognize the minority identities?
For many, it is an undoubtedly accepted fact that liberal state should be neutral but what
should be the attitude of this neutral state when it comes to the clash between the values of
majority and minority?
5|Page
If we ever need to take one thing for granted in liberal state, it would be the strong idea that
each individual should have the necessary rights and opportunities to follow the ways which
lead them to a good life. Moreover, individuals should be free while deciding on their own
understanding of good life and should pursue their goals freely.
Therefore, this principle requires that individuals who are coming from different backgrounds
from the majority and having different religious and cultural customs and values should also
pursue their understanding of good life without giving up their own. Another important aspect
of liberal ideology concerning individual rights is that no state or government has the right to
conceptualize a project of good life and impose it upon its citizens. Thus, in my opinion any
attempts stepping out of this line could be easily labelled as assimilative regarding religious and
cultural minorities.
At this point, it would be notable to remind that, in the liberal state, an individual’s realm of
freedom ends when another individual begins. This is accepted as another important principle
of liberal state regarding individual freedom which is also seen as a guarantee of the individual
freedom of each member in the society. In this case, the rights that groups have been entitled
could go as far as that they would threat or violate the human rights and values. What should
be the attitude of the liberal state about an intervention? Do individuals choose to be a part of
these groups and communities?
The Proper Attitude of the Liberal Egalitarian towards Multiculturalism

Liberal egalitarians favor a system in which state treats its citizens equally and creates such an
environment that each member of the society gets a fair share from the resources and available
opportunities.
Although, this might seem as a clear principle at first sight, two conclusions can be driven from
this principle. First, the state should not intervene with the distribution of resources or try to
balance the gap its citizens and second, liberal egalitarian attitude requires that each religious
and cultural community should have equal chance to survive and continue to practise their
customs in the society.
6|Page
In contemporary modern democratic states such as UK, France, USA and Canada we see that
states spare necessary social, political and financial resources for the survival and continuity of
different religious communities and minority cultures. The reason for that is culture is
considered as an important aspect in shaping one’s own identity and his/ her own
interpretation of good life.
The second point of view acknowledges that the state should be neutral and acts within the
frame of laissez faire liberalism. Otherwise, the state can create inequalities among its citizens
by implementing redistributive policies or entitling minority groups with special rights. Thus,
the state should take the minimum part in the affairs of different cultural and religious groups
and by nothing or minimum it allows citizens to be treated equally.
Kymlicka and Multiculturalism Debate

Kymlicka locates his whole ideas on liberal theory and he is an important successor of liberal
tradition. Thus, he places individual autonomy prior to the community and communal values.
As a political philosophy, liberalism has often been seen as “primarily concerned with the
relationship between the individual and the state, and with limiting state intrusions on the
liberties of citizens”.
For some scholars, this component of liberalism is seen as a strong one about multiculturalist
affairs. In my opinion, this can be easily seen as one of the weaknesses of liberalism when it
comes to the deal with the problems regarding minorities and minority rights. If we are stuck
with the idea that liberal ideology is the only roof under which both majority and minority
values can be represented and peoples can live happily together. In one of his essays, Two
Models of Pluralism and Tolerance, Kymlicka also argues against Rawls’s ideas about individual
rights and defends the capabilities of group rights.
7|Page
Whereas Kymlicka believes that a well-functioning model can be built on the idea of group
rights, some scholars like Kukathas argue that there is no necessity for abandoning the liberal
ideology’s individualist principles and create new inequalities. Thus, this part will be focused on
this second form of tolerance which is named as group rights by Kymlicka.
Kymlicka’s theory is also famously known for his distinction between different types of
minorities based on their cultural aspects. According to him, there are societal cultures of
national minorities and the cultures of poly ethnic societies. National minorities are the ones
who continuously claim for their self-governmental rights. It is hard for them to get satisfied
just by being entitled to some special rights. For them, self-government is the only option for
their survival in multicultural society which is composed of a majority and different minority
groups.
Kymlicka argues that poly ethnic groups would always be weaker and less demanding in their
right claims because of the fact that they are immigrant communities. Their right claims would
be about practicing their cultural and religious customs. These communities should always bear
in mind that they come from another country and culture to be hosted in a new one and they
also have some duties such as learning a new language or integrating with the local community.
In his book, Politics in the Vernacular, Kymlicka frequently uses the term ‘societal culture’ and
states that societal culture should be considered as a fundamental basis for the modern state. It
is a concept consisted of both private and public spheres of life which is composed of a
common language which has historical roots on a given territory, common educational,
political, legal institutions. Moreover, societal culture is mostly the result of a national building
process and it includes linguistic standardization and institutional integration.
8|Page
Thus, he goes one step further from the idea that culture is an important aspect of self- respect
and self-recognition which paves the way for self- realization i.e. a good life. He adds
institutionalization and certain functioning administrative mechanisms to the shared history
and values. National minorities mostly have certain tragic events, massacres or genocides in
their history and they always feel or face the threat of assimilation or discrimination in the
nation building process.
This is why Kymlicka makes certain distinctions between immigrant groups and national
minorities. National minorities face with the results of the events that they did not have no say
in the decision making process in the most undesirable ways whereas immigrants mostly (here
he seems to forget that some immigrants are forced to leave their countries because of wars or
other terrific events) leave their country,in which they could practice their culture in the ways
they want, voluntarily for the sake of better economic opportunities.
3. Criticize the theory of justice of John Rawls.

Answer-
A Theory of Justice is a milestone book of political philosophy Sud ethics by John Rawls. It was
originally published in 19 and revised in both 1975 (for the translated editions) and 1999. In A
Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to solve the problem of distributive justice by utilising a
variant of the familiar device of the social contract. The ultant theory is known as "Justice as
Fairness", from which Rawis derives his two famous principles of justice: the liberty principle
and the difference principle.
In A Theory of Justice, Rawls argues for a principled reconciliation of liberty and equality.
Central to this effort is an account of the circumstances of justice (inspired by David Hume), and
a fair choice situation (closer in spirit to Immanuel Kant) for parties facing such circumstances.
Principles of justice are sought to guide the conduct of the parties. These parties face moderate
scarcity, and they are neither naturally altruistic nor purely egoistic: they have ends which they
seek to advance, but desire to advance them through cooperation with others on mutually
acceptable terms. Rawls offers a model of a fair choice situation (the original position with its
9|Page
veil of ignorance) within which parties would hypothetically choose mutually acceptable
principles of justice. Under such constraints, Rawls believes that parties would find his favored
principles of justice to be especially attractive, winning out over varied alternatives, including
utilitarian and libertarian accounts.
The First Principle of Justice
"First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with
a similar liberty for others.";
The basic liberties of citizens are, roughly speaking, political liberty (i.e., to vote and run for
office), freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal property;
and freedom from arbitrary arrest.
The first principle may not be violated, even for the sake of the second principle, above an
unspecified but low level of economic development (i.e., the first principle is, under most
conditions, lexically prior to the second principle). However, because various basic liberties may
conflict, it may be necessary to trade them off against each other for the sake of obtaining the
largest possible system of rights. There is thus some uncertainty as to exactly what is mandated
by the principle, and it is possible that a plurality of sets of liberties satisfy its requirements.
The Second Principle of Justice
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that:
a) They are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (the
difference principle).
b) Offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity,
10 | P a g e
Rawls' claim in a is that departures from equality of a list of what he calls primary goods 'things
which a rational man wants whatever else he wants! – are justified only to the extent that they
improve the lot of those who are worst-off under that distribution in comparison with the
previous, equal, distribution. His position is at least in some sense egalitarian, with a proviso
that equality is not to be achieved by worsening the position of the least advantaged. An
important consequence here, however, is that inequality can actually be just on Rawls' view, as
long as they are to the benefit of the least well off.
His argument for this position rests heavily on the claim that morally arbitrary factors (for
example, the family one is born into) shouldn't determine one's life chances or opportunities.
Rawls is also keying on an intuition that a person does not morally deserve their inborn talents,
thus one is not entitled to all the benefits they could possibly receive from them, meaning that
at least one of the criteria which could provide an alternative to equality in assessing the justice
of distributions is eliminated.
The stipulation in b is lexically prior to that in a Fair equality of opportunity requires not merely
that offices and positions are distributed on the basis of merit, but that all have reasonable
opportunity to acquire the skills on the basis of which merit is assessed.
It may be thought that this stipulation, and even the first principle of justice, may require
greater equality than the difference principle, because large social and economic inequalities,
even when they are to the advantage of the worst-off, will tend to seriously undermine the
value of the political liberties and any measures towards fair equality of opportunity.
Criticism
In 1974, Rawls' colleague at Harvard, Robert Nozick, published a defense of libertarian justice,
Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Because it is, in part, a reaction to A Theory of Justice, the two
books are now often read together. Another Harvard colleague, Michael Walzer, wrote a
defense of communitarian political philosophy, Spheres of Justice, as a result of a seminar he
co-taught with Nozick. In a related line of criticism, Michael Sandel (also a Harvard colleague)
11 | P a g e
wrote Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, which took Rawls to task for asking us to think about
justice while divorcing ourselves from the very values and aspirations that define us.
Sandel's line of argument in part draws on critiques of Rawls advanced by both Charles Taylor
and Alasdair. MacIntyre who argue for the importance of moral ontologies for ethical
arguments.
Robert Paul Wolff wrote Understanding Rawls: A Critique and Reconstruction of A Theory of
Justice immediately following the publication of A Theory of Justice, which criticized Rawls from
a roughly Marxist perspective. Wolff argues in this work that Rawls' theory is an apology for the
status quo insofar as it constructs justice from existing practice and forecloses the possibility
that there may be problems of injustice embedded in capitalist social relations, private property
or the market economy.
Feminist critics of Rawls, such as Susan Moller Okine, largely focused on the extent to which
Rawls' theory could account for (if at all) injustices and hierarchies embedded in familial
relations. Rawls argued that justice ought only to apply to the “basic structure of society".
Feminists, rallying around the theme of the personal is political', took Rawls to task for failing to
account for injustices found in patriarchal social relations and the gendered division of labor,
especially in the household.
The assumptions of the original position, and in particular, the use of maximin reasoning (a
decision rule used in decision theory, game theory, statistics and philosophy for minimizing the
possible loss while maximizing the potential gain), have also been criticized with the implication
either that Rawls designed the original position to derive the two principles, or that an original
position more faithful to its initial purpose would not lead to his favored principles.
In reply Rawls has emphasized the role of the original position as a "device of representation"
for making sense of the idea of a fair choice situation for free and equal citizens. Rawls has also
emphasized the relatively modest role that maximin plays in his argument: it is "a useful
heuristic rule of thumb" given the curious features of choice behind the veil of ignorance.
12 | P a g e
Some egalitarian critics have raised concerns over Rawls' emphasis on primary social goods. For
instance, Amartya Sen has argued that we should attend not only to the distribution of primary
goods, but also how effectively people are able to use those goods to pursue their ends. In a
related vein, Norman Daniels has wondered why healthcare shouldn't be treated as a primary
good, and some of his subsequent work has addressed this question, arguing for a right to
health care within a broadly Rawlsian framework.
Philosopher Allan Bloom, a student of Leo Strauss, criticized Rawls for failing to account for the
existence of natural right in his theory of justice, and wrote that Rawls absolutises social union
as the ultimate goal which would conventionalize everything into artifice.
4. What is the Frankfurt School? Explain.

Answer-
Frankfurt School, group of researchers associated with the Institute for Social Research in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany, who applied Marxism to a radical interdisciplinary social theory.
The Institute for Social Research was founded by Carl Grunberg in 1923 as an adjunct of the
University of Frankfurt; it was the first Marxist-oriented research Centre affiliated with a major
German university.
Max Horkheimer took over as director in 1930 and recruited many talented theorists, including
T.W. Adorno, Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, and Walter Benjamin. The members of the
Frankfurt School tried to develop a theory of society that was based on Marxism and Hegelian
philosophy but which also utilized the insights of psychoanalysis, sociology, existential
philosophy, and other disciplines.
They used basic Marxist concepts to analyze the social relations within capitalist economic
systems. This approach, which became known as “critical theory,” yielded influential critiques
of large corporations and monopolies, the role of technology, the industrialization of culture,
and the decline of the individual within capitalist society. Fascism and authoritarianism were
13 | P a g e
also prominent subjects of study. Much of this research was published in the institute’s journal,
“Journal for Social Research”
Most of the institute’s scholars were forced to leave Germany after Adolf Hitler’s accession to
power (1933), and many found refuge in the United States. The Institute for Social Research
thus became affiliated with Columbia University until 1949, when it returned to Frankfurt. In
the 1950s the critical theorists of the Frankfurt School diverged in several intellectual
directions.
Most of them disavowed orthodox Marxism, though they remained deeply critical of capitalism.
Marcuse’s critique of what he perceived as capitalism’s increasing control of all aspects of social
life enjoyed unexpected influence in the 1960s among the younger generation. Jürgen
Habermas emerged as the most prominent member of the Frankfurt School in the postwar
decades, however. He tried to open critical theory to developments in analytic philosophy and
linguistic analysis, structuralism, and hermeneutics.
5. Explain the difference between positive and negative liberty.
Answer-
Liberty is a concept in political philosophy that identifies the condition in which human beings
are able to govern themselves, to behave according to their own free will, and take
responsibility for their actions. There are different conceptions of liberty, which articulate the
relationship of individuals to society in different ways, including some which relate to life under
a “social contract” or to existence in a "state of nature”, and some which see the active exercise
of freedom and rights as essential to liberty
Individualist and classical liberal conceptions of liberty typically consist of the freedom of
individuals from outside compulsion or coercion, also known as negative liberty, while Social
liberal conceptions of liberty emphasize social structure and agency, or positive - liberty.
14 | P a g e
In feudal societies, a "liberty” was an area of allodial (Allodial title constitutes ownership of real
property -land, buildings and fixtures that is independent of any superior landlord) land in
which the rights of the ruler, or monarch, had been waived.
Opinions on what constitute liberty can vary widely, but can be generally classified as positive
liberty and negative liberty. Positive liberty asserts that freedom is found in a person's ability to
exercise agency, particularly in the sense of having the power and resources to carry out their
own will, without being inhibited by the structural inhibitions from society such as racism,
classism or sexism. In the negative sense, one is considered free to the extent to which no
person Interferes with his or her activity. According to Thomas Hobbes, for example, "a free
man is he that is not hindered to do what he hath. the will to do.".
John Stuart Mill, in his work. On Liberty, was the first to recognize the difference between
liberty as the freedom to act and liberty as the absence of coercion: In his book, Two Concepts
of Liberty, Isaian Daun formally framed the differences between these two perspectives as c
distinction between two opposite concepts of liberty: positive liberty... and negative liberty.
The latter designates a negative condition in which an individual is protected from tyranny and
the arbitrary exercise of authority, while the former refers to having the means or opportunity,
rather than the lack of restraint, to do things.
Negative liberty.
Negative liberty is defined as freedom from interference by other people, and is set in contrast
to positive liberty which is defined as an individual's freedom from inhibitions of the social
structure within the society such as classism, sexism or racism and is primarily concerned with
the possession of sociological agency. According to Thomas Hobbes, "a free man is he that in
those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do is not hindered to do what he hath
the will to do", thus alluding to liberty in its negative sense).
The distinction between negative and positive liberty was drawn by Isaiah Berlin in his 1958
lecture "Two Concepts of Liberty. According to berlin, the distinction is deeply embedded in the
political tradition. In Berlin's words, "liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the
15 | P a g e
question: 'What is the area within which the subject a person or group of persons iis or should
be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons'.”.
Restrictions on negative liberty are imposed by a person, not by natural causes or incapacity.
Helvetius expresses the point clearly: "The free man is the man who is not in irons, nor
imprisoned in a goal, nor terrorized like a slave by the fear of punishment it is not lack of
freedom, not to fly like an eagle or swim like a whale."
Frankfurt School psychoanalyst and humanistic philosopher Erich Fromm drew a similar
distinction between negative and positive freedom in his 1941 work, The Fear of Freedom that
predates Berlin's essay by more than a decade. Fromm sees the distinction between the two
types of freedom emerging alongside humanity's evolution away from the instinctual activity
that characterizes lower animal forms. This aspect of freedom, he argues, “is here used not in
its positive sense of freedom to' but in its negative sense of freedom from', namely freedom
from instinctual determination of his actions: "For Fromm, then, negative freedom marks the
beginning of humanity as a species conscious of its own existence free from base instinct.
The distinction between positive and negative liberty is considered specious by socialist and
Marxist political philosophers, who argue that positive and negative liberty are
indistinguishable in practice, or that one cannot exist without the other.
Positive liberty
Positive liberty is defined as the power and resources to act to fulfill one's own potential (this
may include freedom from internal constraints); as opposed to negative liberty, which is
freedom from "external restraint.
Inherent to the concept of positive liberty is the idea that liberty is defined by the ability of
citizens to participate in their government, or in voluntary co-operation in the case of
anarchists. Specifically, the concepts of structure and agency are central to the concept of
positive liberty because in order to be free, a person should be free from inhibitions of the
social structure in carrying out their free will. Structurally speaking classism, sexism or racism
16 | P a g e
can inhibit a person's freedom and positive liberty is primarily concerned with the possession of
sociological agency.
Although Isaiah Berlin's essay "Two Concepts of Liberty” is typically acknowledged as the first to
explicitly draw the distinction between positive and negative liberty, Frankfurt School
psychoanalyst and Marxist humanistic philosopher Erich Fromm drew a similar distinction
between negative and positive freedom in The Fear of Freedom (1941), predating Berlin's essay
by more than a decade. In fact, the concept as opposed to the name is probably as old as that
of negative liberty, both referred to simply as "liberty" or "freedom".
6. Write an article on Democratic Socialism.
Ans: The term democracy indicates both a set of ideals and a political system, a feature it
shares with the terms communism and socialism. ‘Democracy’ is harder to pin down, however,
than either ‘Socialism’ or ‘Communism’, for while the latter labels have found in Marxism an
ideological matrix, democracy has never become identified with a specific doctrinal source-it is
rather a by-product of the entire process of liberalization of Western civilization. Not every
political system claims to be a socialist system, but even the communist system claims to be
democratic.
If we look into the history of socialism, we would find that successful socialist movements have
grown up only in nations with strong democratic traditions, such as Great Britain, Holland,
Belgium, Switzerland, Australia etc. This is so because, where democratic constitutional
government is generally accepted, socialists concentrate on certain programme like creation of
opportunities for the underprivileged classes ending inequality, opening educational
opportunities, ending discriminatory practices, regulation of economy for the benefit of all, and
finally the proposal to rebuild society based on cooperation instead of competition.
DEMOCRACY AND CONTEMPORARY SOCIALISM:
It is important to note that his close associate Friedrich Engels does not speak about
democracy, but always about pure democracy. By this he meant a bourgeois state, in which
general suffrage prevails, but private property is not touched. It meant that it was either
17 | P a g e
possible to erect a socialist state directly after the overthrow of feudal and military monarchy
or pure democracy, that is the bourgeoisie capitalistic republic, would first come into power. At
that time, people came to accept a democratic state, as a bourgeoisie state governed by a
method of general suffrage.
When Marx began his political activities, he found democracy to be already a great
international movement. The history of European democracy extended back two and a half
millennia. In the republics of ancient Greece, the political form of democracy was the contract
to aristocracy or oligarchy, to the rule of the “minority” of the rich or noble. In contrast to this,
democracy was the rule of majority, of the masses in general, whereby the owners of property
or the bearers of nobility had no privilege to claim. Greek political science already occupied
itself with the question, whether every state in which will of the majority of citizens decides is a
democracy, no matter what the composition of this majority is and how it arises or whether a
definite class character belongs to a democracy. Aristotle answered the question thus: that
democracy is nothing more than the rule of poor in the state; just as oligarchy is the rule of the
rich.
In the middle ages, democratic forms showed themselves in urban communes. During
transition to modern times, the radical religious sects became the bearers of democratic ideas.
Thus, democratic masses and their leaders were united in a distrust of modern development,
and their view that both republic and democracy were primarily a moral matter, a moral
renewal of the human race, already contained a condemnation of modern economic and social
development.
Today, the democratic ideal is more than a mere composite of individualism, socialism and
nationalism. It is based upon the acceptance and promotion of characteristics of life of each
group of men, thus uniting individualism with a form of regionalism or nationalism and on the
other hand, it implies an organization of any one group, which is less homogenous than that
implied in the earlier forms of socialism. For democracy, implies a freedom of voluntary
association and the performance by such associations of many functions which the earlier
socialists would have left to the state.
18 | P a g e
Democracy is to begin with a principle of legitimacy. Power is legitimate only when Socialist
Democracy it is derived from authority of the people and based upon their consent. From a
normative standpoint, the definition of democracy strictly derives from the literal meaning of
the term-“Power of the people”.
Marxism has popularized the expression ‘economic democracy’ and guild socialism; Webb’s
book ‘Industrial Democracy’ (1897) has given currency to the label ‘industrialist democracy’.
The labels people’s democracy, soviet democracy and the like, pose a special democracy. When
the socialist movement revived in Europe in the late 1860’s, most socialist leaders were under
the influence of Marxism. In 1881, the German Social Democratic Party and in 1897 the Swedish
Democratic Social Party, accepted public ownership of all means of production, distribution and
exchange as their objectives. Other socialist parties adopted the same objectives in their
constitutions or manifestoes, and even the British labour movement, which had not accepted
socialism till 1918, adapted to some extent the aim of public ownership.
Conclusion
Thus, the socialists in the underdeveloped world can draw some valuable lessons from a survey
of these changes in the fortunes of communism and social democracy in Western countries and
the altered objectives of social democratic parties.
7.Describe the main features of conservatism.
Ans: Conservatism is a political philosophy that stressed the importance of tradition,

established institutions and customs and preferred gradual development to quick
change. Conservatives believed that established, traditional institutions of state and
society – like the monarchy, the Church, social hierarchies, property and the family –
should be preserved.
Conservatism
1. Conservatism, is a cultural, social and political philosophy that promotes and seeks to
preserve traditional social institutions.
19 | P a g e
2. The core principles of conservatism may vary from region to region depending on the
traditions and practices of the region, but they all oppose modernism and seek a return
to traditional values.
Main features of conservatism.
1. Individual Freedom: The birth of our great nation was inspired by the bold declaration that
our individual,God-given liberties should be preserved against government intrusion. That same
conviction informs our conservative policy decisions still today. In America,we proclaim the self-
evident truths that all of us are created equal and granted by God the same inherent freedoms,
such as the natural and unalienable rights to life, liberty, conscience, free speech and the free
exercise of religion, and the ability to pursue happiness, own property, build wealth and defend
ourselves and our families. The purpose of government is to secure these rights, and the ideas
we advance should always aim to maintain and increase the liberty of the American people.
2. Limited Government For individual liberty to be championed, government must be reduced.

We believe, as our founders did, that legitimate government operates only by the consent of
the governed, and is more efficient and less corrupt when it is limited in its size and scope.
When applied as written, our incomparable Constitution provides important safeguards against
government encroachment, a vital separation of powers, and a necessary system of checks and
balances. Federalism, decentralized authority, and the elimination of unnecessary regulations
and bureaucracy help ensure that government serves the people, and not the other way
around. The best protection against government largesse is an engaged and informed
electorate.
3. The Rule of Law Our is "a government of laws and not of men," and the rule of law is our
foundation. To maintain ordered liberty and a civilized society, public and private virtue should
be encouraged and justice must be administered equally and impartially to all. Each branch of
government must adhere to the Constitution, and the judicial branch must not be allowed to
assume or exercise legislative or executive powers. Transparency and accountability are keys to
good government, and Congress must faithfully perform its constitutional responsibility of
oversight.
20 | P a g e
4. Peace through Strength The first obligation of the federal government is to provide for the
"common defense" of the United States by protecting our homeland and our strategic interests
abroad. Because America serves in a natural role of moral leadership in an increasingly
dangerous world, and weakness invites aggression, we must remain the strongest military
power on earth fully prepared and capable of defeating any adversaries, tyrants or terrorists,
under any circumstances,at any time. Adequate investment is necessary to maintain the air,
land, sea,nuclear and cyber warfare.
5. Fiscal Responsibility Because government has refused to live within its means, America is
facing an unprecedented debt and spending crisis. Federal debt now exceeds $26 trillion, and
our current fiscal path is unsustainable and dangerous,jeopardizing our nation's economic
growth, stability and the security of future generations. Congress has a moral and constitutional
duty to resolve the crisis, bring spending under control, balance the federal budget, reform and
modernize entitlement programs, eliminate fraud, waste and abuse, pursue continued pro-
growth tax reforms and permanent tax reductions, and restore regular order and accountability
in the budget and appropriations processes.
6. Free Markets Government often stands as the greatest obstacle to the progress and
prosperity of free people. Free markets and free trade agreements allow for innovation,
improvement and economic expansion as risk-takers, entrepreneurs and business owners are
given the liberty to pursue the American dream and create more jobs and upward mobility for
more people. We believe competition should be encouraged, and government intervention and
regulation should be limited. The people are better qualified to make decisions about their own
lives and finances than bureaucrats, and the private sector will outperform the public sector in
virtually every scenario. The free enterprise system rewards hard work and self-sacrifice, and is
the basis and genius of the American economy.
7. Human Dignity Because all men are created equal and in the image of God, every human life
has inestimable dignity and value, and every person should be measured only by the content of
their character. A just government protects life, honors marriage and family as the primary
21 | P a g e
institutions of a healthy society, and embraces the vital cultural influences of religion and
morality. Public policy should always encourage education and emphasize the virtue of hard
work as a pathway out of-poverty, while public assistance programs should be reserved only for
those who are truly in need. In America, everyone who plays by the rules should get a fair shot.
By preserving these ideals, we will maintain the goodness of America that has been the secret
to our greatness.
8. Describe the power of non-violence. Explain various techniques of non-violence action.
Answer- Non-violence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering, it does not mean
meek submission to the will of the evildoer, but it means the pitting of one's whole against the
will of the tyrant. Working under this law of our being, it is possible for a single individual to
defy the whole might of an unjust empire to save his honor, his religion, his soul and lay the
foundation for that empire's fall or its regeneration.
Active Force
The non-violence of Gandhi's conception is a more active and more of a real fighting against
wickedness than retaliation whose very nature is to increase wickedness. He contemplates a
mental and, therefore, a moral opposition to immoralities. He seeks entirely to blunt the edge
of the tyrant's sword, not by putting up against it a sharper-edged weapon, but by
disappointing his expectation that he would be facing physical resistance. It would at first dazzle
him, and at last compel recognition from him, which recognition would not humiliate him but
would uplift him. It may be urged that this again is an ideal state. And so it is.
Gandhi says that he admits that the strong will rob the weak and that it is a sin to be weak. But
this is said of the soul in man, not of the body. If it were said of the body, we could never be
free from the sin of weakness. But the strength of the soul can defy a whole world in arms
against it. This strength is open to the weakest in body.
Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is "mightier than the mightiest
weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. Destruction is not the law of the
humans. Man live freely by his readiness to die, if need be, at the hands of his brother, never by
22 | P a g e
killing him. Every murder or other injury, no matter what causes, committed or inflicted on
another is a crime against humanity.
Non-violence is like radium in its action. An infinitesimal quantity of it embedded in a malignant

growth which acts continuously, silently and ceaselessly till it has transformed the whole mass
of the diseased tissue into a healthy one. Similarly, even a little of true non-violence acts in a
silent, subtle, unseen way and uplifts the whole society.
Matchless Bravery
An armed soldier relies on his weapons for his strength, 'rake: away from him his weapons-his
gun or his sword, and he generally become helpless. But a person who has truly realized the
principle of lion-violence has the God-given strength for his weapon and the world has not
known anything that can match it. A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable
faith in their mission can alter the course of history. Non-violence of the strong is any day
stronger than that of the bravest soldier fully armed.
Exercise in Faith
The hardest metal yields to sufficient heat. So, even the hardest heart must melt before the
heat of non-violence. And there is no limit to the capacity of non-violence to generate heat.
Every action is a resultant of a multitude of forces, even of a contrary nature. There is no waste
of energy. So we learn in the books on mechanics. This is equally true of human actions. The
difference is that in one case, we generally know the forces at work, and when we do, we can
mathematically fore tell the resultant. In the case of human actions, they result from a
concurrence of forces, most of which we have no knowledge of. Rut our ignorance must not be
made to serve the cause of disbelief in the power of these forces. And non-violence being the
mightiest force in the world and also the most elusive in its working, it demands the greatest
exercise of faith. Even as we believe in God out of faith, so we have to believe in non-violence
as a matter of faith.
23 | P a g e
Violence like water, when it has an outlet, rushes forward furiously with an overwhelming
force. Non-violence cannot act madly. It is the essence of discipline. But, when it is set going, no
amount of violence can crush it. For its full play, it requires unsullied purity and an
unquenchable faith.
A Science
Ahimsa is a science. The word 'failure' has no place in the vocabulary of science. Failure to
obtain the expected result is often the precursor to further discoveries. If the function of
ahimsa is to devouri all it comes across, the function of ahimsa is to rush into the mouth of
ahimsa. In an atmosphere of ahimsa, one has no scope to put his. ahimsa to the test. It can be
tested only in the fact of ahimsa.
Violence can only be effectively met by non-violence. This is an old, established truth that the
weapon of violence, even if it was the atom bomb, became useless when matched against non-
violence. That. very few understand how to wield this mighty weapon is true. It requires, a lot
of understanding and strength of mind. It is unlike what is needed in military schools and
colleges. The difficulty one experiences in meeting ahimsa with ahimsa arises from the
weakness of mind.
The Deed, not Doer
'Hate the sin and not the sinner' is a precept which, though easy enough to understand, is
rarely practiced, and that is why the poison of hatred spreads in the world. This ahimsa is the
basis of the search for truth. I am realising every day that the search is vain, unless it is founded
on ahimsa' as the basis. It is quite proper to resist and attack a system, but to resist and attack
its author is tantamount to resisting and attacking oneself. For we are all tarred with the same
brush, and are children of one and the same creator, and as such, the divine powers within us
are infinite. To slight a single human being is to slight those divine powers, and thus to harm
not only that being, but with him the whole world.
24 | P a g e
Man, and his deed are two distinct things. Whereas a good deed should call forth approbation
and wicked deed disapprobation, the doer of the deed, whether good or wicked, always
deserves respect or pity as the case may be.
Those who seek to destroy men rather than manners adopt the latter, and become worse than
those whom they destroy in the mistaken belief than manners will die with the men. They do
not know the root of the evil.
It is the acid test of non-violence that in a non-violent conflict, there is no rancor left behind,
and in the end the enemies are converted into friends. That was my experience in South Africa,
with General Smuts. He started with being my bitterest opponent and critic. Today, he is my
warmest friend.
The principal/implication of ahimsa is that the ahimsa in us ought to soften and not to stiffen
our opponent's attitude to us; it ought to melt him; it ought to strike a responsive chord in his
heart.
By reason of a life-long practice of ahimsa, Gandhi claims to be an expert in it, though very
imperfect. Speaking in absolute terms, he
says, "the more I practice it, the clearer I see how far I am from the full expression of ahimsa in
my life." Apart from the philosophical justification for ahimsa in terms of the relativity of truth,
there is also an ethical and moral basis for it, which Gandhi puts in terms of endsmeans
relationship. In his words, fruits of a tree will depend on what type of seed has been sown.
The Technique of Non-violent Action
Non-violent action is a technique of conducting protest, resistance, and interventions with

physical violence by:
(i) Acts of omissions that is the participants' refusal to perform acts which they usually perform,
are expected by custom to perform, or are required by law and regulation to perform
25 | P a g e
(ii) Acts of commission-that is, the participants perform acts which they usually do not perform,
are not expected by custom to perform
(iii) A combination of both.
The technique includes a multitude of specific methods which are grouped into three main
classes:
(i) Non-violent protest and persuasion (symbolic actions communicating opinions, such as
parades and leafleting)
(ii) Non-cooperation (withholding of social, economic or political cooperation, as by social

boycotts, economic boycotts, labor strikes, or political non-cooperation and disobedience)
(iii) Nonviolent intervention (physical, psychological, social, economic and political actions that
disrupt the operation of the system being opposed)
Although Gandhi is not the originator of non-violent struggle, He is a major historical player in
its refinement and development. Gandhi also recognizes the importance of strategy-skillfulness
in the choice and use of means and/or methods to increase the possibilities of success in non-
violent struggle. He has contributed significantly to the refinement of strategy and the practice
of careful strategic planning for this type of conflict. He has brought greatly increased strategic
sophistication to the technique.
He charted ways in which people-both intellectuals and the masses-who did not share his full
beliefs could joint in non-violent struggles and could become empowered. He challenged the
most powerful and empire the world had ever seen and won.
26 | P a g e
As per Gandhi's lessons for us to overcome multiple conflicts, the following ideas are
important:
• Justice and freedom require empowering oppressed people and redistributing power in
society.
• Peace is not achieved by stifling conflicts in which important issues are at stake, but by
using non-violent struggle to fight those conflicts to the point of resolution.
• Mass non-violent struggle in polities is possible as a substitute for both passivity and
violence.
• Masses of people who will never accept non-violence as a moral principal will at times
practice pragmatic non-violent struggle.
• The key to widespread adoption of non-violent means lies in formulation and implementing
strategies of non-violent struggle to serve as substitute for violence for specific purposes.
• Non-violent struggles can be made significantly more effective if wise strategies with
implementing tactics are developed and applied.
• Non-violent struggles can be developed, refined, adapted in a series of specific

replacements to be substitute for violence as a final means of applying pressure and power
in society and polities.
27 | P a g e
9. Explain in detail the different types of feminism.
Ans: The term “Feminism” originates from the Latin word “Femina” meaning “woman”, thereby
referring to the advocacy of women’s rights seeking to remove restrictions that discriminate
against women. It essentially relates to the belief that women are equal power holders, and
therefore it stands against any form of discrimination or subjugation that women face.
Types of Feminism
Now let’s move on to discuss the major types of feminism. Over the past few decades, many
scholars have tried to categorize feminism into various types. Feminism can be broadly grouped
into five types. Let’s discuss each of the type now:
Liberal Feminism
The roots of liberal feminism can be traced back to the Social Contract Theory. It is the first of
the many types of feminism. The purpose of this feminism was to integrate women into the
mainstream structure of society. It primarily focused on achieving gender parity by ensuring
political and legal equality. The proponents of this category of feminism were Abigail Adams
and Mary Wollstonecraft.
Radical Feminism
Next on our list of types of feminism is radical feminism. As the name suggests, radical
feminism is a branch of feminism that emphasizes on radical reordering of society. It calls for a
society where no prejudices exist, and male supremacy is eliminated in the socio-economic
context. However, it also recognizes that women’s experience might vary depending upon
social divisions like race, caste etc.
Marxist Feminism
Moving further in the types of feminism, we have Marxist feminism. It is based on Marx’s view
of capitalist society. Marx says the only way to ensure gender parity would be by dismantling
28 | P a g e
the capitalist society. As he believes, women are exploited in the capitalist system as their
labour goes uncompensated.
Cultural Feminism
Next on our list of types of feminism is cultural feminism. Cultural feminism was a consequent
product of radical feminism. Cultural feminism is more of a pejorative label. Cultural feminism
was an attempt to redefine the values ascribed to the stereotypical “femaleness”. It also attempts
to describe the theories that essentially talk about the innate differences between men and
women.
Eco Feminism
Last but not least, we have ecofeminism. This form of feminism is a part of Green politics. It
attempts to draw parallels between women and nature through culture, religion and literature and
also seeks to establish the connection between the two. The scope of this form of feminism is
broad and dynamic and emphasizes the fact that both women and nature must be protected at all
costs.
Conclusion
feminism is about all genders having equal rights and opportunities. It's about respecting
diverse women's experiences, identities, knowledge and strengths, and striving to empower all
women to realise their full rights.
10. Explain the meaning and characteristics of liberalism.
Ans. Liberalism is too dynamic and flexible, a concept to be contained in a precise definition.
Right from its inception, it has been continuously changing, adding something and discarding
the other, As Alblaster writes, “liberalism should be seen not as a fixed and absolute term, as a
collection of unchanging moral and political values but as a specific historical movement of
ideas in the modern era that began with Renaissance and Reformation. It has undergone many
changes and requires a historical rather than a static type of analysis. Similarly, Laski writes, 'it
29 | P a g e
(Liberalism) is not easy to describe, much less to define, for it is hardly less a habit of mind than
a body of doctrine': To quote Hacker, ‘Liberalism has become so common a term in the
vocabulary of politics that it is a brave man who will try to give it a precise definition. It is a view
of the individual, of the state, and of the relations between them'.
Almost the same view is expressed by Grimes, 'liberalism is not a static creed or dogma,
for.dogmatism provides its own restraints. It is ratheka tentative attitude towards social
problems which stresses the role of reason and human ingenuity. Liberalism looks ahead with a
flexible approach, seeking to make future better for more people, as conservatism looks back,
aiming mainly to preserve the attainment of the past.' Although the liberal ideas are about 300
years old, the word 'liberalism' did not come into use till the beginning of the nineteenth
century. According to Richard Wellheim, liberalism is the belief in the value of liberty of the
individual'. According to Sartori, Very simply, liberalism is the theory and practice of individual
liberty.
juridical, defence and the constitutional state'. Bullock and Silock emphasise the belief in
freedom and conscience as the twin foundations of liberalism. Grime writes, 'It represents a
system of ideas that aim at the realisation of the pluralist society, favouring diversity of politics,
economics, religion and other cultural life. It seeks in its simplest sense to advance the freedom
of man... it seeks to increase individuality of man by increasing his area of choice and decision.'
Similarly, Laski writes, 'liberalism implies a passion for iiberty; and that the passion may be
compelling. It requires a power to be tolerant; even sceptical about opinion and tendencies you
hold to be dangerous which is one of the rarest human qualities'. Hallowell defines liberalism as
'the embodiment of the demand for freedom in every sphere of life – intellectual, social,
religious, political and economic'. Schapiro talks of liberalism as an attitude of life - sceptical,
experimental, rational and free. According to Koerner, ‘liberalism begins and ends with the
ideals of individual freedom, individual human rights and individual human happiness.
30 | P a g e
These remain central to the creed whatever may be the economic and political arrangements of
liberal democracy society'. According to Heater, 'liberty is the quintessence of liberalism. For
the liberal, it is bile · individual who counts, not society at large or segment of it, for only hy
placing priority in the rights of the individual can freedom be ensured'.
Andrew Hacker in his book Political Theory has distinguished four types of liberalism: namely,
utopian liberalism, free market liberalism, democratic liberalism, and reformist liberalism. On
the whole, according to him, liberalism stands for (i) free life as the prime pursuit of politics, (ii)
state's, task is to eschew 'coercion and to encourage the conditions for this free life. Similarly,
Barbara Goodwin in her book Using Political Ideas, liststhe following ingredients of liberalism:
(a) government is based on consent and contract, (b) constitutionalism and the rule of law, (c)
freedom as choice which includes the right to choose government from among different
representatives, (d) equality of opportunity, (e) social justice based upon merit, and (f)
tolerance.
In short, liberalism has a narrow and a broad perspective. Ata narrow level, it is seen from
political and economic points of view, whereas at the broader level, it is like a mental attitude
that attempts in the light of its presuppositions to analyse and integrate the varied intellectual,
moral, religious, social, economic and political relationships of human beings. At the social
level, it stands for secularism; freedorn in relation to religion and morality.
It lays stress on the value of free individual conscious of his capacity for selfexpression and
unfettered development of his personality. At the economic level, it implies the ideal of free
trade coupled with internal freedom of production. At the political level, it stands for political
liberty and the right to property, constitutional limited government, protection of the rights of
the individual and anti-authoritarianism,

MPS001 IN ENGLISH

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MPS001 IN ENGLISH

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MPS001 Political Theory

Where every problem is solved of IGNOU.

This channel helps you to Dream, Achieve & Succeed.

Successfully Joined us by millions of students.

☏ +91 8368259468, 9599279672, 8882104776

1. What is political theory and why should we study it?

What is Political Theory?

Why Should We Study Political Theory?

The Proper Attitude of the Liberal Egalitarian towards Multiculturalism

Kymlicka and Multiculturalism Debate

3. Criticize the theory of justice of John Rawls.

The First Principle of Justice

4. What is the Frankfurt School? Explain.

5. Explain the difference between positive and negative liberty.

6. Write an article on Democratic Socialism.

DEMOCRACY AND CONTEMPORARY SOCIALISM:

7.Describe the main features of conservatism.

Ans: Conservatism is a political philosophy that stressed the importance of tradition,

Main features of conservatism.

2. Limited Government For individual liberty to be championed, government must be reduced.

8. Describe the power of non-violence. Explain various techniques of non-violence action.

Non-violence is like radium in its action. An infinitesimal quantity of it embedded in a malignant

The Deed, not Doer

The Technique of Non-violent Action

Non-violent action is a technique of conducting protest, resistance, and interventions with

(iii) A combination of both.

(ii) Non-cooperation (withholding of social, economic or political cooperation, as by social

• Non-violent struggles can be developed, refined, adapted in a series of specific

9. Explain in detail the different types of feminism.

10. Explain the meaning and characteristics of liberalism.

You might also like