POLITICAL SCIENCE I

NOTES
 Module 1: Introduction
Nature and Scope
Nature
1. Traditional View
2. Behavioural View

Stages of Evolution
1. Philosophical – concerned with ends and purposes
2. Institutional – concerned with political organisation
3. Behavioural – concerned with motivations and mechanisms of human behaviour
4. Pluralistic – concerned with interaction among groups and organisations
5. Structural – concerned with the connection between the individual and the community
6. Developmental – concerned with the process of growth, industrialisation, and change, and the
impact on government forms and policies.

Scope - Importance
1. State and Government
2. Associations and Institutions
3. National and International Problems
4. Political Behaviour of man
5. Past, present, and future of development
6. Concepts of power, authority, and legitimacy
 Major Approaches

1. Traditional Approach
a. Philosophical
b. Historical
c. Legal
d. Institutional

2. Behavioural Approach
a. Sociological
b. Psychological
c. Economic

3. Post-Behavioural Approach
4. Marxist Approach
 State

Definitions
- Max Weber - A state is an institution that claims the successful monopoly over the use of force
within a given territory (Phillip Bobbit also supports this claim when he calls state a “war making
institution”)
- Stands for apparatus of govt in its broadest sense and those institutions that are recognizably
public, i.e., responsible for collective organization of communal life and funded by public.
- Best thought of as a particular political association that establishes sovereign jurisdiction with
defined territorial borders
- Sovereignty – absolute and unrestricted power. Hobbes believed in this, called state a ‘leviathan’
or sea creature.
- Defining or distinguishing features – sovereignty, particular form of authority they exercise
(limited by territory and universal authority within its jurisdiction), exercises compulsory
jurisdiction, state authority backed up by coercion.

Features of a State – Montevideo Convention

1. Population
2. Territory - A state is restricted to a certain geographical area, usually land boundaries, but often
extending many miles out to sea.
3. Government
4. Sovereignty – Internal and External
- A state has universal power within its territory- the power applies to everything. A state has
compulsory power – very few people (such as immigrants or naturalized citizens) actually
voluntarily accept a state’s authority

Relationship between Government and State

- Govt is only part of the state. State is a continuing, permanent entity while govt is temporary.
State maybe possible without a govt but it can’t be the other way around. Govt is the brains of
the state and it gives authoritative expression to state. It serves to maintain state itself in
existence. State Is abstract while government is physical manifestation of state
- State reflect permanent interests of society whereas govt is inevitably influenced by partisan
sympathies. If govt succeeds in getting the sovereign power, it might turn into a dictatorship.
Liberal democracies have tried to create a clear divide between govt and state.

Theories of State
1. Liberal Theory – Mainstream
 States that the state is a neutral arbiter, more like an umpire or a referee, protecting each
individual from encroachment of other individuals.
 State is a natural entity, acting in the interest of all and representing the “common good”.
 Hobbes and Locke- state arose out of voluntary agreement or social contract. Only sovereign
power could save them from state of nature.

2. Pluralist
 Political power is dispersed across a large variety of social groups rather than an elite few.
Robert Dahl – polyarchy (rule by many)
  Accepts that democratic processes are at work. Believe that rough equality exists among
organized groups and interests such that each has some access to govt.
 Rejected by elitist thinkers who think that permanent power is with the ruling elite (Gaetano
Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto, Robert Michels)

3. Neo-pluralist theory
 Think that liberal democracy is a deformed polyarchy. All groups do not have equal say.
 JK Galbraith and Charles Lindblom. Modern state is more complex and less responsible to
popular pressures. Galbraith ‘The Affluent Society’- ability of business to shape public tastes
and wants. Domination of major corporations over small firms.; Lindblom ‘Politics and
Markets’- business can sway govt
 Impossible to portray all interests as equally powerful because in societies like capitalist,
business enjoys advantages which others can’t.

4. Elitism

5. New right ideas and theories

 Libertarian wing - distinguished by strong antipathy towards govt intervention in socio-
economic life as they believe state is a parasitic growth. It interferes in every aspect of life.
State is not an impartial umpire but is a self-serving monster.
 Criticised party competition- Samuel Briteen called it the economic consequences of
democracy. It encourages politicians to outbid one another. Closer links between govt and
major econ interests has increased pressure for subsidies, grants etc leading to problem of
government overload.
 Joseph Schumpeter- democratic elitism. Electorate can decide which elite rules but can’t
change the fact that elites will rule. Power in the hands of a small elite group of people.
 Radical elitists- Decried importance of elections. James Burnham- ‘The Managerial
Revolution’- Managerial class dominated all industrial societies

6. Public choice theorists

 State expands due to pressure of civil servants and other bureaucrats who realize that this
will serve them for the better.

7. Marxism
 State cannot be understood as separate from the economic structure. State emerges out of
class system where it maintains and defends class domination and exploitation. Executive is a
committee for managing common affairs of bourgeoisie.
 Lenin- ‘The state and revolution’- state is an instrument for oppression of the exploited class
 Gramsci- ruling class’ domination is achieved through open coercion and elicitation of
consent
 Nicos Poulantzas- state is unifying social formation (neo-marxist theory)

8. Anarchism
 State and other authority is evil and unnecessary. State is concentrated form of oppression.
 Michael Bakunin- state is most cynical and complete negation of humanity

Role of the State

1. Classic Liberal
  Individuals should have widest possible liberty and state should have minimal role to provide
framework of peace and social order. Locke- state is a night watchman, only coming into play
when orderly existence is threatened.
 3 functions:
a. Maintenance of domestic order
b. Voluntary agreements entered into by individuals are respected through a court system.
c. Need to provide protection against possible external threats
 Minimal state – Ideal of the New Right
 Liberal New Right
 Economic and social matters should be left entirely in the hands of individuals or private
businesses. In their view, an economy free from state interference will be competitive,
efficient, and productive; and individuals freed from the dead hand of government will be
able to rise and fall according to their talents and willingness to work.
 State should only promote competition and ensure stable prices

2. Government activism – 20th century – Welfare State

 1st form of state intervention – In the USA, Australia and, increasingly, the UK, welfare
provision usually emphasizes self-reliance, and targets benefits on those in demonstrable
need. Developed welfare states have been established and persist in many Western
European countries. These attempt to bring about a wholesale redistribution of wealth
through a comprehensive system of public services and state benefits, financed though
progressive taxation.
 2nd form of state intervention – Economic Management – Managed capitalism emerged.
 3rd form of state intervention – developed in orthodox communist countries like the Soviet
Union. Economy fully transferred to the state.
 Welfare state – promotes self-reliance, redistribution of wealth, state benefits, progressive
taxation.

3. Totalitarianism – Most extreme form of state control

 Essence- construction of an all-embracing state, whose influence penetrates every aspect of
human existence: the economy, education, culture, religion, family life and so forth.
 Pervasive system of ideological manipulation.
 Totalitarianism amounts to the outright abolition of civil society, the abolition of ‘the private’,
a goal which only fascists, who wish to dissolve individual identity within the social whole, are
prepared openly to endorse.
 In this ideology, all institutions, or agencies, which can express opposition, need to be
removed.

Theories of origin of state

1. Divine Theory – god created state, king was deputy to carry out his orders, cannot be questioned
because laws were divine – theory of political authority and not origin – ruler placed above
people and law – divine punishment – divine right of kings – king is answerable to god alone –
monarchy is hereditary and it is the divine right of king that it should pass to his son – adds
moral tone to functions of the state; critiques – exalts state to a position above criticism and
change – justifies arbit exercise of authority – absolutism
2. Force Theory – subordination of the weak to the strong – conquering – govt outcome of human
aggression – progressive growth from tribe to empire and empire to kingdom etc; critiques –
overmagnifies the factor, unduly emphasizes survival of the fittest – condition of chaos
3. Social Contract Theory (Sir’s table)
4. Patriarchal/Matriarchal – Henry Maine/ McLennan
5. Evolutionary/ Historical Theory – institution of natural growth, slow and steady evolution,
extending over a long time shaping itself into complex structure - Burgess
 Power

Definition
- Power is the possession of the ability to enforce compliance; Authority is the right to do so.
Legitimacy is the basis on which authority can be rightfully exercised.
- Power is the ability to make formal decisions that are somehow binding over others. Influence is
the ability to affect the content of these decisions through varied means, highlighting that formal
decisions aren’t made in a vacuum.

Intentionalist v. Structuralist
- Intentionalist understanding of power – It is an attribute of an identifiable agent
- Structuralist understanding of power – It is an attribute of a social system as a whole

Steven Lukes – Power: A radical view

 Definition – Power is the ability to get someone to do something they would not have
otherwise done.
 3 dimensions of power:
a. ability to influence the making of decisions (2 groups: decision making and non-decision
making; based on the idea that what groups say they want is what they want)
b. capacity to shape political agenda
c. controlling people’s thought by altering their perceptions and preferences (only rational
and truly autonomous individuals take their own decisions in the truest sense)

a. Decision making:
 Thomas Hobbes
 Power is the ability of the ‘agent’ to affect the behaviour of a ‘patient’
 Robert Dahl
 Power is a question of who gets their way, how often they get their way, and over what
issues they get their way
 Proposed three criteria that had to be fulfilled before the ‘ruling elite’ thesis could be
validated – (1) The ruling elite, if existed at all, must be a well-defined group; (2) A number
of ‘key political decisions’ must be identified over which the preferences of the ruling elite
run counter to those of any other group; (3) There must be evidence that the preferences
of the elite regularly prevail over those of other groups.
 Advantages of this – Makes possible an empirical study of distribution of power; most
clear representation of power in decisions and how they are made
 Criticism – Community power studies reached the conclusion that power is widely
dispersed throughout society, that the face of power they recognise – the ability to
influence decisions – is often referred to as the ‘pluralist’ view of power, suggesting the
existence of plural or many centres of power. This is, however, misleading: pluralist
conclusions are not built into this understanding of power, nor into its methodology for
identifying power. By focusing exclusively upon decisions, this approach recognizes only
one face of power and, in particular, ignores those circumstances in which decisions are
prevented from happening, the area of non-decision- making.
 Authority
Definitions
- It is means through which one person can influence the behaviour of another.
- It is based upon a perceived ‘right to rule’ and brings about compliance through a moral
obligation on the part of the ruled to obey. This implies that it is less important that authority is
obeyed than that it should be obeyed.

Max Weber
- Concerned with explaining why, and under what circumstances, people were prepared to accept
the exercise of power as rightful or legitimate.
- He defined authority simply as a matter of people’s belief about its rightfulness, regardless of
where that belief came from and whether or not it is morally justified.
- His approach treats authority as a form of legitimate power. Govt that is obeyed can be said to
exercise authority even though obedience may have been brought about by systematic
indoctrination and propaganda.
- Authority can be distinguished from power. If authority involves the right to influence others,
while power refers to the ability to do so, the exercise of power always draws upon some kind of
resources. In other words, power involves the ability to either reward or punish another. This
applies whether power takes the form of pressure, intimidation, coercion, or violence.
- Pressure uses rewards and punishments. Although pressure groups may seek to influence the
political process through persuasion and argument, they also exercise power by, for example,
making financial contributions to political parties or candidates, threatening strike action.
- Intimidation, coercion, and violence contrast still more starkly with authority. Since it is based
upon the threat or exercise of force, coercion can be regarded as the antithesis of authority.
When government exercises authority, its citizens obey the law peacefully and willingly; when
obedience is not willingly offered, government is forced to compel it.

Power and Authority

- Power and authority are distinguished from one another as contrasting means through which
compliance or obedience is achieved.
- Authority can best be understood as means of gaining compliance which avoids both persuasion
and rational argument, on one hand, and any form of pressure/ coercion on the other.
- Persuasion is a means of influencing behaviour of another but doesn’t involve exercise of
authority. Involves two forms of influence- It either takes the form of rational argument and
attempts to show that a particular set of policies ‘make sense’, or it appeals to self-interest and
tries to demonstrate that voters will be ‘better off’ under one party rather than another.
- Because it is based upon the acknowledgement of a ‘duty to obey’, the exercise of authority
should be reflected in automatic and unquestioning obedience
- Power and authority are mutually exclusive notions but entangled when in practice.
- Authority is seldom exercised in the absence of power (eg: UK monarch); and power usually
involves the operation of at least a limited form of authority. Power without authority suggests
the maintenance of political rule entirely through a system of intimidation, coercion, and
violence. (eg: military coup)

Types of authority – 2
1. ‘In authority’ – right to command obedience because of position within institutional hierarchy
2. ‘an authority’- person’s views treated with respect, special consideration; not necessarily obeyed
Forms of political authority – Max Weber [ideal types, conceptual models]
1. Traditional
 Based upon ‘immemorial custom’ and a traditional hierarchical system which assigns status.
 In traditional societies, authority is based on respect for established customs, so this
authority was regarded as legitimate because it always existed and accepted by earlier
generations
 In reality – operates through hierarchical system which allocates everyone a certain status.
‘Status’ is not defined and grants the authority ‘Free grace’. Authority is constrained by rules,
fixed customs, don’t need to be justified because they reflect how things have always been
 Eg. Patriarchalism in small groups or tribes; gerontocracy.
 Diminishing in modern society because – customs are not given that much importance; It
won’t fit with principles of democracy and equal opportunities

2. Charismatic
 Based upon power of an individual’s personality; ability to make a direct and personal appeal
to others and inspire loyalty; all forms of political authority require this to some degree;
 Thought to be as a divine gift upon the leader. However, now, all forms of leadership require
this now. Mistake to think of it as a gift or natural propensity
 Some political leadership is based entirely on charismatic authority – Hitler [manufactured
charisma by cultivating media image or sharpening oratory skills or like Hitler, Mussolini etc
create a ‘cult of personality’ through propaganda.]
 Criticism:
a. it is invariably linked to authoritarianism, the demand for unquestioning obedience, the
impositions of authority regardless of consent. Since it is based upon personality rather
than status or office, charismatic authority is not confined by any rules or procedures and
may thus create the spectre of ‘total power’.
b. Charismatic authority demands from its followers not only willing obedience but also
discipleship, even devotion. May be less crucial in liberal democratic regimes where the
limits of leadership are constitutionally defined

3. Legal Rational
 Most important, according to Weber, since it had almost entirely displaced traditional
authority and become the dominant mode of organisation within modern industrial societies.
 This was characteristic of the large-scale, bureaucratic organizations that had come to
dominate modern society
 Operates through the existence of a body of clearly defined rules. Attaches entirely to the
office and its formal ‘powers’, and not to the office-holder
 Arises out of respect for the rule of law in that power is always clearly and legally defined,
ensuring that those who exercise power do so within a framework of law. – Modern govt
 Preferred by Weber - In clearly defining realm of authority and attaching it to an office rather
than a person, bureaucratic authority is less likely to be abused or give rise to injustice.
Believed bureaucratic order is shaped by the need for efficiency and a rational division of
labour. In his view, the bureaucratic order that dominates modern society is supremely
efficient. Yet he also recognized a darker side to the onward march of bureaucratic authority.
Price of greater efficiency, he feared, was a more depersonalized, inhuman social
environment, typified by relentless spread of bureaucratic forms of organization.

Alternative means of identifying authority – 2 branches

1. De Jure – authority in law
  operates according to a set of procedures or rules which designate who possesses authority,
and over what issues. For example, anyone described as being ‘in authority’ can be said to
possess de jure authority.
 Eg. traditional and legal rational authority
2. De Facto – authority in practice
 Not based upon rules.
 When authority is undoubtedly exercised but cannot be traced back to a set of procedural
rules; this type of authority can be called de facto authority. Being ‘an authority’, for
example, may be based upon expertise in a definable area but it cannot be said to be based
upon a set of authorising rules.
 Eg. Charismatic authority

Social Contract Theories – classic justification of authority - These proceed by constructing the image
of a society without an established system of authority, a so-called ‘state of nature’, and emphasize
that the result would be barbarity and injustice as individuals struggle against one another to
achieve their various ends.
1. Liberals - emphasize that authority arises ‘from below’: it is based upon the consent of the
governed. At the same time, however, authority necessarily constrains liberty and has the
capacity to become a tyranny against the individual. As a result, liberals insist that authority be
constrained, preferring legal-rational forms of authority that operate within clearly defined legal
or constitutional boundaries.
2. Conservatives - authority is seldom based upon consent but arises out of what Roger Scruton
(2001) called ‘natural necessity’. Authority is thus regarded as an essential feature of all social
institutions; it reflects a basic need for leadership, guidance, and support. it is exercised ‘from
above’ for the benefit of those below. From the conservative perspective, authority promotes
social cohesion and serves to strengthen the fabric of society; it is the basis of any genuine
community.

Criticisms of authority
- Authority is the enemy of liberty. All forms of authority may be regarded as a threat to the
individual, in that authority, by definition, calls for unquestioning obedience.
- Always trade-off between liberty and authority. Charismatic authority, and indeed any notion
that authority is exercised ‘from above’, creates the spectre of unchecked power.
- It can be a threat to reason and critical understanding. Demands unconditional, unquestioning
obedience, and can therefore engender a climate of deference, an abdication of responsibility,
and an uncritical trust in the judgement of others. Eg. Nazi death camps – strong inclination to
obey authority

Authoritarian v. Totalitarian Societies

- Authoritarian: political opposition and civil liberty may routinely be suppressed but a
considerable degree of individual freedom is nevertheless permitted, at least in the realm of
economic, social, and cultural life.
- Totalitarian: stamp out individual freedom altogether by controlling every aspect of human
existence, thereby establishing ‘total power’.
d.
 Legitimacy

Definitions
- Usually defined simply as rightfulness. It is used to differentiate between power and authority
since it is the quality that transforms power into authority by conferring an authoritative or
binding character upon an order or command, ensuring that it is obeyed out of duty rather than
because of fear.
- Political participation is an active expression of consent, but legitimacy derived from popular
consent can be contested. Eg. Nazi Regime. Ideological control can be used to maintain stability
and build legitimacy

Thinkers/Philosophers
- Weber – Took legitimacy to refer to nothing more or less than a belief in the ‘right to rule’.
- Aristotle – argued that rule was legitimate only when it operated to the benefit of the whole
society rather than in the selfish interests of the rulers.
- Rousseau – argued that government was legitimate if it was based upon the ‘general will’
- David Beetham – Power can be said to be legitimate only if three conditions are fulfilled.
b. Power must be exercised according to established rules, whether embodied in formal legal
codes or informal conventions
c. these rules must be justified in terms of the shared beliefs of the government and the
governed.
d. legitimacy must be demonstrated by the expression of consent on the part of the governed.

Legitimation Process and Legitimation Crisis

- Legitimation process – Regimes attempt to manufacture legitimacy by manipulating what their
citizens know, think, or believe. In effect, legitimacy may simply be a form of ideological
hegemony or dominance.
- Legitimation Crises – How and why political systems lose their legitimacy and suffer what are
called ‘legitimation crises’. A legitimation crisis is particularly serious since it casts doubt upon
the very survival of the regime or political system: no regime has so far endured permanently
through the exercise of coercion alone. In ‘Legitimation Crisis’, the neo-Marxist Jurgen
Habermas argued that within liberal democracies there are ‘crisis tendencies’ which challenge
the stability of such regimes by undermining legitimacy.
 The core of this argument was the tension between a private-enterprise or capitalist
economy, on one hand, and a democratic political system, on the other; in effect, the system
of capitalist democracy may be inherently unstable.
 Described this problem as one of government ‘overload’. Government was over- loaded quite
simply because in attempting to meet the demands made of them, democratic politicians
came to pursue policies which threatened the health and long-term survival of the capitalist
economic order. To fix, sought to lower popular expectations of government. This they did by
trying to shift responsibility from the state to the individual. Thus, welfare was portrayed as
largely a matter of individual responsibility, individuals being encouraged to provide for
themselves by hard work, savings, medical insurance, private pensions etc
 Legitimation crises in the Soviet Union –
 Political- orthodox communist regimes were one-party states dominated by a ‘ruling’
communist party whose influence extended over virtually all groups in society
  Economically- centrally planned economies that operated within such regimes proved to
be highly inefficient and incapable of generating the widespread, if unequal, prosperity
found in the capitalist West.
 Socially- orthodox communist regimes were undermined by their very achievements:
industrialization and the expansion of mass education created a better informed and
increasingly sophisticated body of citizens whose demands for the civil liberties and
consumer goods thought to be available in the West simply outstripped the capacity of
the regime to respond.

Legitimacy and the constitution

- Constitutions confer legitimacy upon a regime by making government a rule-bound activity.
Constitutions are thus sets of rules which allocate duties, powers, and functions to the various
institutions of government and define the relationship between individuals and the state.
- However, constitutions do not merely confer legitimacy; they are themselves bodies of rules
which are subject to questions of legitimacy. In reality, as Beetham insists, a constitution confers
legitimacy only when its principles reflect values and beliefs which are widely held in society.

Ways of Legitimation
1. Contractarian
a. Hobbes - man was brute, society did not exist, only one contract – established sovereign,
perpetual, law was command of sovereign, liberty was gifted by S, no right to revolt, absolute
sovereignty
b. Locke - man was peaceful, no mechanism for conflict adjudication, 2 contracts – social and
government, law was expression of people, Liberty was with individuals, people had right to
revolt, limited sovereignty
c. Rousseau - noble savage, property led to hostility, one contract – established civil society
wherein individual surrendered to collective, law was general will, indivisible, real liberty is
general will, right to revolt, popular sovereignty

2. Force
- use of brute force, coercion, fear, populace made to submit to rule

3. Utilitarian
- whether actions are good or bad are judged by their consequences or outcomes – most good for
most people – takes into account other’s interest - it is legitimate if it is good
4.
 Module 2: Essential Theoretical Aspects
Freedom

Definitions
- Absence of constraints
- Geral MacCallum – Freedom is of something, from something, to do or not do, become or not
become something.
 Triadic relationship which must involve choice - (a) the agent who is free (or unfree) (b) the
constraints - Restrictions and barriers that make agent free or unfree, and (c) what the
person is free to do or not – Subject, action, constraint
 Issues with this – what is the source of constraints (another person or internal); prioritizes
different kinds of freedom.

Source of Constraints
- Isiah Berlin – In his essay “two concepts of freedom” states that there are two types of freedom
- Positive freedom and negative freedom. Positive freedom is the “freedom to” do something
and negative freedom is the “freedom from” something.
- This concept faced criticism – I have the freedom to be educated, I have freedom from
ignorance. Therefore, they tend to be the same thing.

Perspectives
- Anarchists - endorse unlimited freedom. All other schools of thought state that freedom has to
be curtailed at some level or at some point.
- Right wing libertarians – Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick - look at freedom mainly in the
economic sense and advocate for the greatest possible freedom of choice in the marketplace.
Therefore, they would say that the ability of an employer to choose the wage level of his
workers is freedom, whereas socialists would vehemently oppose this, stating that this is
nothing more than a tool of oppression of the workers and lower classes. Fundamental Socialists
would go so far as to say that all forms of private property are a license, since they reduce the
freedom of the pennyless and propertyless.

Mill Theory of Freedom

- Liberty/ Harm Principle – In ‘On Liberty’, Mill proposed a clear distinction between ‘self-
regarding’ actions and ‘other- regarding’ actions, suggesting that each individual should exercise
sovereign control over his or her own body or life.
 The only justification for constraining the individual, Mill argued, was in the event of ‘harm’
being done to others. In effect, the ‘harm principle’ indicates the point at which freedom
becomes ‘excessive’, the point at which liberty becomes licence. [“License” is referred to as
the abuse of freedom. It is the point at which freedom becomes excessive. This is essentially
a constraint.]
 Although this distinction may appear to be clear and reliable, the notion of ‘harm’ being more
concrete than the idea of ‘rights’, it nevertheless provokes controversy. This largely centers
upon what is meant by ‘harm’. If the principle is understood, as Mill intended it to be, to refer
merely to physical harm, it allows a very broad range of actions to be regarded as liberty. Mill
was clearly prepared to allow individuals absolute freedom to think, write and say whatever
they wish, and also to allow them to undertake harmful actions, so long as they are self-
 regarding. Mill would not, therefore, have tolerated any form of censorship or restrictions
upon the use of dangerous drugs.
 However, if the notion of ‘harm’ is broadened to include psychological, moral, and even
spiritual harm, it can be used to classify a far more extensive range of actions as license. For
example, the portrayal of violence, pornography or blasphemy on television may be regarded
as morally harmful in the sense that it is corrupting and offensive. The same confusion occurs
when ‘harm’ is taken to include economic or social disadvantage. For instance, the imposition
of a pay freeze by an employer may not harm his or her employees in a physical sense but
undoubtedly harms their interests.
- Types:
a. Harm to others - mostly physicalist understanding – CAN BE LIMITED
b. Harm to other – consensual – CANNOT BE
c. Harm to self – avoid paternalism – protect people from themselves – NO – there is consent
to be harmed
d. Offensiveness – NO/ however public decency – YES
 Feinberg’s offense principle
a. The offence felt must be a reaction that a person chosen at random would have
(excepting, offence to specific subgroups – in this case we choose a person at
random from that group).
b. The offensive behavior cannot reasonably be avoided.
c. The offence must not be the result of abnormal susceptibility.
d. The person who is restrained must be granted an allowable alternative outlet or
mode of expression
e. Harmless wrongdoing – Laws may restrict behavior if it is against the collective judgement of
what is moral

Freedoms:
1. Thought and expression
2. Taste and pursuit
3. Association

Negative and Positive Freedom

1. Negative Freedom:
 Negative freedom has been used in two senses. First, by Isaiah Berlin, as the “freedom from”
something. Therefore, according to him, freedom is the realm of unrestricted action. The
other perspective is that the law is the main obstacle to freedom. Thomas Hobbes, for
instance, described freedom as the “silence of the laws”.
 The notion of negative freedom has generally been used to signify “freedom of choice”.
However, if freedom is represented in this way, then it has to be ensured that the choices
available to the populace are “reasonable” choices. Determining what is reasonable is very
difficult. E.g. in times of high unemployment, is a worker’s choice of job voluntary?
 Advocates of negative freedom have generally supported a minimalist form of government or
a Laissez-Faire policy. Locke states that law promotes freedom insofar as it protects the
individual’s liberty from the encroachment of others.
 The conception of freedom in negative terms means that it becomes very closely related to
the idea of privacy. It suggests some kind of distinction between the private world and the
public sphere. The concept suggests that in the private sphere, individuals can truly “be
themselves” and therefore this should not be infringed upon. A different tradition of political
 thought, however, sees public sphere as one in which altruism, cooperation and solidarity is
promoted. In this perspective, privacy is simply isolation and selfishness.
 Bentham states that the case for negative freedom is based on the belief in individual’s
rationality, and this would result in the greatest happiness since individuals are in the best
place to identify their own interests.

2. Positive Freedom:
 Although Mill appeared to endorse a negative conception of freedom, the individual’s
sovereign control over his or her own body and mind, he nevertheless asserted that the
purpose of freedom was to encourage the attainment of individuality.
 Positive liberty is the possession of the capacity to act upon one's free will, as opposed to
negative liberty, which is freedom from external restraint on one's actions. A concept of
positive liberty may also include freedom from internal constraints.
 Positive freedom, in contradiction to negative freedom, is often seen as supporting welfarism
rather than a contracted government. This is because it has more to do with redistribution.
 Thus, freedom is concerned with the question ‘By whom am I governed?’ rather than ‘How
much am I governed?’ Being likened to the capacity of human beings to act and fulfil
themselves, this conception of freedom is more concerned with the distribution of material
or economic resources.
 Socialists, for example, have traditionally portrayed freedom in this way, seeing it as the
realization of one’s own ‘true’ nature. Karl Marx, for instance, described the true realm of
freedom as the ‘development of human potential for its own sake’. This potential could be
realized, Marx believed, only by the experience of creative labour, working together with
others to satisfy our needs. This concept of freedom is reflected in Marx’s concept of
“alienation”. According to him, capitalist workers suffer from an alienation in that they are
separated from their own natures; they are alienated from the product of their labour;
alienated from the process of labour itself; alienated from their fellow human beings and
alienated from their “true” selves.
 Rousseau describes freedom as “obedience to a law one prescribes oneself”. In his view,
freedom means to fashion one’s own destiny. Therefore, citizens are only “free” when they
participate in the process of shaping the life of their community.
 Berlin – freedom to do something, being in control of one’s own life

 Equality
Definitions
- Equality is not the same as uniformity. Egalitarian thinkers (from the French word égalité) accept
the uniqueness of individuals and accept that everyone is born with different talents. Their goal
is to establish such social, political, or legal conditions, which would ensure that people enjoy
equally worthwhile and satisfying lives.

Forms of Equality
1. Formal Equality – imp
 Foundational equality – the first notion of equality to influence political thought. It states that
all people are equal by virtue of a shared human essence. This arose out of natural right
theories. This was not associated with the idea of equality of opportunity. This is why John
Locke could state, that “all men are created equal”, and then go on to give an absolute
defence of property rights and the restriction of franchise to property owners.
 The idea that all human beings are possessors of equal rights is the basis of what is usually
called ‘formal equality’. Formal equality implies that, by virtue of their common humanity,
each person is entitled to be treated equally by the rules of social practice. As such, it is a
procedural rule which grants each person equal freedom to act however they may choose
and to make of their lives whatever they are capable of doing, without regard to the
opportunities, resources or wealth they start with.
 The most important manifestation of formal equality is legal equality, i.e. equality before the
law. Legal equality is the cornerstone of the rule of law. The rule of law seeks to ensure that
all conduct, both of public officials and private citizens, conforms to a framework of law, and
only to law. In America, a landmark case for legal equality was Brown v Board of Education
(1954), which declared that racial segregation in American schools was unconstitutional.
 The principle of formal equality is largely negative; it is concerned with eradicating special
privileges. This is why it is universally accepted, by conservatives, liberals as well as socialists.
E.g. Worldwide condemnation of apartheid in Africa. However, this ignores the capacity of
people to exercise their right, their money. This is why Anatole France ridiculed that the law
in all its majestic equality forbids the rich and poor alike to steal bread and sleep under
bridges.
 These limitations can be seen vis-à-vis both sexual and racial inequalities. This equality
prohibits a law discriminating against a race, but fails to address the institutionalized or
ingrained racism, or the adverse circumstances racial minorities face. Although women have
come a long way in achieving “formal equality”, there are still several cultural inequalities
that exist. Radical feminists attack formal equality by saying that it neglects the private
sphere, where patriarchy is deeply rooted in the institution of family.
 Marxists have accepted that capitalism has brought a form of equality in which the
marketplace judges people solely on the basis of their market value. This is why Marxists
refer to legal equality as “bourgeois equality” or “market” equality.

2. Moral Equality
 Presented as a negative harm, as rejection of natural hierarchy/equality. Characterisation of
moral equality can take form of how one justifies inequality. Equal regardless of achievement

3. Equality before law

 Laws apply equally to those who are subject to them. In Nazi, the legal rights were consistent
with ‘treating like cases alike’ wrt Jews.
4. Equal Liberty
 If we were in position of absolute liberty, then we won’t be refrained from behaving as we
choose which would reflect natural inequalities. Once we move from pure liberty to
protected liberty and issue of distribution (trade-off between equality and liberty) arises.

5. Material Equality
 Most significant disputes over distribution of income, education, and healthcare. Capacity to
acquire material goods is conditioned by structures we can’t control like class.

6. Equal Access
 If society places barriers, then this is denied. This may seem connected to material equality
but has more to do with equal civic and political rights

7. Equality of opportunity – imp

 A consistent application of equality of opportunity would be in danger of violating the
principle of formal equality.
 The idea of equal opportunity can be found in the writings of Plato. He proposed that social
position should be based solely upon individual ability and effort, and that the educational
system should offer all children equal chance to realize their talents.
 Equality of opportunity is considered principally with the initial part or the starting point of
life. Confining equality with only the starting point of life can have very inegalitarian
consequences. The principle of equal opportunity comes down to the equal opportunity to
become unequal.
 The principle of equality of opportunity distinguishes between two kinds of equality and
states that one of them is right while the other is wrong. There is an innate inequality, such as
difference in intelligence and talents. This inequality is acceptable and as Margaret Thatcher
states that there is a right to be unequal. The other kind of inequality is due to factors such as
poverty etc., which are beyond the control of an individual. Such inequalities are deemed to
be bad, since they are bred by social circumstances.
 Equality of opportunity points towards a very inegalitarian ideal – meritocracy. Michael
Young who wanted it to refer to a rule by a talented or intellectual elite coined this term. The
entire problem with this is that natural talent cannot be disentangled from social influences.
 Some have argued that a widespread implementation of this principle would mean that
individual liberty would be threatened.
 One particularly difficult issue that the equality of opportunity principle leads to is the
concept of affirmative action. This reverse discrimination is justified by the principle of
equality of opportunity. Therefore, it works like a handicap system in a sporting match.

8. Equality of outcome – imp

 Socialists, Communists, and some anarchists believe that a high level of equality is a
fundamental goal, whereas conservatives and liberals believe it to be immoral or unnatural.
 A concern with “outcomes” switches the focus from the starting point of life to the end point.
Thus, the focus is more on rewards as compared to opportunities. The idea of equal
outcomes is most closely associated with the idea of material equality.
 Rousseau was not a socialist since he defended the idea of private property. But even he said
that no human should be so rich that he can buy someone, and no person should be so poor
that he has to sell himself. This idea is consistent with the idea of redistribution of wealth
from the rich to the poor. This has more to do with reducing inequalities than achieving the
goal of social equality. Therefore, this is “distributive” equality rather than “absolute”
equality.
  The most famous experiment in radical egalitarianism took place in China by means of the
“Cultural Revolution” from 1965 – 1968. During this time, not only were wage differentials
denounced, but also competitive sports such as football were banned.
 Equality of outcome can be justified on the grounds that it is a pre-requisite for securing
individual liberty. As far as an individual is concerned, a certain level of material prosperity is
required if people are to live worthwhile and fulfilled lives. Rousseau feared that the material
inequality would lead to the enslavement of the poor. Social equality forms the practical
foundation for a common culture.
 Aristotle said that inequality arises not only when equals are treated unequally, but also
when unequals are treated equally. Hayek says that equality is nothing but the robbing of the
rich and feeding the poor.

Freedom and equality conflict on

a. Choice
b. Capacity for choice, which is not under the individual
c. Outcome of the choice

Social Justice and Welfare

- Social justice refers to a defensible or just distribution of material rewards. Fundamental
differences exist between those who believe that distribution should be broadly egalitarian
because it aims to satisfy human needs; those who argue that it should reflect individual merits,
rights based upon talent and the willingness to work; and those who suggest that it is
determined by innate and unchangeable factors, the natural deserts of individuals and groups.
- Welfare is the idea of a basic level of equal well-being for all citizens, a minimum quality of life
for all. Although some believe that this goal can best be achieved through individual self-reliance
and hard work or by a system of private charity, it is invariably achieved in practice through
collectively provided welfare services delivered by government, the welfare state. Forms of
welfare provision however vary considerably.
- Among the virtues that have been identified with welfare are that it promotes national
efficiency, fosters social cohesion, helps individuals to develop their potential, and tends to
narrow social inequalities. Critics, however, have attacked welfare, on the one hand, for creating
dependency and promoting inefficiency. Third-way welfare thinking is based upon a rights-and-
responsibilities agenda, which at heart reflects the desire to improve access to education and
skills, and thus to work.
-
 Justice
Definitions
- Justice is a moral or normative concept. Justice does not simply mean “moral”, it refers to a
specific type of moral judgment. Justice is about giving each person what he or she is due.
Justice is a distributive concept. Walzer said that different principles of justice are appropriate in
different spheres of life.
- Legal Justice - Justice when related primarily to law. Legal justice concerns itself with the way
justice distributed penalties for wrongdoings or allocates compensation. Therefore, justice
comprises the enforcement of a public set of rules. Therefore, in order for justice to be done,
these rules must themselves have some moral underpinnings

Two forms of justice

1. Procedural Justice – relates to how rules are made and applied
 It is also known as formal justice. This type of justice refers to the manner in which decisions
or outcomes are achieved, rather than the content of the decisions themselves.
 John Rawls mooted the idea of “pure procedural justice” which means that justice is by the
application of just procedures, such as in a running race or a lottery.
 At the heart of procedural justice stands the principle of formal equality. The law should be
impartially applied. This can only happen if the judges are strictly independent and unbiased.
Procedural justice justifies the widespread use of the jury system, especially in criminal trials.
 The legal system must also acknowledge the possibility that mistakes can be made and
provide some system in which these mistakes can be rectified. This is done in practice
through the hierarchy of Courts. However, the rectification of mistakes is put at risk when
appeals are put entirely in the hands of judges who might be fearful of bringing disrepute to
the judiciary.
 Procedural justice is also required to presume that the accused is innocent until proven
guilty. This is said to be the “Golden thread” of the English legal system.
 The principle of equality needs to be there at every stage of the legal process. Ordinary
citizens should not be disadvantaged by their ignorance in dealing with the police, the
prosecution or the judiciary. This is why an accused must clearly be informed of the charges
against him or her.

2. Substantive Justice – concerned with the rules themselves and whether they are just or unjust.
 The legal process however, may result in unjust outcomes not because the legal processes
are not applied properly, but because the law itself is unjust. Examples of this would be laws
that prevent women from voting.
 Like all normative principles, the idea of substantive justice is subjective. The decline of
religion and tradition has led to the growth of moral pluralism. This makes it impossible to
make any firm or authoritative judgments about the moral contents of law. Justice is in this
sense a relative concept.
 One way round this problem is to relate justice to the dominant set of values prevalent in a
society. This is what Patrick Devlin meant when he said that law should enforce morality. He
proposed a distinction between what he called consensus laws and non-consensus laws.
a. Consensus Laws - Consensus laws are those which correspond to the idea of fairness
prevalent in society and as a result people are willing to put up with such laws.
b. Non-consensus laws - Non-consensus laws are those which do not conform to the idea
of fairness prevalent in society and are therefore disobeyed.
 Devlin felt that judges were in the best position to determine the distinction between
consensus and non-consensus laws. The danger, however, with such activism is that there is
 no certain way to know whether such “activism” is based on society’s perception of right or
wrong or the judge’s own personal beliefs. Further, the judiciary is not really socially
representative.
 The danger of Devlin’s argument is that it threatens to classify most laws as non-consensus
on the grounds that somebody or other is not ‘prepared to put up with’ them.

Thinkers
1. Rawls – ‘A theory of justice’
 advances a method for making moral decisions about the distribution of resources – not just
material resources, but also freedom and political power – and argues that the operation of
that method would result in a particular conception of justice, one which is significantly
‘redistributivist’ (or egalitarian).
 Rawls wants to give a theory of justice that applies to basic structure of the society which
consists of institutions that fundamentally affect a person’s life chances and he is a
philosopher, so he won’t talk about detailed policy decisions but will offer arguments that no
reasonable person can reject, he is aiming for unanimity.
 Classical idea of contract- It was device by which power was legitimated. Rational for
individual to hand over some rights to a coercive authority.
 He differs from the classical theorist by taking for granted that social cooperation under a
state is normally a good thing. So, focus of his theory is not justification of state but
distribution of benefits and burdens of cooperation under a state.
benefits- Material goods, personal freedom and political power
burden- inequality which may arise and that principles will be coercively enforced
 Veil of ignorance - You don’t know anything about yourself, i.e., your ideas about what makes
life valuable or worth living, such as your religious and philosophical beliefs, but which are
not necessarily shared by other people. You only know general things like you live in a society
with moderate scarcity, enough to satisfy basic needs. Some features – not a gambler, risk
averse; Mutually disinterested (not interested in another’s welfare); not envious of others;
value certain things like rights, liberties, power; seek to maximize your share of primary social
goods. There is a contradiction- On one hand humans are shown to be completely self-
interested but on the other, they don’t know their identities, so they are forced to be
impartial, i.e., we are forced to be in each other’s shoes. All primary goods would be given
equally; difference principle – everyone given reasources equally

2. Nozick – Libertarian theory of Justice – Entitlement Theory

 Stresses on private property
 Defends notion of state against philosophical anarchists who argue that state can never be
justified. But he defends a minimal state. Minimal state- monopoly provider of security
services
a. Just acquisition
 Uses John Locke’s work on first acquisition of private property. Standard interpretation is
that he was attempting to reconcile Christianity and Capitalism when it was beginning to
replace Feudalism.
 Capitalism is a challenge because wasteful of natural resources which violate
stewardship. It implied private and not common ownership and undermined capacity of
poor to do their duty
 Begins with assumption of self-ownership,ie, your own body is no longer grounded in
god’s right as creator. Adopts and alters Locke’s provisos- Sufficiency – If everyone if
better off after appropriation then that appropriation is just. Spoilage – Insists that
person can’t acquire monopoly control over certain goods like water supply
  You can own anything as long as sufficiency proviso (everyone is better off after
appropriation) and spoilage proviso (person can’t acquire monopoly control) – reworked
Locke’s theory

b. Just transfer
 Right to transfer acquired property - consent

c. Rectification
 If acquisition or transfer is done through fraud, etc, rectification mechanism must be
there

Basis for distribution of wealth

1. Threat advantage – amount a person earns is result of relative bargaining power
2. Need – everyone should have their needs satisfied – should be a minimum for all
3. Desert – if you work hard and earnings increase, you deserve to keep those earnings
4. Freedom – everyone should have the freedom of buying what they want, and the profit from
that should be with the person selling the product
5. Labour – profit from sale of commodity should reflect contribution of the producer (labourer)
makes to the commodity.
6. Maximise utility – aim to maximise overall level of utility (happiness/pleasure) in society.
7. Equality resources – equal for all
8. Priority to the worst off – Worst off should be as well off as possible

Breaking the Law

- In most cases, laws are broken by people described, rather quaintly, as ‘common criminals’. On
the other hand, there are incidents of law-breaking which are principled and, maybe, justifiable
in moral or political terms. Some legal systems, indeed, acknowledge this fact by categorizing
certain law-breakers as ‘political prisoners’ and treating them differently from everyday
criminals.

Civil Disobedience
- Anarchists consider the law to be immoral.
- A person should obey the law because of political obligations to do so. Civil disobedience has a
long and respectable heritage, drawing as it does upon the ideas of writers such as Henry David
Thoreau (1817–62) and the example of political leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin
Luther King (1929–68). Under Gandhi’s influence, non-violent civil disobedience became a
powerful weapon in the campaign for Indian independence, finally granted in 1947. In the early
1960s, Martin Luther King adopted similar political tactics in the struggle for black civil rights in
the American South. Civil disobedience is an overt and public act: it aims to break a law in order
to ‘make a point’ rather than in an attempt to get away with it. Civil disobedience is thus
distinguished from other criminal acts by its motives, which are conscientious or principled, in
the sense that they aim to bring about some kind of legal or political change; it does not merely
serve the interests of the law-breaker himself or herself
- In many cases the civil disobedience is against laws themselves unjust.
- The distinction between law and justice has usually, in the modern period, been based upon the
doctrine of human rights, asserting as it does that there is a set of higher moral principles against
which human law can be judged and to which it should conform.
-
 Rights and Obligations

Rights
- Citizens are not, however, merely bearers of rights, able to make claims against their state; they
also have duties and obligations towards the state that has protected, nurtured, and cared for
them. (Eg: military service). Linked to the idea of citizenship.
- The term ‘right’ stood for a power or privilege as in the right of the nobility, the right of the
clergy, and, of course, the divine right of kings. However, in its modern sense, it refers to an
entitlement to act or be treated in a particular way.

1. Legal Rights
 Rights which are enshrined in law and are therefore enforceable through the courts. They
have been described as ‘positive’ rights in that they are enjoyed or upheld regardless of their
moral content, in keeping with the idea of ‘positive law’.

2. Moral Rights – ‘Ideal’ rights

 Bestow upon a person a benefit that they need or deserve. Reflect what a person should
have, from the perspective of a particular moral or religious system. Jeremy Bentham –
dangers –they may become impossibly vague and degenerate into little more than an
expression of what is morally desirable. Prepared to acknowledge only the existence of
‘positive’/legal rights. Moral rights merely meta-physical entities.

3. Natural/Human Rights
 The idea of human rights developed out of the ‘natural rights’ theories of the early modern
period. Such theories arose, primarily, out of the desire to establish some limits upon how
individuals may be treated by others, especially by those who wield political power. However,
if rights are to act as a check upon political authority, they must in a sense be ‘pre-legal’, law
being merely the creation of political authority.
 In the seventeenth century, John Locke identified as natural rights the right to ‘life, liberty
and property’; a century later, Thomas Jefferson defined them as right to ‘life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness’. Such rights were described as ‘natural’ in that they were thought to
be God-given and therefore to be part of the very core of human nature. Natural rights did
not exist simply as moral claims but were, rather, considered to reflect the most fundamental
inner human drives; they were the basic conditions for leading a truly human existence.
 By the twentieth century, the decline of religious belief had led to the secularization of
natural rights theories, which were reborn in the form of ‘human’ rights. Human rights are
rights to which people are entitled by virtue of being human. They are therefore ‘universal’
rights in the sense that they belong to all human beings rather than to members of any
particular nation, race, religion, gender, social class or whatever. Human rights are also
‘fundamental’ rights in that they are inalienable: they cannot be traded away or revoked.
 Fierce controversy about the point at which ‘human’ life begins (conception or birth) and so
the point at which individuals acquire entitlements or rights.
 Problem arises from the fact that while human rights are universal, human beings are not
identical. To advance the cause of ‘women’s rights’ may simply be to argue that human
rights, initially developed with men in mind, should also be extended to women. More
controversial, however, is the notion that women are entitled to a set of rights in addition to
men’s in an attempt to compensate them for their unequal treatment by society.
 Criticisms:
a. Marx regarded the doctrine of ‘the Rights of Man’ as little more than a means of
advancing the interests of private property. In his view, every right was a ‘right of
 inequality’ since it applied an equal standard to unequal individuals. Eg. Right to property
can be regarded as a ‘bourgeois’ right, has very different implications for rich/poor.
b. Multicultural theorists have questioned the relevance and value of human rights in
modern pluralistic societies. In particular, they have drawn attention to the extent to
which idea of human rights reflects a form of ethnocentrism, in which norms and values
of dominant cultural groups take precedence over those of minority cultural groups.
c. Anticolonial and postcolonial theories have at times portrayed the doctrine of human
rights as an example of cultural imperialism.

4. Animal Rights
 Developed in popularity since the 1960s as a result of the growth of ecological theories that
have tried to redefine the relationship between humans and the natural world.
 Animal rights theories commence by examining the grounds upon which rights are allocated
to humans. One possibility is that rights spring out of the existence of life itself: human beings
have rights because they are living individuals. If this is true, however, it naturally follows that
the same rights should be granted to other living creatures.

Obligations
- An obligation is a requirement or duty to act in a particular way. H.L.A. Hart distinguished
between ‘being obliged’ to do something, which implies an element of coercion, and ‘having an
obligation’ to do something, which suggests only a moral duty.

1. Legal Obligations:
 Enforceable through the courts and backed up by a system of penalties. Such obligations may
be upheld on grounds of simple prudence: whether laws are right or wrong they are obeyed
out of a fear of punishment.
 Requirement to pay taxes etc.

2. Moral Obligations:
 Fulfilled not because it is sensible to do so but because such conduct is thought to be rightful
or morally correct.

3. Rights and Obligations

 In a sense, rights and obligations are the reverse sides of the same coin. To possess a right
usually places someone else under an obligation to uphold or respect that right. In that sense,
the individual rights discussed place heavy obligations upon the state.
 ‘Negative’ rights entail an obligation on the part of the state to limit or constrain its power;
‘positive’ rights oblige the state to manage economic life, provide a range of welfare services
and so on. However, if citizens are bearers of rights alone and all obligations fall upon the
state, orderly and civilized life would be impossible: individuals who possess rights but
acknowledge no obligations would be lawless, unrestrained. Citizenship, thus, entails a blend
of rights and obligations, the most basic of which has traditionally been described as ‘political
obligation’, the duty of the citizen to acknowledge the authority of the state, obey its laws.

4. Contractual Obligation
 A ‘social contract’ is an agreement made either among citizens, or between citizens and the
state, through which they accept the authority of the state in return for benefits which only a
sovereign power can provide. However, the basis of this contract and the obligations it entails
have been the source of profound disagreement.
 In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argued that citizens have an absolute obligation to obey
political authority, regardless of how the government may behave. In effect, Hobbes believed
 that though citizens were obliged to obey their state, the state itself was not subject to any
reciprocal obligations. This was because Hobbes believed that the existence of any state,
however oppressive, is preferable to the existence of no state at all, which would lead to a
descent into chaos and barbarism.
 Locke’s account of the origins of political obligation involve the establishment of two
contracts. The first, the social contract proper, was undertaken by all the individuals who
form a society. In effect, they volunteered to sacrifice a portion of their liberty in order to
secure the order and stability which only a political community can offer. The second
contract, or ‘trust’, was undertaken between a society and its government, through which
the latter was authorised to protect the natural rights of its citizens. This implied that
obedience to government was conditional upon the state fulfilling its side of the contract. If
state became tyrannical against the individual, the individual could exercise right of rebellion.
 A very different form of social contract theory was developed by Jean- Jacques Rousseau in
The Social Contract. Whereas Hobbes and Locke had assumed human beings to be power-
seeking and narrowly self-interested, Rousseau held a far more optimistic view of human
nature. He was attracted by the notion of the ‘noble savage’ and believed that the roots of
injustice lay not in the human individual but rather in society itself. In Rousseau’s view,
government should be based upon what he called the ‘general will’, reflecting the common
interests of society as opposed to the ‘private will’, or selfish wishes of each member. In a
sense, Rousseau espoused an orthodox social contract theory in that he said that an
individual is bound by the rules of a society, including its general will, only if he himself has
consented to be a member of that society. Such a theory of obligation, however, moves away
from the idea of government by consent. Being blinded by ignorance and selfishness, citizens
may not recognize that the general will embodies their ‘real’ interests. In such circumstances,
Rousseau acknowledged that citizens should be ‘forced to be free’; in other words, they
should be forced to obey their own ‘true’ selves.

5. Natural Duty – Political Obligation

- Ground of political obligation that relates to the idea that membership of a particular society is
somehow ‘natural’, in which case political obligation can be thought of as a natural duty. To
conceive of political obligation in this way is to move away from the idea of voluntary behaviour.
A duty is a task or action that a person is bound to perform for moral reasons; it is not just a
morally preferable action. Thus, the debt of gratitude which Socrates claimed he owed Athens
did not allow him to challenge or resist its laws, even at the cost of his own life. The idea of
natural duty has been particularly attractive to conservative thinkers who have stressed the
degree to which all social groups, including political communities, are held together by the
recognition of mutual obligations and responsibilities.
- The cause of social duty has also been taken up by socialist and social- democratic theorists.
Socialists have traditionally underlined the need for community and cooperation, emphasizing
that human beings are essentially sociable and gregarious creatures. Social duty can therefore
be understood as the practical expression of community; it reflects the responsibility of every
human being towards every other member of society. This may, for instance, incline socialists to
place heavier responsibilities upon the citizen than liberals would be prepared to do.
- Political obligation denotes not a duty to obey a particular law but rather the citizen’s duty to
respect and obey the state itself. When the limits of political obligation are reached, the citizen is
not merely released from a duty to obey the state but, in effect, gains an entitlement: the right
to rebel. A rebellion is an attempt to overthrow state power, usually involving a substantial body
of citizens as well as, in most cases, the use of violence. (when the state was not legitimate from
the very beginning eg: Indian independence or when it fails to fulfil its own duties towards the
protection of the citizen’s natural rights).
 Citizenship

Introduction
- In Ancient Greece, the relationship between the individual and State was embodied in the
notion of citizen; literally a member of the state. Within Greek city- states, citizenship was
reflected in the right to participate in the political life of the community and the obligation, if
selected, to shoulder the burden of public office. This was, however, restricted to a small
minority living in such states, in effect, free-born propertied males.
- The modern concept of citizenship is, by contrast, founded upon the principle of universal rights
and obligations. Its roots lie in seventeenth-century ideas about natural rights.
- Multicultural theorists address the political, social, and cultural issues that arise from the
pluralistic nature of many modern societies, reflected in growing evidence of communal diversity
and identity-related difference.

Legal Status, Identity, Belonging

- A ‘citizen’ is a member of a political community who is endowed with a set of rights and a set of
obligations. Citizenship therefore represents a relationship between the individual and the state,
in which the two are bound together by reciprocal rights and obligations. However, the precise
nature of this relationship is the subject of considerable argument and dispute. For example,
some view citizenship as a legal status which can be defined objectively, while others see it as an
identity, a sense of loyalty or belonging. The most contentious question, however, relates to the
precise nature of citizen’s rights and obligations, and the balance between the two.
- The most fundamental right of citizenship is thus the right to live and work in a country,
something which ‘aliens’ or ‘foreign citizens’ may or may not be permitted to do, and then only
under certain conditions and for a limited period. Citizens may also be allowed to vote, stand for
election, and enter certain occupations, notably military or state service, which may not be open
to non-citizens. However, legal citizenship only designates a formal status, without in any way
indicating that the citizen feels that he or she is a member of a political community. In that
sense, citizenship must always have a subjective or psychological component: the citizen is
distinguished by a frame of mind, a sense of loyalty towards his or her state, even a willingness
to act in its defence. Undoubtedly however, citizenship linked to capacity to enjoy set of rights.

TH Marshall – Attempted to break down Citizenship into 3 “bundles” of rights

1. Civil rights – rights necessary for individual freedom (speech, movement). Exercised within civil
society and existence depends on establishment of limited govt that respects indiv autonomy.
2. Political rights – right to partake in political process. These rights require development of
universal suffrage, political equality, and democratic govt.
3. Social rights – right to a minimum social status; basic welfare; contingent on welfare state
- Criticisms:
a. Social rights attacked by New Right
b. More rights can be added. Didn’t acknowledge broader economic rights other than right to
property
c. Feminist theories- full citizenship to take gender inequality into account and add more rights
to women.
d. Because Marshall’s work was developed with the nation- state in mind, it failed to take
account of the growing significance of the international dimension of citizenship.
Types
1. Social citizenship – requires equal rights and entitlements – welfare state – supported by liberals
 arose out of the writings of T.H. Marshall and the emphasis he placed upon social rights. For
Marshall, citizenship was a universal quality enjoyed by all members of the community and
therefore demanded equal rights and entitlements. The distinctive feature of Marshall’s
work, however, was the stress it placed upon the relationship between citizenship and the
achievement of social equality.
 Social citizenship is based upon the belief that citizens are entitled to social rights and not
merely civil and political rights. A minimum social status has been seen as the basis for full
participation in the life of the community.
 Criticism: Others point out that, just as social citizenship is linked to the attempt to modify
class inequalities, active citizenship may be turned into a philosophy of ‘pay your way’ which
simply reinforces existing inequalities

2. Active citizen – supported by New Right – emphasis on (1) self-reliance (2) avoid dependency -
stress on duty and responsibility (entitlements should be earned)
 developed out of an emerging New Right model of citizenship, outlined first in the USA but
soon taken up by politicians in Europe and elsewhere. However, since the New Right has
drawn upon two contrasting traditions – economic liberalism and social conservatism – active
citizenship has two faces. On the one hand, it represents a classical liberal emphasis upon
self-reliance and ‘standing on one’s own two feet’; on the other, it underlines a traditionally
conservative stress upon duty and responsibility

3. Universal citizenship – each citizen is entitled to same rights – all differences are in private
sphere – fear of homogeneity – blindness to differences that lead to unequal treatment – helps
conceal inequalities
 Traditional conceptions of citizenship, regardless of the rights they highlight or the balance
they imply between entitlements and duties, are united in emphasizing the universality of
citizenship. In so far as people are classified as citizens, each is entitled to the same rights and
expected to shoulder the same obligations as every other citizen. This notion of universal
citizenship is rooted in the liberal idea of a distinction between ‘private’ and ‘public’ life, in
which differences between and among people – linked, for instance, to factors such as
gender, ethnicity and religion – are seen to be ‘private’ matters and so are irrelevant to a
person’s ‘public’ status and standing. Liberalism is, as a result, sometimes portrayed as
‘difference-blind’: it treats those factors that distinguish people from one another as
secondary because all of us share the same core identity as individuals and citizens.

4. Differentiated citizenship – taking into account group differences – Iris Young – based on bodily
factors – based on need to protect identities – Based on need to counter cultural/attitudinal
obstacles to full participation
 An increasing awareness of the diverse and pluralistic nature of modern societies has,
however, encouraged some to question and even reject the idea of universal citizenship. Iris
Young (1990) championed the notion of ‘differentiated’ citizenship as a means of taking
account of group differences. From this perspective, the traditional conception of citizenship
has its drawbacks. These include that the link between citizenship and inclusion can imply
homogeneity, particularly when citizens are seen to be united by a undifferentiated ‘general
will’ or collective interest, which is increasingly difficult to identify in modern pluralistic
societies.
 Module 3: Essential Ideological Standpoints
Ideology

Introduction
- Destutt de Tracy – referred to it as a science of idea that set out to uncover origins of conscious
thought and ideas
- Marx – Ideas of ruling class that uphold class system and perpetuate exploitation. [Feature of
this- It is false. Confuses subordinate classes by concealing from them the contradictions on
which all class societies are based. Capitalism- Ideology of property-owning bourgeoisie creates
delusion amongst exploited proletariat which prevents them from recognizing their own
exploitation. He didn’t believe political view had ideological character.]
- Louis Althusser – French neo-Marxist – Ideology is the cement that binds human societies
together

- All ideologies embody an account of social and political reality and an account of how that reality
could be bettered. 3 components:
1. Critique – of an existing thought process
2. Vision – Provides an alternative to the existing reality
3. Programme – for change

- They try to galvanise the people, capture power, and change the existing order. All of them try
to reorganize society by dictating State action (prioritize State functions in a certain manner) and
the way the market functions. Ideologies influence our notions of justice. In this way, ideologies
are very powerful once their ideas actualize.
- Ideologies help us make sense of the complex social world we live in by giving us a worldview
and rationalizing certain ways of thinking. In this way, they impair our natural thinking process.
They provide a description of society, an intellectual map, which enables us to position ourselves
in the social landscape.
- Liberals – social and political world is made up of individuals, who even if they act together,
remain first and foremost defined by their individuality. Political life is best understood as a
series of individual choices and decisions about how we should get along together.
- Socialists- view social and political life in terms of class conflict. It isn’t the actions of individuals
but the ways in which social classes are brought into conflict by economic imperatives beyond
the control of any one individual that define politics.
- Every ideology embodies an account of the basic elements and core dynamics that constitute
and propel social and political life. Also, along with a map comes a picture of an ideal society. Eg:
nationalists view the nation as the form of political organisation ideally suited to the recognition
of the deep-seated connections between people who share a sense of place, a common history,
and certain forms of social and cultural expression.

Can politics exist without ideology?

YES-:
 Overcoming falsehood and delusion- reasoning and critical understanding can remove us
from this. Ideologies demand faith and commitment from believers who can’t think outside
their chosen view. Purpose of pol sc to disengage both.
 Rise of technocratic politics- Collapse of communism has led to acceptance of capitalism
which has made their fight irrelevant to politics. So, politics not concerned with ideological
questions but questions like management of capitalist system
  Rise of consumerist politics- Little place due to electoral competition which forces parties to
act like businesses and formulate products to sell. So, they don’t focus on reshaping demands
and engage in de-ideologization.
NO:
 Intellectual framework- will always survive because provides political actors a framework to
make sense. They are rival visions of world to highlight diff aspects.
 Ideological renewal- There is flexibility as there is continuous redefinition and renewal.
Decline of left and right is not the end but the opening of new ideologies.
 The vision thing- Touches those aspects in politics that no other form does. Gives reason to
believe something larger.

Two current ideological disputes in global politics

1. Gradual coalescence of ideological positions within liberal democracies
 form of de-aligned politics in which major political parties are striving to appeal to all people;
no longer possible to garner political support by appealing to one section of the community
by claiming that the views of the other section are false
2. Persistent eruptions of ideological fury around the world
 Liberalism

Introduction
- Liberal ideas resulted from the breakdown of feudalism in Europe and the growth, in its place, of
a market capitalist society. Liberalism was a political doctrine, which attacked absolutism and
feudal privilege, instead advocating constitutional and, later, representative government. By the
19th century, a distinctively liberal political creed had developed that extolled the virtues of
laissez-faire capitalism and condemned all forms of economic and social intervention. This
became the centre piece of classical, or nineteenth-century, liberalism. From the late nineteenth
century onwards, however, a form of social liberalism emerged which looked more favourably
on welfare reform and economic management. This became the characteristic theme of
modern, or 20th century, liberalism.
- Liberal thought is characterised by a commitment to individualism, a belief in the supreme
importance of the human individual, implying strong support for individual freedom. From the
liberal viewpoint, individuals are rational creatures who are entitled to the greatest possible
freedom consistent with a liberty model.

Classical Liberalism
- Classical liberalism is distinguished by a belief in a ‘minimal’ state, whose function is limited to
the maintenance of domestic order and personal security.
- Classical liberals emphasise that humans are essentially self-interested and largely self-sufficient;
as far as possible, people should be responsible for their own lives and circumstances. As a
result, liberals look towards the creation of a meritocratic society in which rewards are
distributed according to individual talent and hard work.
- As an economic doctrine, classical liberalism extols the merits of a self- regulating market in
which government intervention is both unnecessary and damaging.
- Classical liberal ideas are expressed in certain natural rights theories and utilitarianism and
provide a cornerstone of the libertarian political tradition.

Modern Liberalism
- Exhibits a more sympathetic attitude towards the state.
- This shift was born out of the recognition that industrial capitalism had merely generated new
forms of injustice and left the mass of the population subject to the vagaries of the market. This
view provided the basis for social or welfare liberalism, which is characterised by the recognition
that state intervention can enlarge liberty by safeguarding individuals from the social evils that
blight their existence.
- The theoretical basis for the transition from classical to modern liberalism was provided by the
development of a ‘positive’ view of freedom. Whereas classical liberals had understood freedom
in ‘negative’ terms, as the absence of external constraints upon the individual, modern liberals
linked freedom to personal development and self-realisation. This created clear overlaps
between modern liberalism and social democracy.

Advantages and Criticisms

- Advantages: Liberalism has undoubtedly been the most important element in Western political
tradition. Indeed, some identify liberalism with Western civilization in general. One of the
implications of this is that liberalism strives not to prescribe any particular conception of the
good life, but to establish conditions in which individuals and groups can pursue the good life as
 each defines it. The great virtue of liberalism is its unrelenting commitment to individual
freedom, reasoned debate and toleration.
- Criticisms:
 Marxists have criticised the liberal commitment to civic rights and political equality because it
ignores the reality of unequal class power
 Feminists argue that individualism is invariably construed on the basis of male norms which
legitimize gender inequality
 Communitarians condemn liberalism for portraying the self as asocial and acultural and for
failing to provide a moral basis for social order and collective endeavour.

John Locke
- Championed the cornerstone liberal idea – government arises out of agreement, or consent, of
the governed [Social contact theory]
- In this view, the purpose of government is to protect natural rights (for Locke, the rights to life,
liberty and property), but when the government breaks the terms of its contract its legitimacy
evaporates, and the people have the right of rebellion. Lockean liberalism laid down the basis for
limited government, representation, and constitutionalism, and greatly influenced the American
Revolution.

J. S Mill
- construction of a liberal theory squarely based upon the virtues of liberty, as opposed to earlier
ideas such as natural rights and utilitarianism.
- His conception of ‘man as a progressive being’ led him to recoil from interventionism but
encouraged him to develop a notion of individuality that stresses the prospects for human
development and provides an important foundation for modern liberal thought.

Thomas Hill Green

- Green highlighted the limitations of early liberal doctrines and particularly laissez- faire. By
drawing upon Kant and Hegel, he highlighted the limitations of the doctrine of ‘negative’
freedom and developed a pioneering defence of ‘positive’ freedom which helped liberalism to
reach an accommodation with welfarism and social justice. Green was an important influence
upon the development in Britain of ‘new liberalism’.

Isiah Berlin
- developed a form of pluralist liberalism that is based upon the anti-perfectionist belief that
conflicts of value are an intrinsic, irremovable element in human life. Political arrangements
should therefore attempt to secure the greatest scope to allow people to pursue their differing
ends. Berlin supported ‘negative’ liberty over ‘positive’ liberty, on the grounds that the latter has
monistic and authoritarian implications.

John Rawls
- theory of ‘justice as fairness’ not only condemns racial, sexual and religious discrimination, but
also rejects many forms of social and economic inequality. Rawls’ egalitarian form of liberalism
has had a profound effect upon political philosophy generally and has made a significant
contribution to both the modern liberal and social-democratic political conditions.
 Socialism and Communism

Introduction
- Socialism originated in a response to the excesses of early industrial capitalism. It is a range of
social and economic systems characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the
means of production as well as the political ideologies that aim at their establishment. Thus, the
essence of early socialism was public ownership of the means of production. Socialists wanted to
bring about a sense of equality and community by minimizing the influence of the institution of
private property. These theorists also included varying forms of democratic political decision-
making, but they all distrusted the ability of people raised under capitalism to understand what
was in their own best interest.
- Karl Marx rejected these early socialists and developed his own version of socialism, which he
called communism. This was ‘scientific socialism’ as opposed to ‘utopian socialism’ that operated
within the existing framework. Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels signified socialism
as an opposition to capitalism and advocacy for a post-capitalist system based on some form of
social ownership of the means of production. He said that we could go beyond capitalism to a
mode of production that didn’t reinforce class orientation and exploitation (base is the economic
structure, rest is superstructure). Accumulation of capital and the resulting economic
inequalities produce social classes. Those at the lowest rungs (labourers exploited by the labour
theory of surplus value) are the harbingers of change. He wished to bring about a radical change
(outside the framework) that would result in a classless society.

Key Ideas of socialism

1. Community – emphasizes nurture over nature; explains individual behaviour in terms of social
factors
2. Fraternity – cooperation over competition; collectivism over individualism
3. Social Equality – Socialism portrayed as a form of egalitarianism, belief of primacy of equality
over other values. Emphasizes important in equality of outcome and opportunity. Disagreement
within regarding degree of extent of social equality. Marxists- absolute SE by collectivism of
production wealth, Social Democrats- favour narrowing material equalities, more concerned
with opportunities than outcomes
4. Need - Material benefits should be distributed on the basis of need rather than just merit or
work. Marx’s communist principle of distribution- ‘from each according to his ability, to each
according to his need’. Satisfaction of basic needs is important for human existence and
participation in social life. Distribution requires people to be morally motivated not materially
5. Social Class - Associated with class politics. Tend to analyse society in terms of distribution of
income or wealth so see social class as a significant social cleavage.
It has traditionally been associated with working class and it has regarded working class as an
agent of change. Class divisions are remediable: the socialist goal is either the eradication of
economic and social inequalities, or their substantial reduction.
6. Common Ownership - Controversial. Some see it as end of socialism while others see it as means
of generating broader equality. Socialist case for this is that it is a means of for harnessing
material resources to common good. Private property promotes selfishness and division.
Moderns have moved away from this.

Democratic socialism
- A humanitarian rationale for democratic socialism is the belief that only when the people control
the economic system will solutions to basic social problems, such as hunger and disease, be
 possible. The fundamental assumption underlying democratic socialism is that participation in
political decision making should be extended to include economic decision making.
- Characteristics – Most property held by public; limit on accumulation of private property;
Government regulation of economy; Extensively publicly financed assistance and pension
programs; Social costs and the provision of services added to purely financial considerations as
the measure of efficiency.
- Critiques: Based on Destruction of the free market and Centralisation of power
 Interference with the free market through government ownership and regulation puts too
much power in the hands of government, leading to centralization of power and
consequently the destruction of democracy.

New Social Democracy

- state came to be seen not as a vehicle for wholesale social restructuring, but as a means of
promoting international competitiveness; particularly by building up education and skills.
- Led to support for workfare state- government provision in terms of benefits or education is
conditional on individuals seeking work and becoming self-reliant
- it has broken with socialist egalitarianism (which is seen as a form of ‘levelling’) and embraced,
instead, the liberal ideas of equality of opportunity and meritocracy.
- general acceptance of globalization and the belief that capitalism has mutated into a ‘knowledge
economy’, which places a premium on information technology, individual skills, and both labour
and business flexibility.
- Criticism - argue either that it is contradictory, in that it simultaneously endorses the dynamism
of the market and warns against its tendency to social disintegration, or that, far from being a
centre-left project, it amounts to a shift to the right.

Marxism
- Dialectical materialism- Orthodox Marxism- basis of Soviet Communism. Placed heavier stress on
mechanistic theories and historical determinism
- Core- Philosophy of history that Engels described as the ‘materialist conception of history’, or
historical materialis
- Highlights importance of economic life and conditions under which people produce and
reproduce means of subsistence.
Marx held that economic base consists of mode of production or economic system, conditions or
determines the ideological and political ‘superstructure’.
- Believed that driving force of historical change was dialectic- process of interaction between
competing forces that result in higher stage of development.
This model implies that historical change is a consequence of internal contradiction within mode
of production, reflected in class conflict. So, capitalism is doomed to collapse as a result of
conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat. Conflict is irreconcilable because proletariat is
necessarily and systematically exploited under capitalism as B extracts surplus value
- Proletarian revolution will occur once crises brings out proletariat to full class consciousness.
This would bring a transitionary socialist period of development characterized by ‘dictatorship of
proletariat’
But as community society comes into existence, proletariat will wither away and there will be
classlessness and statelessness. conditions or determines the ideological and political
‘superstructure’.
- Neo-marxism
  That is, humans are makers of history and not just puppets controlled by impersonal material
forces. Insistence that there is interplay between economics and politics, between
circumstances of life and the capacity of human beings to shape their own destinies, neo-
Marxists were able to break free from the rigid ‘base– superstructure’ straitjacket. This
indicated an unwillingness to treat the class struggle as the beginning and end of social
analysis.
 Antonio Gramsci- emphasized the degree to which capitalism was maintained not merely by
economic domination, but also by political and cultural factors. He called this ideological
‘hegemony’
 Georg Lukcas- Presented Marxism as humanistic philosophy.
 Emphasized process of reification (making something real, bringing something into being, or
making something concrete) through which capitalism dehumanizes workers by reducing
them to passive objects or marketable commodities.

Socialism after Marx

1. Fabian socialism: (late 1800s in Britain) sought to gradual conversion to socialism (Roman
general Fabius used to procrastinate and then strike hard); piecemeal solution; landed property
should be owned by the state
2. Guild socialism: political movement advocating workers’ control over industry; guilds will own all
and no private property
3. Syndicalism: system of economic organization in which workers will own and operate industries
 Anarchism

Introduction
- The school of political thought that is dedicated precisely to establish that Government is
unnecessary is Anarchism. They turn the social contract theories on their head and offer a
different characterization of the state of nature. They differ with the social contract theorists
when they have a more optimistic conception of human nature, stressing on rational
understanding, compassion, and co-operation.
- Anarchists view the government not as a safeguard against disorder but the cause of conflict,
unrest, and violence. By imposing rule from above, the Government represses freedom,
breeding resentment and promoting inequality.
- Anarchists look at historical examples such as the medieval city-states revered by Peter
Kropotkin and the Russian peasant community that was admired by Leo Tolstoy where rational
agreement and mutual-sympathy maintained peace and harmony
- Anarchists advocate the dissolution of the concept of state and all political authorities and
institutions, including those that maintain law and order. They have pointed their finger at law
itself for being the principal cause for disorder and crime.
- William Goodwin – He gave the first clear set principles of Anarchism in - “An Enquiry
Concerning Political Justice”. He stated that man is perfectible, which is the fundamental
assumption at the very core of Anarchism. He stated that social harmony would ensue if human
beings were left to their own as they would realize that the common interests that bind them
are stronger than the selfish interests that divide them. Disagreements can be resolved through
rational debate/discussion.
- All authority tend to become centralised

Philosophical Anarchy
- There is an inherent incompatibility between moral autonomy and political authority - Robert
Paul Wolff. This school states that political authority is never legitimate, because it gains
obedience, which is inconsistent with autonomy.

Mutualism
- Mutualism began with the 18th century English and French peasant movements. This form is
associated with Proudhon in France. Mutualists believe that lack of government intervention
drives the prices down to labor costs, eliminating profit, rent, interest as per the labour theory of
value. Firms would be forced to compete over workers just as workers compete over firms,
raising the labour costs. This is an economic theory of the anarchic school of thought.

Social Anarchism
- Social Anarchism is an umbrella term that is used to denote all those schools of Anarchic thought
which believe that individual freedom is conceptually connected with social equality. This school
of thought emphasizes society and mutual aid. A lot of thinkers of this school are against private
ownership of property.

Anarcho-Communism
- branch of Social Anarchism merging communist and anarchic schools of thought. This school of
thought asks for the abolition of state, money, markets and private property. This school
developed from radical strains after the French Revolution.

Anarcho-Capitalism
- Anarcho-capitalists contend that the only form of economic life compatible with individualism is
capitalism. Usually their approach is connected with a view of life similar to that of the social.
Darwinist: both see life as a struggle for survival and hold that a socialist economic system
supports those who do not deserve to survive. Anarcho-capitalists take the position that all
essential social services can be better operated privately for profit than by any government or
community; and they do mean all essential services, including the police and the military.
- Anarchism has been making headlines in the recent past. Those producing the violence at the
World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in Seattle in 1999; the Group of 8 (G-8) summit in
Genoa, Italy, in 2001; and at other economic and political meetings designed to foster
globalization have identified themselves as anarchists and, in a few cases, have worn black
clothes and carried the black flag symbolic of anarchism. Most protesters tried to distance
themselves from these anarchists, but officials, particularly in Genoa, used the anarchists as an
excuse for a violent attack on all the protesters.
- As noted earlier, anarchists have long had an ambivalent attitude toward the use of violence.
Many anarchists have argued that violence is most often ineffective and commonly
counterproductive. It may give the violent demonstrators the feeling that they are personally
doing something about the evil they oppose, and it certainly gets the attention of the media—
these days this is the main reason for its use; but it rarely changes policy and frequently
produces a backlash against the position being advocated.

Individualist Anarchism
- This kind of anarchism stresses the individual over any form of group, society, traditions of
ideological systems.

Collectivist Anarchism
- Communist anarchism, traditionally associated with Kropotkin, is the most developed and
comprehensive anarchist theory. It starts, as does all anarchism, with the assumption that
coercion in any form is bad. As the solution to the problem of order in a society without a
government, it suggests establishing a series of small, voluntary communes or collectives,
somewhat like the intentional communities or communes
- Anarcho-syndicalists take essentially the same approach, except that they refer specifically to
the work situation, particularly industrial work. The basic principles are:
1. Each industry (industry includes all those involved in such activities as erecting buildings,
manufacturing automobiles, etc.) is organized into a federation of independent syndicates.
2. The workers in each industry control that industry.
3. Policy questions and questions of relations among syndicates are handled by a coordinating
council.

Libertarianism/Minimalism
- An offshoot of anarchism that developed mostly in the second half of the twentieth century,
libertarianism or minimalism, which many see as a variant of capitalism, is also generally
identified with the Right, although Left libertarians have recently attacked the social agenda of
 the Right libertarians in the United States. Because its followers have been involved in the
political process, libertarianism rests on the border between anarchism and some form of
democracy; but its roots, particularly in the United States, are clearly in the anarchist tradition.

Points:
- Anarchism is, then, a political philosophy that says no group in society should be able to coerce
anyone. Such a society should contain a wide variety of groups that reflect the interests of its
members. Anarchists differ somewhat on the relationships among these groups and on the
importance of particular groups, but most would agree with this definition. As another anarchist,
Alexander Berkman (1870–1936), stated, “Anarchism teaches that we can live in a society
where there is no compulsion of any kind. A life without compulsion naturally means liberty; it
means freedom from being forced or coerced, a chance to lead the life that suits you best.”2
Anarchists envision a peaceful, free life without rules and regulations. Of course, opponents of
anarchism believe the result would be chaos rather than a peaceful, non-coercive society.
- The basic assumption of anarchism is that power exercised by one person or group over another
causes the most social problems. As one anarchist says, “Many people say that government is
necessary because some men cannot be trusted to look after themselves, but anarchists say that
government is harmful because no man can be trusted to look after anyone else,” and all
anarchists would agree with this statement.
- They contend that power corrupts, and that human beings are capable of organizing their affairs
without anyone exercising authority over others. This does not mean there will be no order in
society; it means that people will cooperatively produce a better system than one based on
power relations. “Given a common need, a collection of people will, by trial and error, by
improvisation and experiment, evolve order out of chaos—this order being more durable than
any kind of externally imposed order.” This order—this organization—will be better designed for
human needs than any imposed system could be because it will be “(1) voluntary, (2) functional,
(3) temporary, and (4) small.

- Anarchy
1. Self-sufficiency
2. Introspection
3. Moral strength
- Dependency used for subordinating others
- Alienation
- Hate on technology
- Prominent thinking that everything should be white or clean – comparing washing machines –
dependent on consumer goods
- Haye Haye mobile phone – normal to complex phones – becoming dependant
- Necessity for labourers – 30% of their fees goes to mobile accessories and adding songs – Songs
as alternative to movie, need to give internet payment – dependant on technology
 Feminism

Introduction
- Feminism identified primarily by its political stance, which is an attempt to advance the social
role of women. The feminists have highlighted what they see as a political relationship between
the sexes, the supremacy of men and the subjection of women in most societies. Can be used to
describe a political, cultural or economic movement aimed at establishing equal rights and legal
protection for women.
- Critiques:
 If it’s about equality between sexes, then why is it called feminism and not humanism etc. –
Justification for this – Women generally the downtrodden upon sex, need to be uplifted
specifically to get them on the same level as male members of society.
- Alison Jagger – theory as to how feminism emerged as a political theory. [Not concrete
categories though. She argues that it can’t be concrete because then it would exclude some
feminists from the fold for not being one of the “proper” kinds] – underlying theory: Feminism
as an offshoot of existing political thought – Liberal feminism, Socialist feminism, Marxist
feminism, Radical feminism
- Margaret Davies, Legal Feminism: Law is reflection of male values. Eg. Marital Rape, domicile etc
- Simone de Beauvoir – “One is not born but becomes a woman” – What she can or cannot do is a
result of acculturation
- Nivedita Menon – Biological determinism – there are some anatomical differences, but by
passing off sex-based discrimination as gender-based discrimination, it becomes a problem.
 Saying that a woman needs a break for a few months after child birth is sex-based, and it is
acceptable – maternal leave, acceptable. Saying that the woman needs to stay at home and
take care of the child is where it becomes gender-based discrimination
 Another example – competitive sports. Gender verification tests – Castor Simonya? – She set
a record, and then broke it, people said she was too strong to be a woman. She had to go
through tests, and during this time, her performance dropped, so she was barred from
participating. But it came out that she was not doping or that she was not a man, and there
was no “hormonal advantages”.
 Gender segregation even in chess, when no physical difference.
- Elizabeth Spelman – Gender solipsism – White-upper class woman ideals were seen as the norm.

Waves of Feminism
1. First Wave:
- 19th century and the first half of the 20 th century
- Political Equality, mainly the suffragette movement
- Seneca Falls Convention – first one that discussed the rights of women
- Elizabeth Stanton – Abolitionist movement (of slavery). Happened at the same time. A lot of
these people were first wave feminists
- Originally it focused on the promotion of equal contract and property rights for women and the
opposition to chattel marriage and ownership of married women (and their children) by their
husbands. However, by the end of the nineteenth century, activism focused primarily on gaining
political power, particularly the right of women's suffrage.
- This wave died down after the achievement of the women’s right to vote in most Western
societies in the early 20th century, thereby denying the movement of its unifying force.

2. Second Wave:
- 1960s to 1990s
- Socio-economic rights
- Pro-life v. pro-choice argument
- Carol Hanisch – IMP – personal is political – political rights is not enough, personal sphere
impacts significantly how one manages the political sphere [If a woman raises a baby all day,
then when will she take the job she’s being offered]. There needs to be political intervention
even in the private sphere. She critiqued the idea of therapy groups. "The Personal is Political"
became synonymous with the second wave. Second-wave feminists saw women's cultural and
political inequalities as inextricably linked and encouraged women to understand aspects of
their personal lives as deeply politicized and as reflecting sexist power structures.
- More minority groups emerged in the second wave
- This wave in addition to the established concern with equal rights, was concerned with the more
radical and sometimes revolutionary demands of the growing Women’s Liberation Movement.
- Second-wave feminism has continued to exist since that time and coexists with what is termed
third-wave feminism. Estelle Freedman compares first and second-wave feminism saying that
the first wave focused on rights such as suffrage, whereas the second wave was largely
concerned with other issues of equality, such as ending discrimination.

3. Third Wave:
- Third-wave feminism began in the early 1990s, arising as a response to perceived failures of the
second wave and also as a response to the backlash against initiatives and movements created
by the second wave. Third-wave feminism seeks to challenge or avoid what it deems the second
wave's essentialist definitions of femininity, which (according to them) over-emphasize the
experiences of upper middle-class white women.
- Both the first and second waves made it too them v. us. Third wave moved away from both first
and second waves. Second wave had said that beauty pageants are problematic because men
set beauty standards and women strive to achieve them. They had a problem with heels, bras
etc. Third wave reclaimed all this and said that they do these things because they want to, and
not because of men.
- Third-wave feminism also contains internal debates between difference feminists such as the
psychologist Carol Gilligan (who believes that there are important differences between the
sexes) and those who believe that there are no inherent differences between the sexes and
contend that gender roles are due to social conditioning.
- Third wave takes issue with casual sexism in day to day life. Eg. KinderJoy eggs.
- Third wave critique of the first two waves – they were misdirected, only worked in theory,
sexism still existed. Justification – They had tangible goals, they achieved them. They did not
intend to stop sexism in all spheres of life.

4. Fourth Wave:
- Intersectionality
- Kimberle Crenshaw
 Intersection of race studies and gender studies.
 Emma de Graffenreed case. Here it was seen that blacks were employed, and women were
employed. But black men were employed in menial, labour-intensive jobs. White women
got jobs. But black-women did not tend to get jobs as easily.
 No frame that defines discrimination in the intersection, only frames for women, blacks etc.

Post-Feminism
- Post-feminism describes a range of viewpoints reacting to feminism. While not being "anti-
feminist," post-feminists believe that women have achieved second wave goals while being
critical of third wave feminist goals. The term was first used in the 1980s to describe a backlash
 against second-wave feminism. It is now a label for a wide range of theories that take critical
approaches to previous feminist discourses and includes challenges to the second wave's ideas.
Other post-feminists say that feminism is no longer relevant to today's society. Amelia Jones
wrote that the post-feminist texts which emerged in the 1980s and 1990s portrayed second-
wave feminism as a monolithic entity and criticized it using generalizations.
- Angela McRobbie argues that adding the prefix post to feminism undermines the strides that
feminism has made in achieving equality for everyone, including women. Post-feminism gives
the impression that equality has been achieved and that feminists can now focus on something
else entirely. McRobbie believes that post-feminism is most clearly seen on so-called feminist
media products, such as Bridget Jones's Diary, Sex and the City, and Ally McBeal. Female
characters like Bridget Jones and Carrie Bradshaw claim to be liberated and clearly enjoy their
sexuality, but what they are constantly searching for is the one man who will make everything
worthwhile.

Movements and ideologies, overlap:

1. Liberal Feminism
- Liberal feminism asserts the equality of men and women through political and legal reform. It is
an individualistic form of feminism, which focuses on women’s ability to show and maintain their
equality through their own actions and choices. Liberal feminism uses the personal interactions
between men and women as the place from which to transform society. According to liberal
feminists, all women are capable of asserting their ability to achieve equality, therefore it is
possible for change to happen without altering the structure of society. Issues important to
liberal feminists include reproductive and abortion rights, sexual harassment, voting, education,
"equal pay for equal work", affordable childcare, affordable health care, and bringing to light the
frequency of sexual and domestic violence against women.
- Its primary concern is to protect and enhance women's personal and political autonomy, the first
being the freedom to live one's life as one wants and the second being the freedom to help
decide the direction of the political community. This approach was invigorated with the
publication of John Rawls's A Theory of Justice (Rawls 1971) and subsequently his Political
Liberalism (Rawls 1993). Susan Moller Okin (Okin 1989, 1979; Okin et al. 1999) and Eva Kittay
(Kittay 1999) have used Rawls's work productively to extend his theory to attend to women's
concerns. This school tries to uncover how “normal” and “commonsensical” categories have
covert power agendas. An example of this would be the public/private sphere distinction. The
household is categorized as part of the private sphere. This is to prevent public scrutiny of male
domination in the household. It was the feminist critique of this distinction that ultimately led to
the criminalisation of spousal rape.

2. Radical Feminism
- Radical feminism considers the male-controlled capitalist hierarchy, which it describes as sexist,
as the defining feature of women’s oppression. Radical feminists believe that women can free
themselves only when they have done away with what they consider an inherently oppressive
and dominating patriarchal system. Radical feminists feel that there is a male-based authority
and power structure and that it is responsible for oppression and inequality, and that as long as
the system and its values are in place, society will not be able to be reformed in any significant
way. Some radical feminists see no alternatives other than the total uprooting and
reconstruction of society in order to achieve their goals.
- Those who continue to work in radical feminism remain committed to getting at the root of male
domination by understanding the source of power differentials, which some radical feminists,
including Catharine MacKinnon, trace back to male sexuality and the notion that heterosexual
intercourse enacts male domination over women. “Women and men are divided by gender,
 made into the sexes as we know them, by the requirements of its dominant form,
heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission. If
this is true, sexuality is the linchpin of gender inequality”
- Radical feminists of the 1980s tended to see power as running one-way, from those with power
over those who are being oppressed. As Amy Allen puts it, “Unlike liberal feminists, who view
power as a positive social resource that ought to be fairly distributed, and feminist
phenomenologists, who understand domination in terms of a tension between transcendence
and immanence, radical feminists tend to understand power in terms of dyadic relations of
dominance/subordination, often understood on analogy with the relationship between master
and slave.”
- Feminists argue that the process of socialisation should not eliminate options for women and
that women should have all the possibilities open to them. They state that women are socialised
to accept physical and mental abuse. Rape is the crime that goes unreported the most in the
United States. Language itself has a male bias. (For e.g. History nor Herstory). Even a female first
year college student is called freshman.
- In opposing all forms of political discrimination, feminists have argued that the term political
needs to be redefined. Power relations exist within families, making them political. Who decides
what depends upon the power relations.

- Some of the sub-types:

- Cultural Feminism - Cultural feminism is the ideology of a "female nature" or "female essence"
that attempts to revalidate what they consider undervalued female attributes. It emphasizes the
difference between women and men but considers that difference to be psychological, and to be
culturally constructed rather than biologically innate. Its critics assert that because it is based on
an essentialist view of the differences between women and men and advocates independence
and institution building, it has led feminists to retreat from politics to “life-style”

- Separatist Feminism –
 There are significant separatist subcultures, both female and male, with every- thing from
bars to music festivals to publishing houses, and lesbian communes ex- ist in all Western
countries. The lesbian subculture includes publishing houses that publish lesbian crime
fiction, science fiction, romance, and other so-called genre fiction as well as nonfiction
aimed at a lesbian readership. Much of this has to do with wanting a culture that speaks to
the interests and needs of a variety of people, but it also provides space in which it is
possible for a person to be who they are.
 While gay men and lesbians cooperate on political issues that affect both groups, the
divisions are deep.This is hardly surprising; at an important level, both groups are defined
by the rejection of the other group, and both groups want to associate with the same sex as
much as possible. Of course, it is never quite that simple, and the overwhelming majority of
gays and lesbians have close friendships with members of the opposite sex. Still, gay men
often feel that lesbians have it easy in that the public expression of affection between
women has always been more acceptable than the public expression of affection between
men; and, of course, AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) has killed relatively few
lesbians but tens of thousands of gay men. But lesbians feel that gay men are still men,
socialized as men, and no more capable of treating women as equals than any other man.
 One striking phenomenon is that, with the revival of utopian literature in the 1970s, a large
number of books describing lesbian utopias have been published but almost none about
gay male utopias.The lesbian utopias mostly depicted a positive, single-sex future, but the
gay male works are mostly depictions of negative futures or dystopias in which gay men
were even more oppressed than at present.
3. Anarcha-Feminism
- Anarcha-feminism (also called anarchist feminism and anarcho-feminism) combines anarchism
with feminism. It generally views patriarchy as a manifestation of involuntary hierarchy.
Anarcha-feminists believe that the struggle against patriarchy is an essential part of class
struggle, and the anarchist struggle against the State. In essence, the philosophy sees anarchist
struggle as a necessary component of feminist struggle and vice-versa.
- As L. Susan Brown puts it, "as anarchism is a political philosophy that opposes all relationships of
power, it is inherently feminist".
- Important anarcha-feminists: Emma Goldman, Federica Montseny, Lucy Parsons etc.

4. Socialist and Marxist Feminism

- Socialist feminism connects the oppression of women to Marxist ideas about exploitation,
oppression and labour. Socialist feminists think unequal standing in both the workplace and the
domestic sphere holds women down. Socialist feminists see prostitution, domestic work,
childcare and marriage as ways in which women are exploited by a patriarchal system that
devalues women and the substantial work they do. Socialist feminists focus their energies on
broad change that affects society as a whole, rather than on an individual basis. They see the
need to work alongside not just men, but all other groups, as they see the oppression of women
as a part of a larger pattern that affects everyone involved in the capitalist system.
- In its earliest manifestations, Marxism had a split personality regarding women. Marxists often
said that women’s issues must wait until after the class revolution. On the other hand, in 1884
Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) published Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, in
which he noted the central role of women and the family in the development and maintenance
of the social sys- tem. Engels thereby put what was called “the woman question” at the forefront
of issues Marxists needed to solve, and many women were attracted to Marxism because of this.
In the last quarter of the twentieth century, feminists noted both of these tendencies within
Marxism; and although many believed that Marx’s analysis of capitalism was correct and pointed
in useful directions, most concluded that Marxists in the twentieth century had generally
ignored the insights of Engels and others and had adopted the “wait until after the revolution”
approach. And because the so-called Marxist revolutions in China, Russia, and other countries
did not produce the significant changes in women’s roles that had been promised, considerable
disillusionment resulted. As a result, today many Marxists argue that the insights of feminism
need to be added to Marxism. Marx felt when class oppression was overcome, gender
oppression would vanish as well.
- According to some socialist feminists, they reject the Marxist tendency to put class before
gender, race, sexual identification, ethnicity, and the other ways in which human beings identify
and classify themselves. And in doing so, they stress democratic decision making and the
acceptance of difference within community. This view of gender oppression as a sub-class of
class oppression is naive and much of the work of socialist feminists has gone towards
separating gender phenomena from class phenomena. Some contributors to socialist feminism
have criticized these traditional Marxist ideas for being largely silent on gender oppression
except to subsume it underneath broader class oppression. Other socialist feminists, many of
whom belong to Radical Women and the Freedom Socialist Party, two long-lived American
organizations, point to the classic Marxist writings of Frederick Engels and August Bebel as a
powerful explanation of the link between gender oppression and class exploitation.
- In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century both Clara Zetkin and Eleanor Marx
were against the demonization of men and supported a proletarian revolution that would
overcome as many male-female inequalities as possible. As their movement already had the
most radical demands of women's equality, most Marxist leaders, including Clara Zetkin and
Alexandra Kollontai, counterpoised Marxism against feminism, rather than trying to combine
them.
5. Libertarian Feminism
- According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Classical liberal or libertarian feminism
conceives of freedom as freedom from coercive interference. It holds that women, as well as
men, have a right to such freedom due to their status as self-owners."

6. Transformative Feminism
- Transformative feminists have shown how men have created a male-centered way of
understanding the world that severely limits our ability to conceptualize human relations that
are not hierarchical and patriarchal. The goal of these feminists is to break through those mental
barriers as well as the political, economic, and cultural barriers that keep all human beings from
becoming fully human. For example, Nancy Hartsock (b. 1943) has noted that feminists have re-
conceptualized the notion of power. Power as dominance gives way to power as “energy and
competence.” All our ways of thinking need to undergo a similar revolution
- Hence transformative feminists are arguing for a fundamental transformation of not only our
political and economic lives but our social, cultural, and personal lives as well.As Angela Miles
says,“The alternative value core of transformative feminisms in all their variety is the holistic,
egalitarian, life-centered rejection of dominant androcentric, dualistic, hierarchical, profit-
centered ideology and social structures.” The goal is to achieve equality while recognizing
difference or specificity.

7. Reform Feminists:
- Reform feminists argue that the basic pattern of society is generally acceptable but that changes
are needed so women are not put at a disadvantage because of their gender. Reform feminists
want an equal opportunity to compete with men, and they propose that the means be found,
such as improved and expanded day care facilities and improved parental leave policies, to more
readily allow women to combine paid employment and motherhood. Obviously, these proposals
also suggest that men must change their attitude toward sharing responsibility for child rearing,
housework, and all other aspects of traditionally unpaid labor, which used to be called “women’s
work.”
- Individualist feminism is typically defined as a feminism in opposition to what writers such as
Wendy McElroy and Christina Hoff Sommers term, political or gender feminism. However, there
are some differences within the discussion of individualist feminism. While some individualist
feminists like McElroy oppose government interference into the choices women make with their
bodies because such interference creates a coercive hierarchy (such as patriarchy), other
feminists such as Christina Hoff Sommers hold that feminism's political role is simply to ensure
that everyone's, including women's, right against coercive interference is respected.

8. Feminism and Religion

- Orthodoz Judaism makes a rigid distinction between men and women, with women being
defined as inferior. Liberal Judaism advocates but does not always practice gender equality. The
acceptance of women rabbis has been spreading slowly across Judaism.
- In Christianity there exists discrimination even though the New Testament showcases Christ
treating both men and women equally. Christian churches are still divided over the role of
women. The Episcopalian Church in the United States decided after a long and intense debate to
admit women into priesthood. However, the roman Catholic Church has been ambivalent about
the role of women, essentially leading to their discrimination.
 Nationalism

Introduction

- Sovereignty – absolute and unlimited power. Sovereignty can either refer to supreme legal
authority or to unchallengeable political power. The two kinds of sovereignty, termed by the
nineteenth-century constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey, are ‘legal sovereignty’ and ‘political
sovereignty’. The concept of sovereignty has also been used in two contrasting ways. In the form
of internal sovereignty, it refers to the distribution of power within the state and leads to
questions about the need for supreme power and its location within the political system. In the
form of external sovereignty, it is related to the state’s role within the international order and to
whether or not it is able to operate as an independent and autonomous actor.
- Nationalism is, at heart, the doctrine that each nation is entitled to self-determination, reflected
in the belief that, as far as possible, the boundaries of the nation and those of the state should
coincide. Thus, the idea of a ‘nation’ has been used as a way of establishing a non-arbitrary basis
for the boundaries of the state. This implies that the highest form of political organization is the
nation-state; in effect, the nation, each nation, is a sovereign entity.
- Nationalism is a force that has at times been linked to racialism and aggression, but at other
times has been associated with international stability and harmony.
- ‘Nation’ confused with ‘country’ or ‘state’. This is evident, for example, when ‘nationality’ is
used to indicate membership of a state, more properly called ‘citizenship’. In actuality, a nation
is a cultural entity, a body of people bound together by a shared cultural heritage, not a political
association, nor is it necessarily linked to a particular territorial area. The cultural factors that
define a nation are usually common language, religion, traditions, historical consciousness etc.

Points:
- Ernest Gellner in Nations and Nationalism has insisted that the defining feature of national
consciousness is not merely the sentiment of loyalty towards or affection for one’s nation but
the aspiration to self- government and independence. In effect, a nation defines itself by its
quest for independent statehood; if it is contained within an existing larger state it seeks to
separate from it and redraw state boundaries.
- Developing-world nations can be seen as ‘political’ in one of two senses. In the first place, in
many cases they have achieved statehood only after a struggle against colonial rule, for which
reason their national identity is deeply influenced by the unifying quest for national liberation.
Nationalism in the developing world therefore took the form of anticolonialism, and in the
period since liberation has assumed a distinctively postcolonial character. Secondly, these
nations have often been shaped by territorial boundaries inherited from former colonial rulers.
- Certain forms of nationalism are without doubt illiberal and intolerant. This applies when
nationhood is defined in narrow or exclusive terms, creating a sharp divide between those who
are members of a nation and those who are alien to it. Exclusive nationalism is usually a
response to the perception that the nation is under threat from within or without, a perception
that provokes a heightened sense of unity and is often expressed in hostility and sometimes
violence. The integrity of the nation can be challenged by a broad variety of factors, including
rapid socio-economic change, political instability, communal rivalry, an upsurge in immigration
and the growing power of neighbouring states. In such cases, nationalism offers a vision of an
ordered, secure and cohesive community. However, this form of nationalism invariably rejects
liberal-democratic principles and is more commonly associated with authoritarian creeds.
Typically, integral nationalism breeds a sharp distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’, between an
in-group and an out-group.
- Cosmopolitanism – Liberals have traditionally argued that nationalism is a tolerant and
democratic creed which is perfectly reconcilable with international peace and cosmopolitanism.
In origin, cosmopolitanism suggests the establishment of a cosmo polis or ‘world state’ that
would embrace all humanity. Liberal thinkers have seldom gone this far, however, and indeed
have traditionally accepted the nation as the only legitimate political community.
Cosmopolitanism has therefore come to stand for peace and harmony among nations, founded
upon understanding, tolerance and interdependence. Far from threatening national cohesion,
cultural and ethnic diversity is thought to enrich society and promote human understanding.
Such ideas, however, look beyond the nation and nationalism. Nevertheless, if human beings
can, and should, identify themselves with humanity as a whole, rather than simply with their
nation, this suggests that supranational forms of political association will increasingly play a
meaningful and legitimate role.
- Decline - Nevertheless, despite evidence of the see- mingly relentless spread of the nation-state
principle in the proliferation of nation-states worldwide, powerful forces have emerged that
have threa- tened to make it redundant. The most significant of these forces is globalization,
linked to a complex of political, economic, strategic and ideological shifts in world politics that
have accelerated since the collapse of communism. Even as nationalism completed its task of
constructing a world of independent nation-states, supranational bodies emerged in growing
number to challenge their authority. A supranational body is one which exercises jurisdiction not
over any single state but within an international area comprising several states.

3 Dimensions to national identity

1. Nations are cultural identities:
a. Herder - innate character of each national group was ultimately determined by its natural
environment, climate and physical geography, working habits, attitudes, and creative
propensities of a people; importance of language – traditions and memories. Amounted to
form of culturalism. Tendency of people to form groups for security, belonging.
b. Ernest Geller – Nationalism linked with industrialisation. Stressed that while pre-modern or
‘agro-literate’ societies were structured by network of feudal bonds and loyalties, emerging
industrial societies promoted social mobility, self-striving, competition, and so required a
new source of cultural cohesion provided by nationalism. Implies that nationalism is now
ineradicable, since return to pre-modern loyalties/identities is unthinkable.
c. Anthony Smith – challenged the idea of a link between nationalism and modernisation by
highlighting the continuity between modern nations and pre-modern ethnic communities,
called 'ethnies'. In this view, the nation is historically embedded: it is rooted in a common
cultural heritage and language that may long pre-date the achievement of statehood or
even the quest for national independence. Acknowledged that, although ethnicity is the
precursor of nationalism, modern nations only came into existence when established
ethnies were linked to the emerging doctrine of political sovereignty.
d. Cultural Nationalism – commonly takes the form of national self-affirmation; means through
which people can acquire a clearer sense of their own identity by heightening national pride
and self-respect. Eg. Welsh nationalism
e. Friedrich Melnecke – distinguished between ‘cultural nations’ and ‘political nations’.
'Cultural' nations are characterised by high level of ethnic homogeneity; in effect, national
and ethnic identities overlap (Germans, Russians, English and irish). Such nations can be
regarded as 'organic', in that they have been fashioned by natural or historical forces, rather
than by political ones. Cultural nations nevertheless tend to view themselves as exclusive
groups. Membership of the nation derives not from a political allegiance, voluntarily
undertaken, but from an ethnic identity that has somehow been inherited. They view
themselves as extended kinship groups, distinguished by common descent. In this sense, it
 is not possible to 'become' German, Russian or English simply by adopting the language and
beliefs of such peoples. Such exclusivity, has tended to breed insular and regressive forms
of nationalism and to weaken the distinction between nation and race.

2. Nations are political entities: (emphasis on civic loyalty and political allegiance rather than on
cultural identity)
a. Rousseau – In proclaiming that government should be based upon the 'general will',
Rousseau developed a powerful critique of monarchical power and aristocratic privilege.
During the French Revolution, this principle of radical democracy was reflected in the
assertion that the French people were 'citizens' possessed of inalienable rights and liberties,
no longer merely 'subjects' of the throne. Sovereign power therefore resided with the
'French nation'.
b. Eric Hobsbawm – Nations are “invented traditions”; Rather than accepting that modern
nations have developed out of long-established ethnic communities, Hobsbawm argued that
a belief in historical continuity and cultural purity was invariably a myth and, what is more, a
myth created by nationalism itself. In this view, nationalism creates nations, not the other
way around; popular nationalism – invention of anthems and flags.
c. Benedict Anderson – Imagined community. Pointed out that nations exist more as mental
images than as genuine communities, which require a level of face-to-face interaction to
sustain the notion of a common identity. Within nations, by contrast, individuals only ever
meet a tiny proportion of those with whom they supposedly share a national identity. If
nations exist, they exist as imagined artifices, constructed for us by education, the mass
media and by a process of political socialization. Whereas in Rousseau's view the nation is
animated by the ideas of democracy and political freedom, the notion that nations are
'invented' or 'imagined' communities has more in common with the Marxist belief that
nationalism is a form of bourgeois ideology. From the perspective of orthodox Marxism,
nationalism is a device through which the ruling class counters the threat of social revolution
by ensuring that national loyalty is stronger that class solidarity.

3. Nations are psychological entities: a nation is a group of people bound together by shared
loyalties or allegiances, often expressed in the form of patriotism (although national identity and
patriotism do not necessarily coincide).

Political Nations
- Political nations – nations that have an unmistakably political character. – Meinecke
- A 'political' nation is one in which citizenship has greater political significance than ethnic
identity; not uncommonly political nations contain a number of ethnic groups and so are marked
by culturally heterogeneity. The UK and the USA have been seen as classic examples of 'political
nations'. What such nations have in common is that, in theory, they have been founded upon a
voluntary acceptance of a common set of principles or goals, as opposed to an already-existing
cultural identity.
- The UK is a union of what, in effect, are four 'cultural' nations: the English, the Scottish, the
Welsh and the Northern Irish (though the latter may comprise two nations, the Protestant
Unionists and the Catholic Republicans). Insofar as there is a distinctively British national
identity, this is constructed out of political factors such as a common allegiance to the Crown,
respect for the Westminster Parliament and a belief in the historic rights and liberties of the
British people. As a 'land of immigrants, the United States has a distinctively multi-ethnic and
multi-cultural character, making it impossible to construct a national identity on the basis of
shared cultural and historical ties. Instead, a sense of American nationhood has been generated
 by cultivating respect for the values outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the US
Constitution.
- It is sometimes argued that the style of nationalism which develops in such societies is typically
tolerant and democratic. If the nation is primarily a political entity, it is an inclusive group, in that
membership of not restricted to those who fulfil particular language, religious, ethnic and other
criteria. Classic examples of this are the USA, with its image as a 'melting pot' nation, and the
'new' South Africa, seen as a 'rainbow society', On the other hand, political nations may at times
fail to generate the organic unity and sense of historical rootedness that is found in cultural
nations.
- This may, for instance, account for the relative weakness of specifically British nationalism in the
UK, by comparison with Scottish and Welsh nationalism, and the insular form of English
nationalism that is sometimes portrayed as 'little Englander' nationalism.
-
 Multiculturalism

Link to nationalism
- In practice, however, the distinction between an ‘ethnic minority’ and a fully-fledged ‘nation’
may be blurred. This is especially the case in multicultural societies, which lack the ethnic and
cultural unity that has traditionally provided the basis for national identity. In one form,
multiculturalism may establish the ethnic group, rather than the nation, as the primary source of
personal and political identity. However, the idea of multicultural nationalism suggests that
national identity can remain relevant as a set of ‘higher’ cultural and civic allegiances.

Introduction
- Multiculturalism first emerged as a theoretical stance through the activities of the black
consciousness movement of the 1960s, primarily in the USA. During this phase it was largely
concerned with establishing black pride, often through re-establishing a distinctive African
identity, and overlapped in many ways with postcolonialism; ethnocultural nationalism
- Multiculturalism reflects, most basically, a positive endorsement of communal diversity, usually
arising from racial, ethnic and language differences. As such, multiculturalism is more a
distinctive political stance than a coherent and programmic political doctrine.

Multiculturalism and Communal Diversity

- Multicultural theorists advance two broad sets of arguments in favour of communal diversity,
one based upon its benefits to the individual and the other based upon its benefits to society.
For the individual, multiculturalism recognizes that human beings are culturally embedded, in
the sense that they largely derive their understanding of the world and their framework of moral
beliefs and sense of personal identity from the culture in which they live and develop. Distinctive
cultures therefore deserve to be protected or strengthened, particularly when they belong to
minority or vulnerable groups. This leads to the idea of minority or multicultural rights, rights
that may include the right to representation (and in certain cases the right to national self-
determination), the right of respect for cultural, and usually religious, practices that may
otherwise by prohibited by law or regulations, and the right to recognition through the
preservation of symbols that help to promote collective esteem.
- For society, multiculturalism brings the benefits of diversity: a vibrancy and richness that stems
from cultural interplay and encourages tolerance and respect for other cultures and religions,
while at the same time strengthening insight into one’s own culture.

Multiculturalism and Liberalism

- Multicultural theories have both drawn from liberalism and attempted to go beyond liberalism.
Liberal multiculturalism is rooted in a commitment to freedom and toleration: the ability to
choose one’s own moral beliefs, cultural practices, and way of life, regardless of whether these
are disapproved of by others. This ‘negative’ toleration justifies at least a live- and-let-live
multiculturalism, or the politics of indifference. Such a position is based upon a belief in value
pluralism, the idea that there is no single, overriding conception of the ‘good life’, but rather a
number of competing conceptions, as associated with Isaiah Berlin.
- Some multicultural theorists nevertheless reject liberalism and claim that it only has a limited
capacity to endorse cultural diversity. For example, liberals may accept cultural diversity only in
so far as cultural and religious practices are confined to the ‘private’ sphere, and only if the
 practices in question are compatible with a basic liberal belief in autonomy and toleration.
Liberals, thus, will not tolerate what they see as intolerant or illiberal practices. Non-liberal
multicultural theories have, in a sense, developed out of the communitarian critique of
liberalism, which stresses the culturally embedded nature of selfhood. More radical versions of
multiculturalism support ‘positive’ toleration, meaning full and public recognition of distinctive
cultures and not mere acceptance, and insists that the parameters of diversity must also
encompass non-liberal and non-Western beliefs and practices. This form of multiculturalism
often links the doctrine of minority rights to the promotion of social justice on the part of groups
that have been disadvantaged or marginalized within conventional Western society.

Advantages and Critiques of multiculturalism

- It seeks to offer solutions to challenges of cultural diversity which cannot be addressed in any
other way. Only enforced assimilation or the expulsion of ethnic or cultural minorities will re-
establish monocultural nation-states. Indeed, in some respects, multiculturalism has advanced
hand in hand with the seemingly irresistible forces of globalization.
- However, multiculturalism is by no means universally accepted. Its critics argue that, since it
regards values and practices as acceptable so long as they generate a sense of group identity,
non-liberal multiculturalism may be forced to endorse reactionary and oppressive practices,
particularly ones that subordinate women.
- Moreover, multi- culturalism’s model of group identity pays insufficient attention to diversity
within cultural or religious groups and risks defining people on the basis of group membership
alone. Even though cultural diversity is now inevitable in modern societies, multiculturalism may
also promote political instability by emphasizing particularism rather than national cohesion.
- Finally, multi- culturalism may be incoherent in so far as it both proclaims the advantages of
cultural embeddedness and holds that society benefits from exchanges among cultures that will
tend weaken their distinctiveness.

Key figures:
1. Charles Taylor
- concerned with the issue of the construction of the self. His communitarian portrayal of persons
as ‘embodied individuals’ has enabled him to argue in favour of the politics of recognition, based
upon the belief that individuals need to be the object of others’ positive attitudes and that
cultures have their own unique, authentic essences. Taylor accepts that liberal societies should
be based upon guaranteed basic freedoms.

2. Will Kymlicka
- sought ways of reconciling liberalism with the ideas of community and cultural membership. He
has advanced the idea of multicultural citizenship, based upon the belief that cultures are
valuable and distinct and provide a context in which individuals are provided with meaning,
orientation, identity and belonging. Kymlicka nevertheless distinguishes between the rights of
national minorities, which may enjoy representation rights up to those of full self- government,
and those of ethnic groups formed through immigration, which are entitled only to ‘polyethnic
rights’
- 2 divergent arguments
 Justice Argument - Conceiving cultures as contexts means they can fulfil their purpose of
over-arching individual choices. Cultures are a necessary frame to human action; hence
there is a loss if one’s cultural context begins to erode.
 it says that each per- son has the right to a secure cultural context, not just any context but
her own.
 Freedom Argument - people are autonomous choosers, and what they choose between are
different cultural options. Unitary optionless contexts, like seamless webs of shared values,
would leave cultural members without lib- eral choices. But contextless constellations of
free-floating options, would sug- gest there is no special loss if a culture declines – contrary
to (a) and (b) above
- He distinguished between national minorities and ethnic groups.

3. Bhikhu Parekh
- advanced a defence of a pluralistic perspective on cultural diversity and highlighted the
inadequacy of liberal multiculturalism. Parekh’s multiculturalism is based upon a dialectical
interplay between human nature and culture, in which human beings are culturally constituted
in the sense that their attitudes, behaviour and ways of life are shaped by the groups to which
they belong. The complexity of human nature is thus reflected in the diversity of cultures.

4. Barry?? [Ask if there]

 Ecologism

Introduction
- It is the idea of an intrinsic relationship between humankind and nature (or non-human nature,
to avoid confusion with the notion of ‘human nature’).
- The final decades of the twentieth century witnessed the emergence of animal welfare and
animal liberation movements as part of the broader growth of ecologism. Such campaigns have
typically been carried out under the banner of ‘animal rights’. This amounts to the assertion that
animals have rights in the same sense that human beings do; indeed, it implies that once human
beings are invested with rights it is impossible not to extend these same rights to animals. In
effect, the doctrine of human rights leads irresistibly in the direction of animal rights
- Animal rights theories have developed in popularity since the 1960s as a result of the growth of
ecological theories that have tried to redefine the relationship between humans and the natural
world. Traditional attitudes towards animals and nature in general in the West were shaped by
the Christian belief that human beings enjoyed a God-given dominion over the world, reflected
in their stewardship over all other species.
- At the same time, however, Christianity taught that humankind was the centrepiece of creation
and that animals had been placed on the earth for the sole purpose of providing for human
needs. Since they do not possess immortal souls, animals can in no sense be regarded as equal
to humans. Environmentalist theories, by contrast, hold that human beings are neither above
nor beyond the natural world but are, rather, an inseparable part of it. This belief is much closer
to the pagan notion of an Earth Mother and to the emphasis found in Eastern religions like
Hinduism and Buddhism upon the oneness of all forms of life. In the process, the clear
distinction once thought to exist between humans and animals has come under increasing
pressure.
- Although Ecologism has been dismissed as an urban fad or as post-industrial romanticism (due
to its anti-growth or sustainable growth model), it has two important points. First, it points out
the imbalance in nature, and second, it shows the limitations of Western political thought.

Key Concepts
- Ecology: As a distinct branch of biology, ecology focuses on the ways in which plants and animals
are sustained by self-regulating natural systems – ecosystems – composed of both living and
non-living elements. Ecology implies both interconnectedness and equilibrium, as all ecosystems
tend towards a state of harmony through a system of self-regulation.
- Ecocentrism: An approach to understanding that prioritises the maintenance of ecological
balance over the achievement of human ends. Only deep ecologists fully embrace ecocentrism.
- Anthropocentrism: Human-centredness; the belief that human needs and interests are of
overriding moral and philosophical importance. Anthropocentrism is the opposite of eco-
centrism.
- Holism:A belief that the whole is more important that its parts; holism implies that
understanding is gained by studying relationships between the parts.
- Industrialism:A term used by green theorists to refer to economic arrangements, reflected in
both capitalism and socialism, that favour large-scale production, the accumulation of capital
and relentless growth.
- Environmentalism: A concern about the natural environment and particularly the desire to
reduce environmental degradation; a policy orientation rather than an ideological stance (unlike
ecologism).
- Pastoralism: A belief in the virtues of rural existence: simplicity, community and a closeness to
nature, in contrast to the corrupting influence of urban and industrialised life.
2 strains of Ecologism
- Deep ecology and shallow ecology. Deep ecology completely rejects any lingering belief that the
human species is in some way superior to, or more important than, any other species. Shallow
ecology on the other hand harnesses lessons of ecology to human needs and ends. This school of
thought says that nature should be preserved since it means continued human existence and
sustenance.
- Deep completely reject anthropocentricism. View shallow very negatively because they believe it
is a very highly compromised concept. They’re just trying to appease the crowd by bringing in a
very utopian belief of reconciliation between humans and nature.

Ecosocialism
- William Morris (libertarian socialist) and Peter Kropotkin (anarcho-communist) developed a form
of socialist pastoralism that prefigured later eco-socialism
- Inspired by modern Marxism, explains environmental destruction in terms of capitalism’s quest
for profit. eco-anarchism draws parallels between natural equilibrium in nature and in human
communities, using the idea of social ecology; and ecofeminism has portrayed patriarchy as the
source of the ecological crisis. On the other hand, deep ecology goes beyond the perspective of
conventional political creeds. It tends to regard both capitalism and socialism as examples of the
‘super-ideology’ of industrialism, characterised by large-scale production, the accumulation of
capital and relentless growth. It supports biocentric equality, holding that the rights of animals
have the same moral status as those of humans, and portraying nature as an ethical community
within which human beings are merely ‘plain citizens’

3 main theoretical developments

1. First, a greater emphasis on the principle of ecology encouraged thinkers to construct ideas
about interconnectedness, holism and natural balance that went beyond a mere pressure-
group-like concern for the environment, commonly called ‘environmentalism’. Ecology, in other
words, provided the basis for an ecocentric ‘world view’
2. REJECTION OF ANTHROPOCENTRICISM- Second, there was a growing recognition that the threat
to the environment had an important ideological dimension in the form of anthropocentrism,
the human-centred bias that characterises conventional ethical thinking and philosophical belief.
3. Third, the emergence of so-called ‘deep’ ecology, which embraced a fully ecocentric worldview
that rejected anthropocentrism altogether, established a form of ecological thinking that could
not be accommodated within existing ideologies, or within hybrid ideological forms such as eco-
socialism, eco-anarchism or eco-feminism. In shifting ideological thinking onto radically new
terrain, deep ecology has a significance that parallels that of radical feminism within the feminist
tradition.

3 categories:
1. Modernist
- Reformist character – tries to reconcile principle of ecology with central features of capitalist
modernity (individual self-seeking, materialism, economic growth etc)
- Recognition of ‘limits to growth’ – environmental degradation threatens prosperity and
economic performance.
- Important feature- SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT- , sustainability being the capacity of a system
to maintain its health and continue in existence over a period of time. In economic terms, this
means ‘getting richer slower’.
- Influenced by modern liberalism- Practices ENGLIGHTENED ANTHROPOCENTRISM (encouraging
individuals to take account of long-term, and not merely short-term, interests and to favour
‘higher’ pleasures (such as an appreciation of nature) over ‘lower’ pleasures (such as material
consumption).
- Sustainable development supported by THEORY OF INTERGENERATIONAL JUSTICE- present
generation has obligations towards future generations (in particular, to ensure that they enjoy at
least the same levels of material prosperity)
- important differences within modernist ecology, particularly over the proper balance between
the state and capitalism. Whereas most modernist ecologists favour state intervention (on the
grounds that environmental degradation is an externality or a ‘social cost’, unrecognised by the
market), some even calling for the construction of an authoritarian ‘green state’, others
champion the cause of so-called ‘green capitalism’, which basically relies on market forces to
dictate a shift towards more ecologically-sound consumption and production patterns (Carbon
credit system)

2. Social Ecology
a. Eco-socialism - capitalism is the enemy of nature, while socialism is its friend. In this view,
capitalism’s anti-ecological bias derives from a number of sources. For instance, private
property encourages the belief that humans have domination over nature; the market
economy ‘commodifies’ nature in the sense that it turns it into something only has use-value
and can be bought and sold; and the capitalist system breeds materialism and consumerism
and so leads to relentless growth. Most green parties, in their early years, thus followed the
pioneering example of the German Greens, in trying to reconcile ‘red’ and ‘green’ priorities.
However, as the often-appalling environmental record of state socialist societies were more
widely recognised, eco-socialism gradually lost its appeal. (Blanket green clearances by Modi
govt to encourage FDI)

b. Eco-anarchism - advances an environmental critique of hierarchy and authority: in short,

domination over other people is linked to domination over nature. Decentralisation, self-
management and direct democracy are therefore a recipe for an ecological balance within
society as well as for a balance between humankind and nature. Anarchist sensibilities have
influenced the green movement in a variety of ways, ranging from a general suspicion of
authority and leadership structures (green parties have often favoured the idea of collective
leadership) to a willingness, at times, to employ tactics of direct action.

c. Eco-feminism - advances an environmental critique of patriarchy: in short, domination over

women leads to domination over nature. Most eco-feminists believe that there are essential
(biologically-rooted and not merely cultural) differences between men and women. Men are
the enemy of nature because their reliance on instrumental reason allows them to
understand the natural world only in terms of use-value, while women live in harmony with
nature by virtue of their ability to engage with it at a deeper psycho-emotional level. Eco-
feminism is therefore the point at which feminist essentialism overlaps with deep ecology.

3. Deep Ecology
- coined by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess. Specifically, it calls for the adoption of a
radically new philosophical and moral perspective to replace conventional mechanistic and
atomistic thinking
- advocates a radical holism that dispenses altogether with anthropocentric ideas and
assumptions.
- Interconnectedness is the central theme of all forms of deep ecology, but these have been
constructed on a variety of bases, ranging from the new physics (particularly quantum
mechanics) and systems theory to Eastern mysticism and especially Buddhism and Taoism.
- champion the cause of biocentric equality, in which all species share a ‘universal right to bloom
and flourish’ (Naess). This suggests that any attempt to place the interests of humans above
those of animals or other species is an example of ‘speciesism’ (an irrational prejudice akin to
racism or sexism.)
- emphasise the intrinsic value of nature (value-in-nature), highlighting the idea that ethical value
derives from nature itself, particularly when it is unspoilt by human interference, by contrast
with conventional moral thinking which bases value on nature’s ability to satisfy human ends.
- economic thinking of deep ecology tends to favour ‘strong’ sustainability - not merely the desire
to prevent present actions from imperilling the prosperity of future generations but, rather, a
rejection of growth-for-its-own-sake in favour of an acceptance of more meagre living standards
based on a desire to reduce our ‘ecological footprint’
- have re-evaluated selfhood and the nature of human happiness. Through ideas such as the
‘ecological self’, they have portrayed human beings as more as perceiving subjects (defined by
what they experience) rather than as perceived objects (defined by their name, family status,
gender, nationality, occupation and so on).
- Such an ‘inter-subjective’ model of the selfhood allows for no distinction between the self and
‘the other’, or the world ‘out there’, thus collapsing the distinction between humankind and
nature. In this light, happiness should be defined in terms of ‘being’ rather than ‘having’, human
fulfilment stemming more from an appreciation of nature ‘as it is’, instead of from manipulating
and exploiting nature for economic benefit.
- Critiques – enlightened anthropocentricism, considered to be elitist
Module 4: Understanding political Institutions
State and Government
 Constitutionalism and Constitution

Meaning
- Constitution consists of a set of norms (rules, principles or values) creating, structuring, and
possibly defining the limits of, government power or authority.
- All states have constitutions and all states are constitutional states. Anything recognizable as a
state must have some acknowledged means of constituting and specifying the limits (or lack
thereof) placed upon the three basic forms of government power: legislative power (making new
laws), executive power (implementing laws) and judicial power (adjudicating disputes under
laws).
- These norms not only create powers but also put limits which are in the form of civil rights
against govt, rights to things like free expression, association, equality and due process of law
- Constitutional limits – variety of forms: scope of authority, mechanisms used in exercising
power, civil rights etc.

Thinkers
- Hobbes –unlimited sovereignty; Locke – sovereignty limited by terms of social contract
- Austin - all law is the command of a sovereign person or body of persons, and so the notion that
the sovereign could be limited by law requires a sovereign who is self-binding, who commands
him/her/itself. But no one can command himself, except in some figurative sense, so the notion
of limited sovereignty is, for Austin (and Hobbes), as incoherent as the idea of a square circle.
[Answer to this weakness in his theory – popular sovereignty]

Sovereign v. Government
- Austin’s account reveals need to distinguish between 2 concepts: sovereignty and government.
- Sovereignty - possession of supreme (possibly unlimited) normative power and authority over
some domain; Government – those persons/ institutions through whom sovereignty is exercised
- sovereignty might lie somewhere other than with the government. And once this implication is
accepted, we can coherently speak of limited government coupled with unlimited sovereignty.
- Hobbes - It is arguable that Hobbes insisted on the identification of sovereign and government
insofar as he seemed to require a (virtually) complete transfer of all rights and powers from
sovereign individuals to a political sovereign whose authority was to be absolute, thus rendering
it possible to emerge from the wretched state of nature in which life is “solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish and short.
- Even if ‘sovereignty’ and ‘government’ express different notions, this neither means nor implies
that the two could not pertain to one and the same entity.

Entrenchment as a feature of Constitutionalism

- Norms imposing limits upon government power must be in some way be entrenched, either by
law or by way of constitutional convention. It facilitates greater stability over time.
- Those whose powers are constitutionally limited—i.e., the institutions of government—must not
be legally entitled to change or expunge those limits at their pleasure.
- Super-majority, referendums etc. need to change them

Writtenness
- Some scholars believe that constitutional norms do not exist unless they are in some way
enshrined in a written document. Most accept that it can be unwritten, as in UK.
- Reason for emphasis on written rules-
a. Unwritten rules and conventions are sometimes less precise and therefore more open to
interpretation, gradual change, and ultimately avoidance, than written ones. If this were true,
then one might question whether an unwritten rule could, at least as a practical matter, serve
adequately to limit government power.
b. Long standing social rules and conventions are often clear and precise, as well as more rigid
and entrenched than written ones, if only because their elimination, alteration or re-
interpretation typically requires widespread changes in traditional attitudes, beliefs and
behaviour.

Separation of Powers
- Separation of powers was coined by Charles Louis de Secondat, an 18 th century French social and
political philosopher. He laid down a model in which the powers of the state were divided
between the executive, legislature and judiciary. He stated that to effectively promote liberty,
these three powers must be separate and acting independently.
- The English philosopher John Locke had stated that legislative power should be divided between
the king and the parliament. Aristotle had mentioned a form of mixed government or hybrid
government.
- Jean Calvin favoured a system that divided political power between democracy and monarchy.
He suggested that several political institutions should be set up, which should complement each
other in a system of checks and balances. Calvin wanted to prevent political absolutism.
- Montesquieu - The term tripartite system is attributed to the enlightenment political thinker
Baron de Montesquieu. Montesquieu described the separation of political power among a
legislature, an executive, and a judiciary. Montesquieu's approach was to present and defend a
form of government which was not excessively centralized in all its powers to a single monarch
or similar ruler. He based this model on the Constitution of the Roman Republic and the British
constitutional system. Montesquieu took the view that the Roman Republic had powers
separated so that no one could usurp complete power.

Constitutional Law v. Constitutional Convention

- Dicey is famous for proposing that, in addition to constitutional law, the British constitutional
system contains a number of constitutional conventions which effectively limit government in
the absence of legal limitation.
- social rules arising within the practices of the political community and which impose important,
but non-legal, limits on government powers.
- Owing to the fact that they are political conventions, unenforceable in courts of law,
constitutional conventions are said to be distinguishable from constitutional laws

Constitutional Interpretation – 2 views:

a. constitution as foundational law whose principal point is to fix a long-standing framework
within which legislative, executive and judicial powers are to be exercised by the various
branches of government. Factors like intention of the original drafters etc. to be used when
they are clear. Aspire for stability, political neutrality
b. Living constitutionalism – an approach that sees a constitution as an evolving, living entity
which, by its very nature, is capable of responding to changing social circumstances and new
(and it is hoped better) moral and political beliefs. Say that “originalists” tied to the “dead
 hand of the past” render the state incapable of responding rationally to changing social
circumstances etc.

Classification of constitutions
- Based on form and status of rules – Written or Unwritten, Codified or Uncodified
- Based on ease of change – Rigid or Flexible
- Effective or Nominal
- Based on institutional structure they underpin – Monarchical or republican, Federal or Unitary,
Presidential or Parliamentary
- Pluralist or Monopolist

1. Written - A written constitution is a formal document that defines the nature of constitutional
agreements; these include rules that govern the political system and the rights of citizens and
governments in a codified form. This is often amended and un amended from time to time. E.g.
Nigeria, USA.
2. Unwritten- This type of constitution is not contained in one single document, but it draws from
several documents in a scattered form. It is formed of formed of Acts of Parliament, court
judgments and conventions. E.g. UK

3. Codified - based on the existence of a single authoritative document. the document itself is
authoritative, in the sense that it constitutes ‘higher’ law; indeed, the highest law of the land.
The constitution binds all political institutions, including those that enact ordinary law. The
existence of a codified constitution thus establishes a hierarchy of laws. In unitary states, a two-
tier legal system exists, in which the constitution stands above statute law. In federal states,
there is a third tier, in the form of ‘lower’ state or provincial laws. Status of the codified
document is ensured by the fact that at least certain of its provisions are entrenched, in the
sense that it is difficult to amend or abolish them. The procedure for establishing the
constitution, and for subsequently revising it, must therefore be in some way more complex and
difficult than the procedure for enacting ordinary statute laws
4. Uncodified - Draws on a variety of sources. statute law, which is made by Parliament, common
law, conventions, and various works of authority that clarify and explain the constitution’s
unwritten elements. Criticisms - The concentration of power in the hands of the executive to
which this leads, and the consequent threat that it poses to individual rights and liberties, has
encouraged some to argue that the UK has no constitution at all. termed ‘elective dictatorship’;
that is, the ability of a government to act in any way it pleases as long as it maintains majority
control of the House of Commons.

5. Flexible - This type of constitution is easily amendable and easy to change. Normally, the change
or amendment can be done through the ordinary law-making process itself. E.g. Britain, New
Zealand, Italy, Ghana (in the first republic)
6. Rigid - A constitution is said to be rigid when it is very difficult to change. The amendment
process is separate and special. (Amendment can only be passed through 2/3rds majority). E.g.
USA, Canada, Nigeria, Switzerland, Australia

7. Monarchical - This type of constitution is issued or imposed on the basis of the monarchical
principle, i.e. under the King’s constitutional making power. Authority derived from ruler
8. Republican – political authority is derived from the people.

9. Unitary - A unitary form of government is where all the powers are concentrated at the centre.
All powers of the government belong to the central government
10. Federal - A federal constitution is one where the powers of government are shared between the
centre and the component state unit. An example of this is Nigeria, where there are 36 states
forming a country with one general government at the capital. Each of the 36 states has its own
government. The general govt is called federal govt and cannot abolish a state government.

11. Presidential – exec and legislative function independently on the basis of separation of powers.
12. Parliamentary – the executive is derived from and accountable to the assembly

13. Pluralist – characteristic of liberal democracies, ensure that political power is dispersed;
participatory rights and party competitions
14. Monopolist – more commonly found in communist or authoritarian states; unquestionable
authority of a ruling party or a supreme leader. Constitution and liberal constitutionalism do not
necessarily go hand-in-hand.

Purpose of a Constitution
- Empower states: basic function is that they mark out the existence of states and make claims
concerning their sphere of independent authority. The need for empowerment also applies to
subnational and supranational bodies.
- Establish unifying values and goals: these aims are accomplished explicitly in preambles to
constitutional documents, which often function as statements of national ideals. These ideals
can vary from a commitment to democracy, freedom or the welfare state to a belief in socialism,
federalism or Islam. embody a broader set of political values, ideals and goals. This is why
constitutions cannot be neutral; they are always entangled, more or less explicitly, with
ideological priorities.
- Provide government stability: In allocating duties, powers and functions amongst the various
institutions of government, constitutions act as ‘organizational charts’, ‘definitional guides’ or
‘institutional blueprints’. Formalize and regulate the relationships between political bodies and
provide a mechanism through which conflicts can be adjudicated and resolved.
- Protect freedom: In liberal democracies, it is often taken for granted that the central purpose of
a constitution is to constrain government with a view to protecting individual liberty. This is why
constitutions tend to be viewed as devices for establishing and maintaining limited government.
constitutions lay down the relationship between the state and the individual, marking out the
respective spheres of government authority and personal freedom. They do this largely by
defining civil rights and liberties, often through the means of a bill of rights. Ensures FRs.
- Legitimize regimes: Explains the widespread use of constitutions, even by states with
constitutions that are merely nominal or a complete façade. This legitimation process has two
dimensions. In the first place, the existence of a constitution is almost a pre- requisite for a
state’s membership of the international community and for its recognition by other states. More
significant, however, is the ability to use a constitution to build legitimacy within a state through
the promotion of respect and compliance amongst the domestic population. This is possible
because a constitution both symbolizes and disseminates the values of the ruling elite and
invests the governmental system with a cloak of legality.
 Organs of the Government: Legislative, Executive, Judiciary
(making, implementing, interpreting law)

Legislature
Introduction
- An assembly, in its simplest sense, is a collection or gathering of people.
- As a political term, ‘assembly’ has come to be associated with representation and popular
government, an assembly, certainly in the French tradition, being viewed as a surrogate for the
people. For this reason, the term is sometimes reserved for the lower, popularly- elected
chamber in a bicameral system (as, for instance, in Pakistan and France), or for the single
chamber in a unicameral system (as in Egypt and Turkey).
- Assembly-Executive relations usually take the form of either a Presidential (US) or a
Parliamentary system (UK, India, Germany etc) of Government

Presidential System
- Presidential systems are based on the strict application of the doctrine of the separation of
powers. This ensures that the assemblies and executives are formally independent from one
another and separately elected. Principal virtue of presidential systems is that, by separating
legislative power from executive power, they create internal tensions that help to protect
individual rights and liberties.
- Incorporated a network of checks and balances. Congress, the US presidency, and the Supreme
Court are separate institutions, in the sense that no overlap of personnel is permitted but,
nevertheless, possess the ability to constrain one another’s power.
- Dual Executive system – “semi-Presidential” system – France during the fifth republic -
separately elected president works in conjunction with a prime minister and cabinet drawn
from, and responsible to, the National Assembly. How such a system works in practice depends
on a delicate balance between, on the one hand, the personal authority and popularity of the
president and, on the other, the political complexion of the National Assembly.
- Range from forms of ‘balanced’ semi-presidentialism, in which the parliament exercises effective
constraint over the presidency, to forms of ‘asymmetrical’ semi-presidentialism, in which the
parliament lacks independence and is routinely controlled by the presidency. In Russia, this
imbalance is so severe that system can be described as example of ‘superpresidentialism’
- Critique - may be ineffective and cumbersome because they offer an ‘invitation to struggle’ to
the executive and legislative branches of government. Critics of the US system, for example,
argue that, since it allows the president to propose and Congress to dispose, it is nothing more
than a recipe for institutional deadlock, or ‘government gridlock’.

Parliamentary System
- Critique – It has often been associated with the problem of executive dominance. This is the case
in the UK, where a combination of strict party discipline and a disproportional electoral system
(the simple plurality system) normally allows government to control Parliament through a
cohesive and reliable majority in the House of Commons.
- Critique – It has also been linked with weak government and political instability. Usually occurs
when the party system is fractured, often associated with highly proportional electoral systems.
Functions of Assemblies – forum where proposed laws can be openly discussed and debated;
positive legislative power exercised; representation; scrutiny; political recruitment; legitimacy
Executive

Introduction
- responsible for the execution or implementation of policy.

Categories
a. Based on differences between Politicians and Civil Servants
a. Political executive - politics
b. Bureaucratic executive – administration

b. Parliamentary Executives
- distinction between political and bureaucratic, or official, posts is most clear-cut in the case of
parliamentary executives, where differences in recruitment, responsibility, status and political
orientation can be identified.
- the political executive comprises elected politicians, ministers drawn from and accountable to
the assembly: their job is to make policy, in accordance with the political and ideological
priorities of their party, and to oversee its implementation. The official executive comprises
appointed and professional civil servants whose job it is to offer advice and administer policy,
subject to the requirements of political neutrality and loyalty to their ministers.

3. Presidential Executives
- In the USA, for example, the president is the only elected politician in the executive. Cabinet
members are, in effect, appointed officials, and all the senior and many middle-ranking civil
servants are politically partisan and temporary.

4. Communists Executives
- in China and the USSR of old, the distinction is rendered virtually redundant by the all-pervasive
reach of the ‘ruling’ communist party. Chinese bureaucrats are thus ‘political’, in the sense that
they are, in all cases, ideologically committed supporters, and usually members, of the Chinese
Communist Party.

Hierarchical Divisions
- Tends to be centralized around the leadership of a single person.
- Two separate posts can, be identified. On the one hand, there is the head of state, an office of
formal authority and largely symbolic importance. On the other, there is the head of
government, or the chief executive, a post that carries policy-making and political
responsibilities. Whereas executive presidents, as in the USA, Russia, and France, ‘wear two
hats’, the posts in parliamentary systems are usually separate. A prime minister serves as the
chief executive, and the post of head of state is usually held by a non-partisan figurehead.
- Beneath the chief executive, a range of ministers or secretaries have responsibility for
developing or implementing policy in specific areas.

Functions of Political Executives

- Ceremonial duties:
 Heads of state, chief executives and, to a lesser extent, senior ministers or secre- taries
‘stand for’ the state. In giving state authority personal form, they represent the larger
society and symbolize, accurately or otherwise, its unity. Broader significance for two
reasons.
a. First, it provides a focus for unity and political loyalty, and so helps to build legitimacy.
b. Second, it allows those at the top of the executive to portray themselves as ‘national
leaders’, which is vital to the maintenance of public support and electoral credibility.

- Control of policy-making
 executive is expected to ‘govern’. to develop coherent economic and social programmes
that meet the needs of more complex and politically sophisticated societies, and to control
the state’s various external relationships.
 Not only do political executives usually initiate legislative programmes and help, by
persuasion or direction, to make the legislative process work, but, in many cases, they also
exercise a wide range of law-making powers, using decrees, orders and other instruments.

- Popular political leadership

 crucial to the character and stability of the regime as a whole. At a policy level, it is the
ability of the executive to mobilize support that ensures the compliance and cooperation of
the general public.
 political executive’s popularity is linked to the legitimacy of the broader regime.

- Bureaucratic management
 Its task of overseeing the implementation of policy means that the political executive has
major bureaucratic and administrative responsibilities. chief executives, ministers and
secretaries constitute a ‘top management’ charged with running the machinery of
government. This work is organized largely along departmental lines, senior ministers
having responsibility for particular policy areas and for the bureaucrats engaged to
administer those areas.
 Doubts-
o as political executives are staffed by politicians, they often lack the competence,
managerial experience and administrative knowledge to control a sprawling
bureaucratic machine effectively.
o particular government departments can develop their own interests, especially when
they forge alliances with powerful client groups.
o the bureaucracy as a whole can develop interests that are separate from those of the
political executive, encouraging it to resist the control of its notional political masters.

- Crisis Response
 executive that responds, by virtue of its hierarchical structure and the scope it provides for
personal leadership. It is therefore common for assemblies to grant political executives near-
dictatorial powers in times of war, and for executives to seize ‘emergency powers’

Dimensions of Power in the Executive – 3

a. Formal - the constitutional roles and responsibilities of executive officers and the institutional
frameworks in which they operate
b. Informal - the role of personality, political skills and experience, and the impact of factors
such as parties and the media
 c. External - the political, economic, and diplomatic context of government, and the broader
pressures that bear on the executive branch.

President
- Formal head of state. distinction, however, must be made between constitutional presidents [a
feature of parliamentary systems and have responsibilities confined largely to ceremonial duties.
mere figurehead, and executive power is wielded by a prime minister] and executive presidents.
- Presidential executives – Limited or Unlimited
a. Limited - Presidential executives operate within constraints imposed by a constitution,
political democracy, party competition and some form of separation of powers. Above all,
the powers of the president are counterbalanced by those of a popularly accountable
assembly. The best-known example of limited presidentialism is found in the USA, but semi-
presidential systems like those in France and Finland also conform to this model.
b. Unlimited - In unlimited presidential executives, on the other hand, the president is
invested with near-unchecked powers, meaning that these regimes are, effectively,
dictatorships. They are commonly found in one-party states that rest heavily on the support
of the military.

Prime Minister
- Parliamentary executives – 3 essential features
a. First, since executive power is derived from the assembly and closely linked to party politics,
a separate head of state, in the form of a constitutional monarch or non-executive president,
is required to fulfil ceremonial duties and act as a focus of patriotic loyalty.
b. Second, the political executive is drawn from the assembly, which means that the separa-
tion of the personnel between the legislature and executive found in presidential systems
does not occur in parliamentary systems.
c. Third, the executive is directly responsible to the assembly, or at least to its lower chamber,
in the sense that it survives in government only as long as it retains the confidence of the
assembly.

- The heads of government whose power is derived from their leader- ship of the majority party,
or coalition
- The prime- ministerial government thesis appeared to have become a reality in the UK during
the 1980s, as Margaret Thatcher effectively recast the nature and author- ity of the office. In
many respects, Tony Blair’s premiership after 1997 built on these foundations. What
distinguished Thatcher’s premiership was the fact that she saw herself as a ‘conviction prime
minister’, her role being to provide ideo- logical leadership and policy coherence, orientated
around ideas that came to be called Thatcherism. Similarly, Blair strongly associated his
leadership of the Labour Party with the advance of the ‘modernizing’ project; this saw the party
rebranded as ‘new’ Labour and ‘third way’ ideological priorities displace old-style socialist ones.

Cabinets
- cabinets enable government to present a collective face to assemblies and the public. Without a
cabinet, government could appear to be a personal tool wielded by a single individual. Second,
cabi- nets are an administrative device designed to ensure the effective coordination of
government policy.
- Presidential systems- they are policy advisors
- Although cabinets generally remain loyal to prime ministers for fear that divisions in a party’s
senior leadership spell the likelihood of election defeat, prime ministers are sometimes removed
as a result of pressure from within the cabinet, or from senior party figures.
 Judiciary

Introduction
- The judiciary is the branch of government that is empowered to decide legal disputes. The
central function of judges is therefore to adjudicate the meaning of *law, in the sense that they
interpret or ‘construct’ law. Although the role of the judiciary varies from state to state and from
system to system, the judiciary is often accorded unusual respect and is regarded as distinct
from other political institutions. This is because of the supposed link between law and justice,
reflected in the capacity of judges to decide disputes in a fair and balanced fashion.
- Judiciaries and court systems are invariably structured in a hierarchical fashion, reflecting the
different types and levels of law, allowing for an appeals process and ensuring consistency of
interpretation through the overriding authority of a supreme or high court. Increasingly,
however, national judiciaries are subject to the authority of supranational courts, such as the
European Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, the ICJ, the ICC.
- Judiciary best thought of as a political, not merely a legal institution. Judges, central figues, play
vital role in undeniably political activities like conflict resolution and the maintenance of state
authority. Judgements have political impacts.
- Liberal-democratic states, however, have emphasized the principles of judicial independence
and neutrality. Judicial independence is the principle that there should be a strict separation
between the judiciary and other branches of government and is thus an application of the
separation of powers. Judicial neutrality is the principle that judges should interpret law in a way
that is uncontaminated by social, political and other biases. Taken together, these principles are
meant to establish a strict separation between law and politics, and to guarantee that the rule of
law is upheld. The devices used to ensure judicial objectivity range from security of tenure and
the independence of the legal profession

Are Judges political?

- The two chief issues concerning the judiciary are whether judges are political and whether they
are policy-makers. Certain political systems make no pretense of judicial neutrality or
impartiality. For example, in orthodox communist regimes the principle of ‘socialist legality’
dictated that judges interpret law in accordance with. Marxism–Leninism, subject to the
ideological authority of the state’s communist party. Judges thus became mere functionaries
who carried out the political and ideological objectives of the regime itself, as was demonstrated
by the ‘show trials’ of the 1930s in the USSR. The German courts during the Nazi period were
similarly used as instruments of ideological repression and political persecution.
- External Bias: Judges may be political in 2 senses – may be subject to internal or to external bias.
External bias is derived from the influence that political bodies, such as parties, the assembly
and government, are able to exert on the judiciary. Internal bias stems from the prejudices and
sympathies of judges themselves, particularly from those that intrude into the process of judicial
decision-making. Judicial Independence – protected by security of tenure etc.
- Internal Bias – critique of judiciary is that it articulates the dominant values of society and so acts
to defend the existing social order. This tendency is underpinned by the social exclusivity of
judges and by peculiar status and respect that judicial profession is normally accorded. Eg. UK’s
higher court – homogeneity, Oxbridge educated whites. Attempts now to make it inclusive

Do judges make policy?

- The image of judges as simple appliers of law has also always been a myth. Judges cannot apply
the so-called ‘letter of the law’, because no law, legal term or principle has a single, self-evident
meaning. In practice, judges impose meaning on law through a process of ‘construction’ that
forces them to choose amongst a number of possible meanings or interpretations. In this sense
all law is judge-made law. Factors that affect this: clarity of the law, Written or codified
constitution. Eg. Brown v. Board of Education; Roe v. Wade – Judicial activism.
- If judges are policy-makers, they must operate as part of the broader machinery of government
and within constraints established by the political culture and public opinion.
- The power of judicial review can, nevertheless, be applied in a narrower sense in the case of
executive powers that are derived from enabling legislation. In such cases, the principle of ultra
vires can be used to declare actions of ministers, for instance, unlawful.
 Forms of Government

Introduction
- ‘Government’ refers to the institutional processes through which collective and usually binding
decisions are made.
- A political system or regime, is a broader term that encompasses not only the mechanisms of
government and the institutions of the state, but also the structures and processes through
which these interact with the larger society.

Classification: (Ask Vageeshan where to do this from)

1. Non-democratic:
a. Autocracy
b. Theocracy
c. Military rule etc
d. ?
2. Democratic:
a. Presidential
b. Parliamentary
c. Mixed

Why are classification of political systems necessary?

a. Essential aide to understanding of politics and government.
b. To facilitate evaluation rather than analysis. Descriptive understanding is closely tied up with
normative judgment. This process may search for an ideal system of rule or a utopia like
Thomas More’s Utopia. (extreme form) and (moderate form)- qualitative judgments to be
made in relation to political structures
- Drawbacks:
a. There is a danger of simplification.
b. Value biases tend to intrude into the classification process.
c. They are state-bound- they treat individual countries as coherent or independent entities in
their own right.

Aristotle’s Classification
- Governments can be categorized on the basis of 2 questions – “who rules” and “who benefits”.
Purpose – evaluation on normative grounds to identify ideal constitution.
- Tyranny, Oligarchy, Democracy – debased and perverted forms of rule in which a single person, a
small group and the masses respectively govern in their own interests and at the expense of
others; Monarchy, Aristocracy, and polity- preferred because individual, group and masses
govern in the interests of all. Tyranny was worst because reduced citizens to status of slaved.
Monarchy and Aristocracy- impractical because based on god-like willingness to place good of
community before rulers’ own interests.
- Polity- most practical of constitutions. Criticized popular rule on the grounds that masses would
resent the wealth of the few and too easily fall under the sway of a demagogue.
- Therefore, advocated mixed constitution with combined elements of Democracy and Aristocracy
and left govt in the hands of the middle classes.

Thomas Hobbes and Jean Bodin

- Concern was with principle of sovereignty viewed as basis for all stable political regimes.
- Sovereignty meaning - most high and perpetual power that alone could guarantee orderly rule.
- Bodin - absolutism was most defensible of regimes as it established a sovereign who makes laws
but is not bound by those laws.
- Merit of resting sovereignty in one individual was it would be indivisible. But absolute monarchs
were constrained by existence of higher law in the form of the will of god or natural law.
- On the other hand, Hobbes portrayed sovereignty as monopoly of coercive power implying that
it was entirely unconstrained.

Locke and Montesquieu

- Championed the cause of Constitutional Government
- Locke said that sovereignty resided with the people not the monarch and he advocated a system
of limited govt to provide protection
- Montesquieu developed scientific study of human society designed to uncover constitutional
circumstances that would protect personal liberty. Proposed system of checks and balances in
separation of powers

The Three Worlds Typology

- Three-worlds approach – the belief that the political world could be divided into three distinct
blocs – A capitalist ‘first-world’; A communist ‘second-world’; A developing ‘third-world’
- Industrialized west was first in economic terms, communist was second because they were
largely industrialized and capable of satisfying population’s basic material needs.
- The less developed countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America were third because economically
dependent and suffered from widespread poverty.
- The first and second worlds were further divided by fierce ideological rivalry. The first world was
wedded to ‘capitalist’ principles, such as the desirability of private enterprise, material
incentives and the free market; the second world was committed to ‘communist’ values such as
social equality, collective endeavor, and the need for centralized planning.
- Such ideological differences had clear political manifestations. First-world regimes practiced
liberal-democratic politics based on a competitive struggle for power at election time. Second-
world regimes were one-party states, dominated by ‘ruling’ communist parties. Third- world
regimes were typically authoritarian, and governed by traditional monarchs, dictators or, simply,
the army.
- The phrase ‘third world’ is widely resented as being demeaning, because it implies entrenched
disadvantage. The term ‘developing world’ is usually seen as preferable.
Regimes of the Modern World
- Liberal democratic triumphalism reflected the persistence of a Western-centric viewpoint. Image
of a ‘world of liberal democracies’ suggested the superiority of a specifically western model of
development, based perhaps especially on the USA, and it implied that values such as
individualism, rights, and choice are universally applicable.
- No consensus on which criteria the system should be based on: who rules; how is compliance
achieved; Govt power centralized or fragmented; How is power acquired and transferred;
balance between state and individual; what is the level of material development; organization of
economic life; how stable was the regime

a. Constitutional-Institutional approach - Influenced by classical typologies. Highlighted

differences between codified and uncodified constitutions, parliamentary and presidential
systems, and federal and unitary systems.
b. Structural- Functional approach - concerned less with institutional arrangements than with
how political systems work in practice, and especially with how they translate ‘inputs’ into
‘outputs’.
c. Economic-Ideological - Three-worlds approach as it paid special attention to a systems level
of material development and its broader ideological orientation.
d. New approach - attempts to take account of three key features of a regime: its political,
economic and cultural aspects. The assumption in this approach is that regimes are
characterized not so much by particular political, economic or cultural factors as by the way
in which these interlock in practice. Significance of this approach is that it emphasizes the
degree to which formal political and economic arrangements may operate differently
depending on their cultural context

5 regime types which can be identified in the Modern world:

1. Western Polyarchies
- Broadly equivalent to regimes categorized as ‘liberal democracies’, or even simply ‘democracies’.
- Huntington- 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 countries such as West Germany,
Italy, Japan and India.
- Term ‘polyarchy’ is preferable to ‘liberal democracy’ for two reasons. First, liberal democracy is
sometimes treated as a political ideal, and is thus invested with broader normative implications.
Second, the use of ‘polyarchy’ acknowledges that these regimes fall short, in important ways, of
the goal of democracy
- Dahl and Lindblom –
a. polyarchical 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.
b. The second feature of polyarchy is that the opportunities for participat- ing 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.
 c. In this sense, there is a close resemblance between polyarchy and the form of democratic
elitism described by Joseph Schumpeter
- All states that hold multi- party elections have polyarchal 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. The most crucial aspect of
this inheritance is the widespread acceptance of liberal individualism. Stresses uniqueness of
each individual and suggests society should be organized to meet the needs and interests of all
these individuals.
- Lijphart - distinguishing between ‘majority’ democracies and ‘consensus’ democracies. Majority
democracies are organized along parliamentary lines according to the so-called ‘Westminster
model’. The clearest example of this is the UK system, but the model has also, in certain
respects, been adopted by New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Israel and India.
 Majoritarian tendencies: single part govt; exec-assembly fusion; unicameral/weak bicameral;
unitary and centralized govt; uncodified constitution, sovereign assembly.
- Consociational democracy – Belgium, Austria, Switzerland - is particularly appropriate to
societies that are divided by deep religious, ideological, regional, cultural or other differences.
Consensual or pluralistic tendencies are often associated with the following features: coalition
government; separation of powers between the executive and the assembly; an effective
bicameral system; a multiparty system, proportional representation, federalism, or devolution, a
codified constitution, and a bill of rights.

2. New democracies
- 3rd wave of democratization in 1974. witnessed the overthrow of right-wing dictatorships in
Greece, Portugal and Spain; the retreat of the generals in Latin America; and, most significantly,
the fall of communism. This process has been characterized by the adoption of multi- party
elections and market-based economic reforms. Nevertheless, many of these states are
‘transition countries’, often classified as new democracies.
- The most dramatic evidence of their vulnerability is the re-emergence of the armed forces into
politics, as occurred, for example, in military coups in Pakistan in 1979 and in Thailand in 2006.
However, problems are faced by post-communist states in bringing about democratization
- One feature of post-communist regimes is the need to deal with the politico- cultural
consequences of communist rule, especially the ramifications of Stalinist totalitarianism. The
ruthless censorship and suppression of opposition that underpinned the communist parties’
monopoly of power guaranteed that a civic culture emphasizing participation, bargaining and
consensus failed to develop.
- A second set of problems stems from the process of economic transition. The ‘shock therapy’
transition from central planning to laissez-faire capitalism, initially advocated by the
International Monetary Fund, unleashed deep insecurity because of the growth of
unemployment and inflation, and it significantly increased social inequality.
- A final set of problems result from the weak- ness of state power, particularly when the state is
confronted by centrifugal forces effectively suppressed during the communist era. The re-
emergence of ethnic and nationalist tensions has most clearly demonstrated this. The collapse of
communism in the USSR was accompanied by the break-up of the old Soviet empire and the
construction of 15 new independent states, several of which (including Russia) continue to be
afflicted by ethnic conflict.
- Between the more industrially advanced and westernized countries of ‘central’ Europe, such as
the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, and the more backward, ‘eastern’ states such as
Romania, Bulgaria and, in certain respects, Russia. In the former group, market reform has
proceeded swiftly and relatively smoothly; in the latter, it has either been grudging and
 incomplete, or it has given rise to deeper political tensions. This was reflected in early
membership of the EU for the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland etc. achieved in 2004. However,
Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU in 2007, with other Balkan post-communist states, including
Croatia, Albania, Bosnia- Herzegovina and Serbia, still waiting to join

3. East Asian regimes

- widespread assumption has been that ‘modernization’ means ‘westernization’. Translated into
political terms, this implies that industrial capitalism is always accompanied by liberal
democracy. However, this interpretation fails to take account of the degree to which polyarchic
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 those shaped by liberal individualism
- 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.
- Second, there is broad support for ‘strong’ government. Powerful ‘ruling’ parties tend to be
tolerated, and there is general respect for the state
- Third, by a general disposition to respect leaders because of the Confucian stress on loyalty,
discipline, and duty. From a western viewpoint, this invests East Asian regimes with an implicit,
and sometimes explicit, authoritarianism.
- Finally, great emphasis is placed on com- munity and social cohesion, embodied in the central
role accorded to the family. The resulting emphasis on what the Japanese call ‘group think’ tends
to restrict the scope for the assimilation of ideas such as individualism and human rights, at least
as these are understood in the West.
- There is also differentiation between East Asian regimes. The most significant difference is that,
although China’s acceptance of capitalism has blurred the distinction between it and other East
Asian regimes, profound political contrasts survive. China, in political terms at least, and North
Korea, in both political and economic terms, are reconstituted communist regimes, in which a
monopolistic communist party still dominates the state machine.
- Japan electoral democracy contrasted with China’s market Stalinism. Also, cultural differences.

4. Islamic regimes
- In some cases, militant Islamic groups have challenged existing regimes, often articulating the
interests of an urban poor
- Islam is a complete way of life, defining correct moral, political and economic behaviour for
individuals and nations alike. The ‘way of Islam’ is based on the teachings of the Prophet
Muhammad
- Political Islam thus aims at the construction of a theocracy in which political and other affairs are
structured according to ‘higher’ religious principles. Nevertheless, political Islam has assumed
clearly contrasting forms, ranging from fundamentalist to pluralist extremes.
- fundamentalist version of Islam is most commonly associated with Iran. The Iranian system of
government is a complex mix of theocracy and democracy. The Supreme Leader presides over a
system of institutionalized clerical rule that operates through the Islamic Revolutionary Council,
a body of 15 senior clerics.
- Although a popularly elected president and parliament have been established, all legislation is
ratified by the Council for the Protection of the Constitution, which ensures conformity to
Islamic principles. Shari’a law continues to be strictly enforced throughout Iran as both a legal
and a moral code.
- The forces of revolutionary fundamentalism also asserted themselves through the Taliban
regime in Afghanistan, 1997–2001, which was characterized by the impo- sition of strict
theocratic rule and the exclusion of women from education, the economy and public life in
general.
- Muslims themselves, however, have often objected to the classification of any Islamic regime as
‘fundamentalist’, on the grounds that this perpetuates long- established western prejudices
against an ‘exotic’ or ‘repressive’ East, serving as examples of ‘orientalism’
- Evidence that Islam is compatible with a form of political pluralism can be found in Malaysia.
Although Islam is the offi- cial state religion of Malaysia, with the Paramount Ruler serving as
both reli- gious leader and head of state, a form of ‘guided’ democracy operates as the
dominance of the United Malays National Organization

5. Military regimes
- Military dictatorship has been most common in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and
Southeast Asia, but it also emerged in the post-1945 period in Spain, Portugal and Greece.
- The key feature of a 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 opposition
can be expressed, such as elected assemblies and a free press, are either weakened or
abolished.
- In some military regimes, the armed forces assume direct control of government. The classical
form of this is the military junta, most commonly found in Latin America. This operates as a form
of collective military government centered on a command council of officers who usually
represent the three armed-services: the army, navy and air force. Junta regimes are often
characterized by rivalry between the services and between leading figures, the consequence
being that formal positions of power tend to change hands relatively frequently.
- second form of military regime is 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 (see p. 302) designed to manufacture charismatic authority. Examples are Colonel
Papadopoulos in Greece in 1974–80, General Pinochet in Chile after the 1973 military coup, and
General Abacha in Nigeria, 1993–98.
- In the final 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. This, for example, occurred in post-1945 Brazil, as the armed forces generally
recognized that the legitimacy of the regime would be strengthened by the maintenance of a
distinction between political and military offices and personnel.
- Military coups appear to be associated with four key sets of circumstances. In the first place,
there is a clear link between the incidence of military coups and economic underdevelopment.
The vast majority of countries that have experienced military government are in the developing
world. By the same token, growing prosperity appears to be an anti- dote to military
intervention. Second, the military is likely to intervene in politics only when it senses that the
legitimacy of the existing institutions and the ruling elite is challenged, and when it calculates
that its intervention is going to be successful. The armed forces thus rarely interfere directly in
politics when a stable democratic culture has been successfully established. Third, military
intervention is associated with the degree to which the values, goals and interests of the armed
forces differ from those of the broader regime. In many newly-independent developing states,
the military thus took over to ‘save the nation’, seeing itself as a ‘westernizing’ or ‘modernizing’
force confronting a traditionalist, rural, hierarchical and frequently divided political elite.
occurred in Nigeria, Indonesia and Pakistan. Finally, the military’s decision to seize power may
also be affected by international considerations. In some cases, international pressures
undoubtedly encourage military action. This was clearly the case with the Pinochet coup in Chile.
Not only did Pinochet receive covert advice and encouragement from the US Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), but he also guaranteed US diplomatic support once his new military regime was
established.
 Module 5
Democracy as a political Process

Introduction
- Democracy is derived from the ancient Greek word kratos, meaning ‘power’ or ‘rule’. Democracy
therefore means ‘rule by the demos’, demos standing for ‘the many’ or ‘the people’.
- Democracy was originally a negative or pejorative term, denoting not so much rule by all, as rule
by the propertyless and uneducated masses. Democracy was therefore thought to be the enemy
of liberty and wisdom
- Aristotle were prepared to recognize the virtues of popular participation, they nevertheless
feared that unrestrained democracy would degenerate into a form of ‘mob rule’.
- Modern understanding of democracy is dominated by the form of electoral democracy that has
developed in the industrialized West, often called liberal democracy.

Direct and Indirect (Representative) Democracy

- Lincoln – Govt of the people, by the people, and for the people.

a. Direct Democracy
- ‘government by the people’, is based upon the idea that the public participates in government
and indeed governs itself: popular self-government.
- The cornerstone of Athenian democracy was the direct and continuous participation of all
citizens in the life of their polis or city-state, removing need for separate class of politicians.
- Eg. “Town meeting democracy”, plebiscites/ referendums - a popular vote on a specific issue
which enables electors to make decisions directly, instead of selecting politicians to do so on
their behalf. A form of direct democracy has also survived in modern societies in the practice of
selecting juries on the basis of lot or rota, as public offices were filled in Athenian times.
- Criticisms:
a. Ordinary people lack time, maturity, specialist knowledge to rule wisely on their own behalf
b. Merely applies the advantages of the division of labour to politics: specialist politicians, able
to devote all their time and energy to the activity of government, can clearly do a better job
than would the general public.

2. Indirect/ Representative Democracy

- ‘government for the people’, is linked to the notion of the public interest and the idea that
government benefits the people, whether or not they themselves rule. Government is left in the
hands of professional politicians who are invested with the responsibility for making decisions on
behalf of the people.
- Representative democracy is a limited and indirect form of democracy. Limited- popular
participation is both infrequent and brief, being reduced to the act of voting every few years,
depending on the length of the political term. Indirect- public is kept at arm’s length from
government: the public participates only through the choice of who should govern it, and never,
or only rarely, exercises power itself.
- It IS form of democracy because act of voting remains a vital source of popular power. Although
representative democracy may not fully realize the classical goal of ‘government by the people’,
it may nevertheless make possible a form of ‘government for the people’. There is accountability
to the public since they can “kick out the rascals”
- Defense:
 a. A high level of popular participation is possible within relatively small communities, such as
Greek city-states or small towns, because face-to-face communication can take place
between and amongst citizens. However, the idea of government by mass meeting being
conducted in modern nation-states containing tens, and possibly hundreds of millions of
citizens is frankly absurd.
b. To consult the general public on each and every issue, and permit wide-ranging debate and
discussion, threatens to paralyse the decision-making process and make a country virtually
ungovernable.
- Symptoms of malaise/Revival of classic democracy: Growing disenchantment with the
bureaucratic/unresponsive nature of modern government, declining respect for professional
politicians, who have increasingly been viewed as self-serving careerists; the act of voting often
seen as a meaningless ritual that has little impact upon the policy process, making a mockery of
the democratic ideal – All these leading to civic disengagement and declining electoral turnout.

Liberal Democracy
- ‘Liberal’ Element:
 The ‘liberal’ element in liberal democracy emerged historically some time before such states
could genuinely be described as democratic. Many Western states, for instance, developed
forms of constitutional government in the nineteenth century, at a time when the franchise
was still restricted to propertied males.
 Liberal state is based upon the principle of limited government, the idea that the individual
should enjoy some measure of protection from the state.
 From the liberal perspective, government is a necessary evil, always liable to become a
tyranny against the individual if government power is not checked. This leads to support for
devices designed to constrain government, such as a constitution, a Bill of Rights, an
independent judiciary and a network of checks and balances among institutions of govt.
 Rousseau – general will based govt
 Respects the existence of a vigorous and healthy civil society, based upon respect for civil
liberties and property rights. Liberal-democratic rule therefore typically coexists with a
capitalist economic order.
 The ‘democratic’ element in liberal democracy is the idea of popular consent, expressed in
practice through the act of voting. Liberal democracy is thus a form of electoral democracy,
in that popular election is seen as the only legitimate source of political authority. Such
elections must, however, respect the principle of political equality; they must be based upon
universal suffrage and the idea of ‘one person one vote’.
 In order to be fully democratic, elections must be regular, open and, above all, competitive.
The core of the democratic process is the capacity of the people to call politicians to
account. Political pluralism, open competition between political philosophies, movements,
parties and so on, is thus thought to be the essence of democracy.
 The attraction of liberal democracy is its capacity to blend elite rule with a significant
measure of popular participation. Government is entrusted to professional politicians, but
these politicians are forced to respond to popular pressures by the simple fact that the
public put them there in the first place and can later remove them. Thus, the virtues of elite
rule – government by experts, the educated or well-informed – are balanced against the
need for public accountability.
 It does not command universal approval or respect
 Joseph Schumpeter – elections are a competitive struggle for peoples’ vote. Power
ultimately wielded by the voters who exercise the same power in the political markets as
consumers do in economic markets. This process of accountability is strengthened by the
capacity of citizens to exert direct influence upon government through the formation of
 cause groups and interest groups. Liberal democracies are therefore described as pluralist
democracies: within them political power is widely dispersed among a number of competing
groups and interests, each of which has access to government.
- Criticisms of a Liberal Democracy
 Marxist – The traditional Marxist critique of liberal democracy has focused upon the
inherent tension between democracy and capitalism. For liberals and conservatives, the
right to own property is almost the cornerstone of democratic rule since it provides an
essential guarantee of individual liberty. An alternative tradition nevertheless recognizes
that electoral democracy gives the working masses a voice and may even be a vehicle for
far-reaching social change [However, some support social democracy, masses have say]
 Elitists – distinguished by their belief that political power is concentrated in the hands of the
few, the elite. Classical elitists believed this to be a necessary and, in many cases, desirable
feature of political life, modern elitists have developed an essentially empirical analysis and
usually regretted the concentration of political power.
o Schumpeter – advanced a form of democratic elitism in suggesting that, though power
is always exercised by an elite, competition among a number of elites ensures that the
popular voice is heard.
o C. Wright Mills - industrialized societies like the USA are dominated by a ‘power elite’, a
small cohesive group that commands ‘the major hierarchies and organizations of
modern society’. Suggests that power is institutional in character and largely vested in
the non-elected bodies of the state system, including the military, the bureaucracy, the
judiciary and the police. From this perspective, the principle of political equality and
the process of electoral competition upon which liberal democracy is founded are
nothing more than a sham.
 Radical Democrats – said liberal democracy was a façade democracy. They have returned to
the classical conception of democracy as popular self-government and emphasized the
need for popular political participation. The ideal of direct or participatory democracy has
attracted support from Karl Marx, most anarchist thinkers, and from elite theorists such as
Tom Bottomore and Peter Bachrach. The essence of the radical democracy critique is that
liberal democracy has reduced participation to a meaningless ritual: casting a vote every
few years for politicians who can only be replaced by electing another set of self-serving
politicians.

Types of Democracy
a. Classical Democracy – based on Athenian model, is characterized by the direct and
continuous participation of citizens in the processes of government.
b. Protective Democracy - is a limited and indirect form of democratic rule designed to provide
individuals with a means of defence against government. As such, it is linked to natural rights
theory and utilitarianism.
c. Developmental Democracy - associated with attempts to broaden popular participation on
the basis that it advances freedom and individual flourishing.
d. Deliberative Democracy - highlights the importance of public debate and discussion in
shaping citizens’ identities and interests, and in strengthening their sense of the common
good.
 Authoritarianism as a form of ruling

Authoritarianism - Form of govt characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms

Juan Linz –
1. 4 qualities of authoritarianism
e. Limited political Pluralism – restrictions placed on political institutions and groups like
legislatures, political parties, and interest groups
f. Basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially identification of the regime as a necessary
evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" [underdevelopment/ insurgency etc]
g. Minimal social mobilization - most often caused by constraints on the public such as
suppression of political opponents and anti-regime activity
h. Informally defined executive power with often vague and shifting powers

2. Differentiation between new forms of authoritarianism

- Personalistic dictatorships and totalitarian states. Eg. Francoist Spain
- Unlike personalistic dictatorships, new forms of authoritarianism have institutionalized
representation of a variety of actors (in Spain's case, including the military, the Catholic Church,
Falange, monarchists, technocrats and others); unlike totalitarian states, the regime relies on
passive mass acceptance rather than popular support.

3. Two most basic sub-types of authoritarian regimes [Linz]

a. Traditional authoritarian regimes - those "in which the ruling authority (generally a single
person)" is maintained in power "through a combination of appeals to traditional
legitimacy, patron-client ties and repression, which is carried out by an apparatus bound to
the ruling authority through personal loyalties"; Eg. is Ethiopia under Haile Selassie I.
b. Bureaucratic-military authoritarian regimes - those governed by a coalition of military
officers and technocrats who act pragmatically (rather than ideologically) within the limits
of their bureaucratic mentality. Mark J. Gasiorowski suggests that it is best to distinguish
"simple military authoritarian regimes" from "bureaucratic authoritarian regimes" in which
"a powerful group of technocrats uses the state apparatus to try to rationalize and develop
the economy" such as South Korea under Park Chung-hee.

4. 3 other subtypes [Linz]

a. Corporatist/ Organic-Statistic - those in which corporatism institutions are used extensively
by the state to co-opt and demobilize powerful interest groups". Eg. Latin America
b. Racial and ethnic democracy - certain racial or ethnic groups enjoy full democratic rights
while others are largely or entirely denied those rights. Eg. South Africa under Apartheid
c. Post-totalitarian – Totalitarian institutions (such as the party, secret police, state-controlled
mass media) remain, but where ideological orthodoxy has declined in favor of routinization,
repression has declined, state's top leadership is less personalized and more secure, and level
of mass mobilization has declined substantially. Eg. Soviet Eastern bloc states in mid-1980s

Other sub-categories
a. Personalistic - Personalistic authoritarian regimes are characterized by arbitrary rule and
authority exercised "mainly through patronage networks and coercion rather than through
institutions and formal rules." Personalistic authoritarian regimes seen in post-colonial Africa.
b. Populist - Mobilizational regimes in which a strong charismatic manipulative leader rules through
a coalition involving key lower-class groups. Eg. Egypt under Nasser, Venezuela under Chávez
Characteristics of Authoritarianism
1. Highly concentrated and centralized power maintained by political repression and the exclusion
of political challengers.
2. Adam Przeworski has theorized that "authoritarian equilibrium rests mainly on lies, fear and
economic prosperity
3. Tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is
"self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among
competitors, the arbitrary deprivation of civil liberties, little tolerance for meaningful opposition
4. Social controls attempting to stifle civil society – armed forces, bureaucracy etc. Allegiance
created through various means of socialization and indoctrination.
5. Authoritarian political systems may be weakened through "inadequate performance to demands
of the people." Vestal writes that the tendency to respond to challenges to authoritarianism
through tighter control instead of adaptation is a significant weakness, and that this overly rigid
approach fails to "adapt to changes or to accommodate growing demands on the part of the
populace or even groups within the system." Because the legitimacy of the state is dependent
on performance, authoritarian states that fail to adapt may collapse
6. Authoritarianism is marked by "indefinite political tenure" of the ruler or ruling party (often in a
one-party state) or other authority. The transition from an authoritarian system to a more
democratic form of government is referred to as democratization
7. John Duckett – link between authoritarianism and collectivism – both opposed to individualism

Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism

- Extreme version of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism primarily differs from totalitarianism in
that social, economic institutions exist that aren’t under govt control. Both forms of autocracy

Totalitaria Authoritari
nism anism

Charisma High Low

Role Leader as Leader as

conception function individual

Ends of
Public Private
power

Corruption Low High

Official ide
Yes No
ology

Limited plu
No Yes
ralism

Legitimacy Yes No

- Differences in key dichotomies – Sondrol

1. Unlike their bland and generally unpopular authoritarian brethren, totalitarian dictators develop
a charismatic 'mystique' and a mass-based, pseudo-democratic interdependence with their
followers via the conscious manipulation of a prophetic image.
2. Concomitant role conceptions differentiate totalitarians from authoritarians. Authoritarians view
themselves as individual beings largely content to control, and often maintain, the status quo.
Totalitarian self-conceptions are largely teleological. The tyrant is less a person than an
indispensable 'function' to guide and reshape the universe.
3. utilisation of power for personal aggrandizement more evident among authoritarians than
totalitarians. Lacking binding appeal of ideology, authoritarians support their rule by mixture of
instilling fear/ granting rewards to loyal collaborators, engendering a kleptocracy.

- Other differences
a. Compared to totalitarianism, "the authoritarian state still maintains a certain distinction
between state and society. It is only concerned with political power and as long as that is
not contested it gives society a certain degree of liberty. Totalitarianism, on the other hand,
invades private life and asphyxiates it." Another distinction is that "authoritarianism is not
animated by utopian ideals in the way totalitarianism is. It does not attempt to change the
world and human nature." Carl Joachim Friedrich writes that "a totalistic ideology, a party
reinforced by a secret police, and monopoly control of ... industrial mass society" are the
three features of totalitarian regimes that distinguish them from other autocracies

Authoritarianism and Democracy

- Authoritarianism and democracy are not fundamentally opposed to one another; it is thus
definitely possible for democracies to possess strong authoritarian elements, for both feature a
form of submission to authority. An illiberal democracy (or procedural democracy) is
distinguished from liberal democracy (or substantive democracy) in that illiberal democracies
lack the more democratic features of liberal democracies, such as the rule of law, an
independent judiciary, along with a further distinction that liberal democracies have rarely made
war with one another. More recent research has extended the theory and finds that more
democratic countries tend to have few Militarized Interstate Disputes causing less battle deaths
with one another, and that democracies have much fewer civil wars.
- Some commentators, such as Seymour Martin Lipset, believed that low-income authoritarian
regimes have certain technocratic, "efficiency-enhancing advantages" over low-income
democracies, helping authoritarian regimes generate development. Morton H. Halperin, Joseph
T. Siegle, and Michael M. Weinstein counter this belief, arguing that the evidence has showed
that there is no "authoritarian advantage" and that there is a "democratic advantage"
instead.Halperin et al. argue that democracies "realize superior development performance" over
authoritarianism. They point out that poor democracies are more likely to have steadier
economic growth, and less likely to experience economic and humanitarian catastrophes, than
authoritarian regimes; that civil liberties act as a curb on corruption and misuse of resources;
and that democracies are more adaptable. Halperin point out that the vast majority of refugee
crises and financial catastrophes occur in authoritarian regimes.
- Studies suggest that several health indicators (life expectancy and infant and maternal mortality)
have a stronger and more significant association with democracy than they have with GDP per
capita, size of the public sector, or income inequality.
- Prominent economist Amartya Sen has theorized that no functioning liberal democracy has ever
suffered a large-scale famine.
- Research shows that the democratic nations have much less democide or murder by
government. However, it should be noted that those were also moderately developed nations
before applying liberal democratic policies.
- Research by the World Bank suggests that political institutions are extremely important in
determining the prevalence of corruption, and that parliamentary systems, political stability and
freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption.
- One study has concluded that terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political
freedom. The nations with the least amount of terrorism are the most and least democratic
nations.
 Political Representation and the electoral process

Introduction
- In politics, representation suggests that an individual or group somehow stands for, or on behalf
of, a larger collection of people. Political representation therefore acknowledges a link between
two otherwise separate entities – government and the governed – and implies that through this
link the people’s views are articulated or their interests are secured. The precise nature of this
link is, nevertheless, a matter of deep disagreement, as is the capacity of representation ever to
ensure democratic government.

4 theories of representation
1. Trustee model
- A trustee is a person who acts on behalf of others, using his or her superior knowledge, better
education or greater experience. Formal assignment of representative to look after one’s affairs
- Edmund Burke - essence of representation was to serve one’s constituents by the exercise of
‘mature judgement’ and ‘enlightened conscience’. In short, representation is a moral duty
- Herding of intellectual superiority on those elected. They are elected because they know what is
best. They get to decide what is best, at that point they do not have to go with the public
opinion or protect the interests of the constituency.
- Mill – while all people have a right to be protected, not all their opinions should be given the
same credence. Hierarchy of opinions. He This view had strongly elitist implications, since it
stresses that, once elected, repre- sentatives should think for themselves and exercise
independent judgement because the mass of people do not know their own best interests.
 Thomas Paine – the moment you reduce accountability and transparency by not holding
them accountable to their constituency, then elections and democracy are weakened
 Using of a democratic tool for an undemocratic purpose. If some votes count less than
others, why let that group vote?
 Blanket immunity from scrutiny of your constituency is problematic
- Criticisms:
 This view had strongly elitist implications, since it stresses that, once elected,
representatives should think for themselves and exercise independent judgement on the
grounds that the mass of people do not know their own best interests.
 Has antidemocratic implication. If politicians should think for themselves because the public
is ignorant, poorly educated or deluded, then surely it is a mistake to allow the public to
elect their representatives in the first place.
 link between representation and education is questionable. Whereas education may
certainly be of value in aiding the understanding of intricate political and economic
problems, it is far less clear that it helps politicians to make correct moral judgements about
the interests of others.
 little evidence, for example, to support Burke’s and Mill’s belief that education breeds
altruism and gives people a broader sense of social responsibility.
 Thomas Paine- if politicians are allowed to exercise their own judgement, they will simply
use that latitude to pursue their own selfish interests. In this way, representation could
simply become a substitute for democracy.

2. Delegate model
- A delegate is a person who acts as a conduit for your views and opinions. No substantial
discretion afforded to the candidate. They have to take decisions good for the constituency
- Those who favour this model of representation as delegation usually support mechanisms that
ensure that politicians are bound as closely as possible to the views of the represented.
- These include what Paine referred to as ‘frequent interchange’ between representatives and
their constituents in the form of regular elections and short terms in office.
- Radical democrats have advocated the use of initiatives and the right of recall as means of giving
the public more control over politicians
- It provides broader opportunities for popular participation and serves to check the self-serving
inclinations of professional politicians. – as close as possible to popular sovereignty
- Criticisms:
 Narrow view that is taken to the table, fosters conflict
 Limits leadership opportunities. Politicians forced to reflect views of their constituents/even
pander to them, thus not able to mobilize the people by providing vision and inspiration

3. Mandate Model
- Individuals don’t view representatives as separate, but as part of their political parties.
- Doctrine of mandate – party that wins gains a popular mandate that authorises it to carry out
any policies it outlined during the election campaign. As it is the party, rather than individual
politicians, that is the agent of representation, the mandate model provides a clear justification
for party unity and party discipline.
- Advantages:
 it provides a means of imposing some kind of meaning on election results, as well as a way
of keeping politicians to their word.
 Takes into account the undoubted practical importance of party labels and party politics
- Criticisms
 it is based on a highly questionable model of voting behaviour, insofar as it suggests that
voters select parties on the grounds of policies and issues. Voters are not always the
rational and well-informed creatures that this model suggests. They can be influenced by a
range of ‘irrational’ factors
 Manifesto commitments - A vote for a party cannot therefore be taken to be an
endorsement of its entire manifesto or, indeed, of any single election promise.
 a lot of the time, individuals depend on charisma of the individual. Sometimes they did not
approve of Party A but thought that candidate of Party A could do very well
 the doctrine imposes a straitjacket. It limits government policies to those positions and
proposals that the party took up during the election and leaves no scope to adjust policies
in the light of changing circumstances.
 the doctrine of the mandate can be applied only in the case of majoritarian electoral
systems, and its use even there may appear absurd if the winning party fails to gain 50 per
cent of the popular vote

4. Resemblance Model
- a representative government would constitute a microcosm of the larger society, containing
members drawn from all groups and sections in society (in terms of social class, gender, age and
so on), and in numbers that are proportional to the size of the groups in society at large
- idea of descriptive representation, or as it has been called ‘microcosmic representation’, has
traditionally been endorsed by socialist, feminist, and other radical thinkers. They argue that the
‘under-representation’ of groups such as the working class, women, and racial minorities at
senior levels in key institutions ensures that their interests are marginalized or ignored
altogether.
- suggests that only people who come from a particular group, and have shared the experiences
of that group, can fully identify with its interests.
- Criticisms:
 portrays representation in exclusive or narrow terms, believing that only a woman can represent
women, only a black person can represent other black people etc
 If all representatives simply advanced the interests of the groups from which they come, the
result would be social division and conflict, with no one being able to defend the common good
or advance a broader public interest.
 a government that is a microcosm of society would reflect that society’s weaknesses as well as
its strengths. What would be the advantage, for example, of government resembling society if
the majority of the population are apathetic, ill-informed and poorly educated
 The micro- cosmic ideal can be achieved only by imposing powerful constraints on electoral
choice and individual freedom. In the name of representation, political parties may be forced to
select quotas of female and minority candidates, constituencies may be set aside for candidates
from particular backgrounds, or, more dramatically, the electorate might have to be classified on
basis of class, gender, race etc., and only be allowed to vote for candidates from own group.

Functions of Elections
- recruiting politicians, making governments, providing representation, influencing policy,
educating voters, building legitimacy, strengthening elites

Theories of voting behavior

1. Party identification model -- Electors are seen as people who identify with a party; heavy stress
on early political socialization; partisan alignment tends to create stability and continuity,
especially in terms of habitual patterns of voting behaviour; Weakness- growing evidence from a
number of countries of partisan dealignment. indicates a general fall in party identification
2. Sociological model - links voting behaviour to group membership, suggesting that electors tend
to adopt a voting pattern that reflects the economic and social position of the group to which
they belong; Criticism- in focusing on social groups, it ignores the individual and the role of
personal self-interest; growing empirical evidence that the link between sociological factors and
party support has weakened in modern societies
3. Rational choice model - In this view, voting is seen as a rational act, in the sense that individual
electors are believed to decide their party preference on the basis of personal self-interest;
voting seen as essentially instrumental, means to an end; latter view stresses the importance of
what is called ‘issue voting’, and suggests that parties can significantly influence their electoral
performance by revising and reshaping their policies; consequences of class dealignment;
weakness - they abstract the individual voter from his or her social and cultural context
4. Dominant-ideology model - Radical theories of voting tend to highlight the degree to which
individual choices are shaped by a process of ideological manipulation and control. Where these
theories differ from the sociological model, however, is in emphasizing that how groups and
individuals interpret their position depends on how it has been presented to them through
education, by the government and, above all, by the mass media (distorts the flow). Weakness -
overstating the process of social conditioning, takes individual calculation and personal
autonomy out of the picture altogether

Electoral Systems – Mechanics

- electoral systems are the mechanisms by which the preferences of citizens are translated into
seats in representative institutions. The behaviour of political parties and candidates for elected
 office will, for example, in large measure be conditioned by the shape of an electoral system.
Canada's electoral system is a case in point. Academic observers have noted that in this country
the electoral system is weighted in favour of regional preferences, so that parties are
encouraged emphasize regional rather than national concerns during election campaigns.
- the way in which an electoral system translates votes into seats in elected assemblies may
influence the degree of public support for the democratic system itself. If, for example, citizens
do not perceive that their preferences are adequately reflected in the legislature following an
election, their support for the system in general is likely to decline.

1. Majoritarian – Eg. US Electoral process. Party that wins max states win, but critique is that they
do not necessarily put the party with the most number of votes total in power
a. Single-Member Plurality systems - In electoral districts represented by one member in an
elected assembly, simple rather than absolute majorities suffice to determine the winner of
an electoral contest; direct connection between elected representatives and electors
b. Multi-member plurality systems - In some majoritarian electoral systems, more than one
member per electoral district can be sent to the assembly; combine some of the advantages
of PR and plurality systems by ensuring that not only do multiple points of view within a
constituency gain legislative representation, but also that those elected have significant
levels of support from the electorate; lines of responsibility not always clear
c. Single-member Majoritarian systems - seek to ensure that the winning candidate has the
support of an absolute majority of the voters in his or her district; enhanced legitimacy; no
guarantee of clear majority; claims that it discourages emergence of extremist movements
i. The alternative vote - preferential voting system or PV) require voters to rank-order
their preferences on their ballots. Electors write number 1 down beside their first
choice, 2 beside the second, and so on. If, when the ballots are tallied, no candidate
receives an absolute majority, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and his
or her ballots are redistributed according to the second choices marked on them. This
process continues until a winner emerges with more than half of the total vote. Eg.
Elections to Australia’s lower house
ii. Two-ballot system - The two-ballot or second-ballot system is another means of
ensuring that the winning candidate is supported by a full majority of voters. Under this
system, balloting may take place in two stages. During the first, voters have a choice
among several candidates, only one of whom they may vote for. If no clear winner
emerges from this first round of voting, a second ballot is held between the two
candidates with the best showing.

2. Proportional – Even in 1 party gets 3% of votes, they are still given that amount of
representation in the government; political parties are assigned a number of seats in parliament
corresponding to the degree of support they have received in a given electoral district
 Advantages: ability to reflect more accurately the preferences of voters in terms of seats in
parliament. Voters are said to be more willing to cast votes for smaller parties when they know
that their votes will produce tangible results; offer greater opportunities for legislative
representation for minority groups and women
 Disadvantages: encourage the emergence of extreme views, which, though quite often based on
short-lived opinions of the day, are given a certain longevity and enhanced legitimacy through
access to parliamentary representation; also criticized for the complexity of their balloting
process and the way in which votes are tallied; coalition governments are viewed as less than
stable. The bargaining among parties continues after the government-building process as various
 elements strive to have parts of their agenda adopted as official policy; coalitions actually make
it more difficult to change governments. Coalition membership may fluctuate following
elections, but the stronger members usually remain in place
a. Party List systems – when votes tallied, parties send % of candidates gotten to take posts.
Role of parties strengthened. On the other hand, parties acquire too much power when
they can determine whose names will appear at the top of the lists. Those elected on the
basis of this system owe primary allegiance to their parties rather than to their electorates
b. Party List systems: Variants
i. seat allocation)
1. Largest remainder system - Under this system, the first step is to set the quota or threshold of
votes that each party must attain to win a seat. Subsequently, a seat is awarded to each party for
each bloc of votes equal to the quota
2. Highest average system (d’Hondt version) - divides each party's votes by successive divisors and
then allocates seats to the parties in descending order of the quotients
3. Highest average system (Sainte-Lague and Sainte lague modified version) - divides a party's votes
by 1,3,5,7, etc., instead of by 1,2,3,4, etc
4. Combining the formulae
ii. Single Transferable Vote Systems - emphasize the individual candidate rather than the
party. Those candidates who obtain the threshold during the first stage of counting are
declared elected and any votes they have received in excess of the threshold are
redistributed according to the second choices as marked. Critics of STV claim that it
leads to weaker parties and hinders the emergence of a responsible party system
because candidates work to attract personal support

3. Mixed systems
- Voters mark two choices on their ballot papers: one from among a list of parties, the other from
among a slate of candidates for district representation. Eg. Bundestag Germany
Concept of Good Governance
 Public Policy and Decision Making

Introduction

- the linkage between intent action results. To designate something as a ‘policy’ implies that a
formal decision has been made, giving official sanction to a particular course of action. Public
policy can therefore be seen as the formal or stated decisions of government bodies. Decision
making is central to policy making process. Making of decisions and reaching a conclusion is seen
as a key feature. Broadly, public policy is the direction in which the government makes decisions
for the executives to work based on these policies
- Characteristics/Features – goal oriented [formulated and implemented in order to attain the
objectives which the government has in view for the ultimate benefit of the masses in general];
outcome of the govt’s collective actions [pattern or course of activity or' the governmental
officials and actors in a collective sense than being termed as their discrete and segregated
decisions]; what the govt actually decides or chooses to do [relationship of the government units
to the specific field of political environment in a given administrative system]; positive in the
sense that is depicts the concerns of the govt; negative since it involves govt not taking any
action on a particular issue
- Harold Lasswe
- Herbert Simon – “bounded rationality”
- Robert E Goodin
- Empirical Theory v. Ethical Theory - Theory applied only to duty imposing laws and not rights
conferring laws.
- Incentive effect - Example of the game where you give resource to A and ask them to divide
however between A and B, and B can choose to accept or reject it. Was shown that people have
the morality etc. and usually tend to split it 50-50, though it was postulated that in a capitalist
society, it would be split 99-1
- Incremental change v. radical change – Incremental change usually seen in taxation
- Ethnocentrism could affect how the government makes refugee laws
- Amitai Elzioni – Mixed scanning

Stages of Policy Making

1. Policy initiation - issue arises, can occur from above (govt recognises it) or from below (people
realise and ask for it to be changed) – political parties and IGs play a role in agenda setting [The
ability to structure policy debate by controlling which issues are discussed or establishing a
priority amongst them.)
o This stage in the policy process structures all subsequent debate, discussion and decision-
making. Policy initiation, then, is crucial, in that it sets the political agenda both by defining
certain problems as issues and by determining how those issues are to be addressed.
o policy can originate in literally any part of the political system. Policy can stem ‘from above’ –
that is, from political leaders, cabinets, government agencies and so forth; and it can arise ‘from
below’, through pressure from public opinion, the mass media
o However, political leaders are rarely original thinkers and are seldom the source of genuine
policy innovation. It is in this area that writers, academics and philosophers seemingly
unconnected with the world of practical politics may play
o a vital role in the process of policy initiation by developing ‘core’ values and theories, later
developed into specific policy proposals by leaders and parties

2. Policy Formulation
o process of detailed elaboration and analysis is required to develop systematic policy proposals
o entails not only the translation of broad proposals into specific and detailed recommendations,
but also the filtering out of proposals, and perhaps even the fundamental recasting of the issue
under consideration
o The first stage involves decisions about how to decide; that is, decisions about which mech an
isms or procedures and which political actors should be involved in the analysis and elaboration
of policy. These decisions are clearly vital, as they determine the sympathies and interests that
will be brought to bear on the policy as it is developed and discussed.
o The second stage involves issue definition and forecasting. This stage allows considerable scope
for reinterpretation, as those who formulate policy may view ‘the problem’ very differently from
those who raised the issue in the first place.
o Third, there is the setting of objectives and priorities. Although public opinion and the concerns
of bodies such as the media, political parties and interest groups are likely to influence objective
setting, there is, of course, no guarantee that the priorities identified by priority formulators will
be the same as those advanced by policy initiators.
o Finally, there is the analysis and review of the policy options, leading to the selection of a
preferred option.
o A key feature of formulation, regardless of differences in national policy styles, is that it
substantially reduces the range of actors involved in the policy process. While a broad variety of
interests, groups and movements may play a role in policy initiation, policy formulation is the job
of ‘insiders’. number of criticisms. One of these arises from the undue influence that civil
servants supposedly exert by virtue of their role as policy advisers, examined in more detail later
in the chapter. Other criticisms suggest that the tendency towards group consultation has meant
that policy is shaped by powerful sectional interests

3. Policy Implementation - one major problem: what ensures better implementation? One
authority to oversee – counter, no ground reality. More work left up to lower level, so that grass-
root level has better implementation
o Conditions required to achieve perfect implementation –
 a unitary administrative system with a single line of authority to ensure central control
 uniform norms and rules that operate throughout the system
 perfect obedience or perfect control
 perfect information, perfect communication and perfect coordination
 sufficient time for administrative resources to be mobilized.
o Concerns about inadequacy of political control from above, absence of consumer pressure from
below

4. Policy Evaluation
o Cost-benefit analysis – technique to evaluate feasibility of a project or a plan, impact of a policy,
quantification of costs and benefits.
o This stage completes the policy cycle, in the sense that information acquired through evaluation
can be fed back into the initiation and formulation stages. This process can throw up new policy
 proposals, and help to refine and improve existing ones

Who are involved?

1. Interest groups - Interest groups are such organised groups in which members share common
views and objectives and actively carry on programmes to influence government institutions,
officials, and policies. These groups are unlike political parties as they do not seek to win control
of and operate the government. These are primarily interested in influencing the formulation of
those public policies that directly or indirectly affect their interests. Such groups vary
considerably in size, wealth, power, and objectives. Their methods of operation, however, are
quite similar to each other and include lobbying, electioneering, and propagandising to influence
public opinion and government institutions. The polities which do not have strong party systems,
are subject to more direct influence on policy-making by the interest groups. Because of lack of
powerful and organised political parties, the interest groups play a dominant and direct role in
legislative affairs. On the contrary in polities which have strong, cohesive, and organised parties,
the interest groups are likely to be more numerous and active.
2. Pressure Groups - Part of state machinery, no autonomy (diff b/w IG PG) [Military, Bureaucracy]
3. Political Parties - Group of people having good measure of ideological agreement, main aim to
win elections, degree of organisation and permanency, leadership must not turn into hegemony
4. Communal groups - Ideologies based on birth

Types of Policies

1. Substantive – education, health, law and order, general welfare of society

2. Regulatory – trade, business [RBI]
3. Distributive – Aimed at specific segments of society
4. Redistributive – Re-arrangement of policies for basic social and economic changes
5. Capitalisation – financial subsidies

-
 Political Mobilisation: Practices of Parties and Movements
Introduction

- Edmund Burke - A political party is a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours
the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they all are agreed
- Political Parties mobilize people and bring them into the socio-political arena and set the agenda
for action. Almost all parties aspire to capture power (save Anarchists)
- The British parliamentary idea refers to parties as a symbol of hope around which people gather
and are mobilized in order to combat issues. They are the catalyst for change. Lenin considered
building a party essential to bringing about a revolution. The vanguard party is that which rejects
elitist ideas of competing for power.

Functions of political parties: Mobilization, Articulation of the interests of specific groups; Debate
and aggregate ideas and interests; compete for power and aspire for office; influencing public policy
by influencing public opinion
Main functions – Representation, elite formation and recruitment, goal formulation, interest
articulation and aggregation, socialisation and mobilization, organisation of the government

- The idea of a political party underwent a change when multi-party democracies came into being.
There are certain parties that are very narrow, specific in terms of their membership e.g. AIMIM
- Hannah Arendt: roots of authoritarianism; nationalist, capitalist, socialist etc. all are close-ended
and do not for other parties or debate. All are equally despicable according to her.
- Certain parties are catchall, they are like an umbrella under which come various voices, ideals,
and movements. They generally form during liberation struggles. Different ethnicities and groups
form part of larger coalition against common, bigger enemy. E.g. ANC, INC etc.
- Some parties can be differentiated based on where they fall on the identity spectrum. E.g.
Centrist, Leftist, Rightist. However, we can now classify parties as being radical or as not being
part of parliamentary democracies. Feminist movements have been one of the biggest
influences on political parties today. Mohammed Okhlan- he is the leader of the Kurdish people
and he rejects the hegemonic idea of nation-state. Combining feminist ideas with new socialist
radical movements is essential.
- A political party is more homogenous than a social movement due to its need for structure,
whereas a social movement is relatively wider and more accommodating as it includes various
strands. We don’t have intra-party debate in India, which is a huge problem.

Kinds of Parties
1. Conservatives
2. Liberals
3. Reactionaries
4. Radicals
- Mass Parties: The mass party is ‘the branch type’ of party with open membership and
hierarchical party structure, dominated by the central leadership. It is a permanent party, active
continuously throughout the year.

Types of Parties:
- cadre and mass parties
 a. Cadre party - originally meant a ‘party of notables’, dominated by an informal group of
leaders who saw little point in building up a mass organization. Such parties invariably
developed out of parliamentary factions or cliques at a time when the franchise was
limited. However, the term ‘cadre’ is now more commonly used (as in communist parties)
to denote trained and professional party members who are expected to exhibit a high level
of political commitment and doctrinal discipline. In this sense, the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union (CPSU), the Nazi Party in Germany are examples. The distinguishing feature of
cadre parties is their reliance on a politically active elite (usually subject to quasimilitary
discipline) that is capable of offering ideological leadership to the masses. Although strict
political criteria are laid down for party membership, careerism and simple convenience are
often powerful motives for joining such parties.
b. Mass Party - emphasis on broadening membership and constructing a wide electoral base.
Eg. UK Labour Party. constructed organizations specifically designed to mobilize working-
class support. The key feature of such parties is that they place heavier stress on
recruitment and organization than on ideology and political conviction. Although such
parties often have formally democratic organizations, except for a minority of activists,
membership usually entails little in the way of participation and only general agreement
about principles and goals.
i. Catch-all Parties – Otto Kirchheimer - parties that drastically reduce their ideological
baggage in order to appeal to the largest possible number of voters. Eg. Christian
Democratic Party in Germany, the Republicans/Democrats in US. These parties differ
from the classic model of a mass party in that they emphasize leadership and unity, and
downgrade the role of individual party members in trying to build up broad coalitions
of support, rather than relying on a particular social class or sectional group

- representative and integrative parties – Sigmund Neumann

a. Representative - Representative parties see their primary function as being the securing of
votes in elections. They thus attempt to reflect, rather than shape, public opinion. Adopt a
catch-all strategy
b. Integrative parties - adopt proactive, rather than reactive, political strategies; they wish to
mobilize, educate and inspire the masses, rather than merely respond to their concerns. Eg.
Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.

- constitutional and revolutionary parties

a. Constitutional - acknowledge the rights and entitlements of other parties and, thus, operate
within a framework of rules and constraints. In particular, they acknowledge that there is a
division between the party and the state, between the party in power (the government of
the day) and state institutions (the bureaucracy, judiciary, police and so on) that enjoy
formal independence and political neutrality. Above all, constitutional parties acknowledge
and respect the rules of electoral competition. They recognize that they can be voted out of
power as easily as they can be voted in.
b. Revolutionary – antisystem or anti-constitutional parties, either of the left or of the right.
Such parties aim to seize power and overthrow the existing constitutional structure using
tactics that range from outright insurrection and popular revolution to the quasi-legalism
practiced by the Nazis and the Fascists. When such parties win power, however, they
invariably become ‘ruling’ or regime parties, suppressing rival parties and establishing a
permanent relationship with the state machinery.

- left-wing and right-wing parties.

 a. Left-wing – progressive, socialist and communist parties - characterized by a commitment to
change, in the form of either social reform or wholesale economic transformation. Draw
support traditionally from poor and disadvantaged/ or working classes.
b. Right-wing - uphold the existing social order and are, in that sense, a force for continuity.
Their supporters usually include business interests and the materially-contented middle
classes.

Types of systems
1. Single Party – govt can be run efficiently without wasting time in discussions and controversies;
high national discipline; no political rivalry; tremendous all-round progress possible
 Demerits – no diff bw party and govt, legislature may be law-making body with no change
of frank discussion and deliberation; will lead to authoritarianism and totalitarian; people
ruthlessly suppressed, no chance to enjoy rights; no place for dignity of human personality
2. Two party - The two-party system is the one in which there will be two political parties one is the
ruling party and the other is the opposition party. Eg. England (Conservative-Labour), USA.
 Merits: In a parliamentary system, it provides for a stable govt; real representative govt
possible only in a two-party system; help mould public-opinion; voters tend to be well
aware of policies and programmes of the parties which they support; opposition party plays
a constructive role – points out commissions and omissions in the policies and acts of govt
 Demerits: gives rise to dictatorship of the cabinet and lower the prestige of legislature;
possibility of despotism of ruling party; Representation of various interests and minorities is
denied; gives rise to blind devotion and allegiance to the party and the leaders
3. Multi-party - Cleavages in social structures and differences in nationalities and regions in a state
cause the emergence of multiparty system. A multiparty system is the one in which there will be
more than parties in a state
 Merits: possibility of cabinet dictatorship ruled out; greater individual freedom, all shades
of opinion can be expressed through various political parties; voter has wider choice in the
two-party system
 Demerits: No stable govt; multiplicity may create chaos; parties divide people into hostile
groups; no ministry will be able to do any good work for the people; coalition ministries will
exist precariously for a short time; fraud in buying of votes will undermine political morality
4. Dominant party system – competitive, but one party usually in power

Social Movements
- Aim to bring about a transformation in society with regards to thinking processes, behaviour,
etc. and not to capture political power. Thus, its appeal runs deeper. However, they may require
power at a later stage in order to achieve its ideals and would therefore become the genesis of a
political party. There can even be polity changes within the movement
- Social movements may turn either radical or reformatory and so it may not be perennial. A
movement can either flourish or wither away and die down (usually once the goal has been
achieved). Eg: Marxists consider the proletariat struggle to be eternal.
- Social movements can be traced back to early nineteenth century. The earliest were the labour
movement, which campaigned for improved conditions for the growing working class, various
national movements, usually struggling for independence from multinational European empires
- James Tilly’s Resource Theory plays up the importance of resources and support for a
movement.
- What kind of social movement is accepted or tolerated, and how does the State respond to it
and, maybe, keep it alive? A political party which leads a movement finds itself and its leaders
 persecuted once the movement loses its sheen. Egs: Narmada Bachaon Andolan and the RTI
movement both were suppressed and even silenced at times.
- Social movements are fundamentally futuristic and reflect the conscience of the people at that
time. Media sometimes starts as an organ of a movement. Eg: Gandhi’s ‘Indian Opinion’
published as a part of his movement in South Africa and it helped fuel the movement.

New Social Movements

- In the first place, whereas their more traditional counter- parts were movements of the
oppressed or disadvantaged, contemporary social movements have more commonly attracted
the young, the better-educated and the relatively affluent.
- New movements typically have a post-material orientation, being more concerned with ‘quality
of life’ issues than with social advancement. Although the women’s movement, for example,
addresses material concerns such as equal pay and equal opportunities, it draws from a broader
set of values associated with gender equality and opposition to patriarchy
- While traditional movements had little in common and seldom worked in tandem, new social
movements subscribe to a common, if not always clearly defined, ideology.
- latter tend to have organizational structures that stress decentralization and participatory
decision-making and have also developed new forms of political activism. They thus practise
what is sometimes called the ‘new politics’, which turns away from ‘established’ parties, interest
groups and representative processes towards a more innovative and theatrical form of protest
politics. Eg. Battle of Seattle
- In contrast, new social movements are usually interpreted as rational and instrumental actors,
whose use of informal and unconventional means merely reflects the resources available to. The
emergence of new social movements is widely seen as evidence of the fact that power in post-
industrial societies is increasingly dispersed and fragmented
- Class based politics replaced by those on democratic pluralism

Impact of Social Movements

- Women’s movement - shifts in cultural values and moral attitudes brought about over a number
of years. Despite the achievement by the women’s movement of advances in specific areas, such
as equal pay and the legalization of abortion, perhaps its most significant achievement is an
increasing general awareness of gender issues and the eroding of support for patriarchal
attitudes and institutions.
- Environmental movement - The environmental movement has brought about similar politico-
cultural shifts. Not only have governments been confronted by interest group campaigns but
they have also been influenced by broader anxieties about the environment that extend well
beyond those expressed by the formal membership of such organizations. Since the 1970s these
concerns have also been articulated by green parties.
- Typically, these parties have embraced the idea of ‘new politics’, styling themselves as ‘anti-
system’ parties or even ‘anti-party’ parties, and placing a heavy emphasis on decentralization
and popular activism. The impact of the environmental movement has also extended to
conventional or ‘grey’ parties, many of which have responded to new popular sensibilities by
trying to establish their green credentials.
- Anti-capitalist movement - By contrast, the ‘anti-capitalist’ movement, or, more accurately, the
loose coalition of groups that has been brought together by resistance to globalization and its
associated consumerist values and free-trade practices, has as yet been less successful. Although
international summit meetings have become much more difficult to arrange, there is little sign of
governments or mainstream parties revising their support for free trade and economic
deregulation.
 Special Interest Groups and their functioning

Group Politics
- Interest groups, like political parties, constitute one of the major linkages between government
and the governed in modern societies.
- While parties are formal, open and are recognized part of the political system competing for
power the interest groups are informal, often secretive, concealed etc, and sometimes even
unrecognized entitles
- Influence that interest group can exercise depends upon the several important factors like its
own organizational strength, discipline and perseverance of its members in pursuing and issue
- Money is used by interest groups for legal and illegal activities. It is required to promote public
relation campaign, and of using the media to popularize the issue. Payments of bribes to
vulnerable officials, ministers, political parties, legislatures etc., are not unknown methods of
pressurizing.
- Interest groups that work for larger human causes like peace, disarmament, environmental
protection, de-segregation and racial equality, human rights decolonisation etc, pursue a
different approach and method. They work by building enlightened public opinion, by promoting
an all-party consensus, by enlisting the sympathy, good sense, and compassion.
- Interest groups that work for larger human causes like peace, disarmament, environmental
protection, de-segregation and racial equality, human rights decolonisation etc, pursue a
different approach and method. They work by building enlightened public opinion, by promoting
an all-party consensus, by enlisting the sympathy, good sense and compassion.

Types of Groups
1. Associational Groups
 formed by people who come together to pursue shared, but limited, goals; Groups as
associations are characterized by voluntary action and the existence of common interests,
aspirations or attitudes
 Eg. trade unions, chamber of commerce and industry, shopkeeper’s associations etc.
2. Institutional Groups
 groups that are part of the machinery of government and attempt to exert influence in and
through that machinery. They differ from interest groups in that they enjoy no measure of
autonomy or independence; Bureaucracies and the military; In authoritarian or totalitarian
states rivalry amongst institutional groups may become principal form of interest
articulation.
 Examples are service organizations like defence, police and civil service personnel,
employees in educational institutions and scientific laboratories and public-sector units
3. Communal Groups
 chief characteristic of communal groups is that they are embedded in the social fabric, in
the sense that membership is based on birth, rather than recruitment. Families, tribes,
castes and ethnic groups. Founded on the basis of a shared heritage and traditional bonds
and loyalties.
 Set up for a specific temporary demand and transient interest, terminated on attainment of
its objective, like Vishal Haryana movement, settlement of water dispute between Andhra
and Tamil Nadu, settlement of boundary dispute between Karnataka and Maharashtra etc

Five Factors conditioning different political systems

- Pattern of political institution; Nature of party system; Political culture and attitude of leaders
and people; The nature of issues and problem concerned; Character of the type of interest group

Sectional and Promotional Groups

- Sectional groups (sometimes called protective or functional groups) exist to advance or protect
the (usually material) interests of their members. Trade unions, business corporations, trade
associations and professional bodies. ‘sectional’ character is derived from the fact that they
represent a section of society
- promotional groups (sometimes termed cause or attitude groups) are set up to advance shared
values, ideals, or principles. These causes are many and diverse. Eg. campaigns in favour of civil
liberties or against sex and violence on television, protests about pollution and animal cruelty or
in defence of traditional or religious values. dubbed ‘public interest groups’

Insider and Outsider Groups

- Insider groups enjoy regular, privileged and usually institutionalized access to government
through routine consultation or representation on government bodies. there is an overlap
between sectional and insider classifications. Government may also be inclined to consult groups
that possess specialist knowledge and information that assists in the formulation of workable
policy. Insider status, is not always an advantage, since it is conferred only on groups with
objectives that are broadly compatible with those of the government and which have a
demonstrable capacity to ensure that their members abide by agreed decisions.
- Outsider Groups are either not consulted by government or consulted only irregularly and not
usually at a senior level. In many cases outsider status is an indication of weakness, in that,
lacking formal access to government, these groups are forced to ‘go public’ in the hope of
exercising indirect influence on the policy process. Ironically, then, there is often an inverse
relationship between the public profile of an interest group and the political influence it exerts.
Radical protest groups in fields such as environmental protection and animal rights may have
little choice about being outsiders. Not only are their goals frequently out of step with the
priorities of government, but their members and supporters are often attracted by the fact that
such groups are untainted by close links with government. In that sense, groups may choose to
remain outsiders, both to preserve their ideological purity and independence, and to protect
their decentralized power structures

Models of Interest Group Politics

1. Pluralist Model - stress the capacity of groups to both defend the individual from government
and promote democratic responsiveness.
 The core theme is that political power is fragmented and widely dispersed. Decisions are made
through a complex process of bargaining and interaction that ensures that the views and
interests of a large number of groups are taken into account. One of the earliest and most
influential attempts to develop a pluralist ‘group theory’ was undertaken by Arthur Bentley.
Bentley’s emphasis on organized groups as the fundamental building blocks of the political
process is neatly summed up in his famous dictum: ‘when the groups are adequately stated,
everything is stated’.
 Systems analysis, for example, portrayed interest groups as ‘gatekeepers’ that filtered the
multiple demands made of government into manageable sets of claims. At the same time,
community power studies claimed to find empirical support for the pluralist assertion that no
single local elite is able to dominate community decision-making. The central assumptions of this
theory are that all groups and interests have the potential to organize and gain access to
 government, that they are internally responsive in the sense that leaders broadly articulate the
interests or values of their members, and that their political influence is roughly in line with their
size and the intensity of their support. One way in which this was demonstrated was by evidence
that political power is fragmented in such a way that no group or interest can achieve
dominance for any period of time.
 The alternative idea of ‘countervailing powers’, by J. K. Galbraith suggests that a dynamic
equilibrium naturally emerges amongst competing groups, as the success of, say, business
merely encourages opponents, such as labour or consumers, to organize to counter that success.
Group politics is thus characterized by a rough balance of power.
 In contrast to the notion that power is widely and evenly distributed, elite theorists draw
attention to the existence of a ‘power elite’, comprising the heads of business corporations,
political leaders, and military chiefs.

2. Corporatism - differ from pluralism in that they attempt to trace the implications of the closer
links that have developed in industrialized societies between groups and the state.
 social theory that emphasizes the privileged position that certain groups enjoy in relation to
government, enabling them to influence the formulation and implementation of public policy.
 Some commentators regard corporatism as a state-specific phenomenon, shaped by particular
historical and political circumstances. They thus associate it with countries such as Austria,
Sweden, the Netherlands and, to some extent, Germany and Japan, in which the government
has customarily practised a form of economic management.
 Others, however, see corporatism as a general phenomenon that stems from- tendencies
implicit in economic and social development, and thus believe that it is manifest, in some form
or other, in all advanced industrial states.
 Groups seek ‘insider’ status because it gives them access to policy formulation, which enables
them better to defend the interests of their members. Government, on the other hand, needs
groups, both as a source of knowledge and information, and because the compliance of major
interests is essential if policy is to be workable. In increasingly differentiated and complex
industrial societies the need for consultation and bargaining continues to grow, with the result
that, perhaps inevitably, institutional mechanisms emerge to facilitate it.
 The drift towards corporatism in advanced capitalist states, deep misgivings about the role and
power of interest groups. In the first place, corporatism considerably cut down the number and
range of groups that enjoyed access to government.
 Corporatism invariably privileges economic or functional groups, because it leads to a form of
tripartitism that binds government to business and organized labour. However, it may leave
consumer or promotional groups out in the cold, and institutionalized access is likely to be
restricted to so-called ‘peak’ associations that speak on behalf of a range of organizations and
groups.
 A second problem is that, in contrast to the pluralist model, corporatism portrays interest groups
as hierarchically ordered and dominated by leaders who are not directly accountable to
members. Indeed, it is sometimes argued that the price that group leaders pay for privileged
access to government is a willingness to deliver the compliance of their members. From this
point of view, ‘government by consultation’ may simply be a sham concealing the fact that
corporatism acts as a mechanism of social control.
 Third, concern has been expressed about the threat that corporatism poses to representative
democracy. Whereas pluralism suggests that group politics supplements the representative
process, corporatism creates the spectre of decisions being made outside the reach of
democratic control and through a process of bargaining in no way subject to public scrutiny.
 Finally, corporatism has been linked to the problem of government ‘overload’, in which
government may effectively be ‘captured’ by consulted groups and thus be unable to resist their
demands. This critique has been advanced most systematically by the New Right.
3. The New Right - The antipathy of the New Right towards interest groups is derived, ideologically,
from the individualism that lies at the heart of neoliberal economics.
 This is clearly reflected in the New Right’s preference for a market economy driven by self-
reliance and entrepreneurialism. However, the New Right has expressed particular concern
about the alleged link between corporatism and escalating public spending and the associated
problems of over-government.
 New Right anticorporatism has been influenced by public-choice theory, notably Mancur Olson
argued that people join interest groups only to secure ‘public goods’: that is, goods that are to
some extent indivisible in that individuals who do not contribute to their provision cannot be
prevented from enjoying them.
 This creates opportunities for individuals to become ‘free riders’, reaping benefits without
incurring the various costs that group membership may entail. This analysis is significant because
it implies that there is no guarantee that the existence of a common interest will lead to the
formation of an organization to advance or defend that interest.
 The pluralist assumption that all groups have some kind of political voice therefore becomes
highly questionable. Olson also argued that group politics may often empower small groups at
the expense of large ones. A larger membership encourages free riding because individuals may
calculate that the group’s effectiveness will be little impaired by their failure to participate.
 This analysis was further developed by Olson which advanced a trenchant critique of interest
group activity, seeing it as a major determinant of the prosperity or economic failure of
particular states. The UK and Australia, for example, were seen as suffering from ‘institutional
sclerosis’. This occurred as strong networks of interest groups emerged that were typically
dominated by coalitions of narrow, sectional interests, including trade unions, business
organizations and professional associations. The message that there is an inverse relationship
between strong and well-organized interest groups, on the one hand, and economic growth and
 national prosperity on the other had a powerful impact on New Right policies and priorities. The
clearest demonstration of this was the backlash against corporatism from the 1980s onwards,
spearheaded in the USA by Reagan and in the UK by Thatcher. In the USA, this took the form of
an attempt to deregulate the economy by weakening regulatory agencies; in the UK, it was
evident in the marginalization and later abolition of corporatist bodies such as the National
Economic Development Council (NEDC or Neddy) and a determined assault on trade union
power.

How important are interest groups?

- It is widely accepted that interest group activity is closely linked to economic and social
development. Whereas agrarian or traditional societies tend to be dominated by a small number
of interests, advanced industrial ones are complex and highly differentiated.
- Interest groups assume a central importance in mediating between the state and a more
fragmented society, especially as the spread of education extends political awareness and
organizational skills. However, the roles and significance of organized interests vary from system
to system, from state to state, and over time
- Principal factors determining group influence: political culture [political culture is crucial for two
reasons. First, it determines whether interest groups are viewed as legitimate or non-legitimate
actors, whether their formation and influence is permitted and encouraged, or otherwise.
- Second, it affects the willingness of people to form or join organized interests or to engage in
group politics]; institutional structure; nature of party system; nature and style of public policy

Monism
- suppressing all forms of voluntary associational activity in order to ensure a single, unchallenge-
able centre of state power. military regimes and one- party states. monistic regimes at least
push group activity underground or ensure that it is expressed through the party–state
apparatus and is thus entangled with the political and ideological goals of the regime. In the case
of China, despite the persistence of formal political monolithicism, market reforms and over
three decades of relentless economic growth have led to the emergence of new social actors,
such as entrepreneurs and migrant workers, creating a form of state corporatism

Pluralist regimes
- Encourage and even, in some cases, require group politics. It places heavy emphasis on ‘insider’
status and broadens the capacity of the government of the day to choose whether or not to
respond to group pressure. US government, on the other hand, is fragmented and decentralized.
This reflects the impact of bicameralism, the separation of powers, federalism and judicial
review. The range of ‘access points’ that this offers interest groups makes US system peculiarly
vulnerable to group pressures

Other points:
- Although this undoubtedly acts as a stimulus to group formation, and enlarges the number of
influential groups, it may also be self- defeating, in that the activities of groups can end up
cancelling each other out. Organized interests may thus act only as ‘veto groups’
- The party system also influences the pattern of interest group politics. Dominant-party systems
tend, quite naturally, to narrow focus of group politics, concentrating it on the governing party.
- Multiparty systems, on the other hand, are fertile ground for interest group activity, because
they broaden the scope of access.
- Finally, the level of group activity fluctuates in relation to shifts in public policy, particularly the
degree to which the state intervenes in economic and social life. As a general rule,
interventionism goes hand-in-hand with corporatism, although there is a debate about which is
the cause, and which is the effect. it is clear that, amongst western states, the integration of
organized interests, particularly functional interests, into public life has been taken furthest
where social-democratic policies have been pursued

How do groups exert influence?

- Public sympathy for group and its goals; size of its membership or activist base; its financial
strength and organisational capabilities; its abilities to use sanctions that in some way
inconvenience or disrupt govt. Principal channels of access: bureaucracy, assembly, courts,
political parties, mass media, international organisations
- Policy networks (s have also developed through institutionalized contacts between legislators
(particularly key figures on legislative committees) and ‘affected’ groups and interests. In the
USA, these form two ‘legs’ (executive agencies being the third leg) of the so-called ‘iron
triangles’ that dominate much of domestic policy-making.
 Module 6

Public Opinion: Media as an instrument

Public Opinion

- People are the source of power and hence public opinion has an impact on the ruling class. ‘vox
populi’. It is felt that in open societies there should be opinion generation and that no opinion
should be closed. Opinion generation affects the psycho-social processes of the people and
hence the ruling class and therefore shapes policy.
- Certain policies may have mechanisms that the rulers have devised claiming them to be the best
way to understand what the public requires. This may actually lead to less public debate. The
Tianmen Square incident was one of many examples of ruthless suppression. Several ways
developed to curb and/or manipulate the public opinion.
- Universal adult franchise has broadened the idea of the public.
- The process of public opinion generation is essentially an appeal to the conscience. The policy-
making black-box called State has certain gate-keeping mechanisms that don’t allow certain
demands in. Eg: STs are now demanding that govt should first negotiate with them about control
over natural resources before sanctioning mining projects as they affect them most adversely.
- Media is considered as the fourth institution (the first three being the legislature, executive and
judiciary). This concept of “fourth estate” came from the French during the French revolution.

Models of Media
1. Pluralist - Pluralism highlights multiplicity and diversity. The pluralism model of mass media
portrays a market place of ideologies and views which are debated on and discussed about. This
view portrays media in a highly positive manner. Although, media can affect political views and
the sympathies of the people, we must understand that the mass media is essentially neutral.
Weak and unorganised groups are affected by this as they are not equally represented.
2. Dominant Ideology model - Mass media is seen as a politically conservative force which shows
the ideas of the elite only. Similar to Marx’s belief of the media.
3. Elite values model - when media companies are owned by rich businesspeople, and hence the
information given is controlled and always dominated by such businesspeople
4. Market Model - Holds that the media reflects the public’s ideas and doesn’t shape them.
Believes that businesses just care about profit maximisation and hence the media just tells
people what they want to here to get maximum viewership/readership

Key Functions of mass media

- Changes people’s attitudes towards certain social issues; brings people closer to the govt; helps
in distribution of goods; influences citizens to participate – strengthens democracy; keeps a
check on the activities of those in power; constantly criticises the govt’s policies which makes
them strive for improvement; catalyses social change by providing info, shapes public opinion

Media Ethics
- Power to influence people; if they abuse this power, they will lose the trust of the people.
- Ethics they therefore have to follow: accuracy, confidentiality, right to privacy, no incitement to
violence, no vulgarity or obscenity, no communal writing
Impacts the media has
1. Positive – provision of information, educates people, provides transparency to govt functioning,
entertainment, agent of positive change (social causes), promotes trade and industry
2. Negative – traditional culture of a country can be greatly affected, entertainment may take
priority and affect the other roles, may instigate violence on a low scale, consumerism may be
instilled in people (especially those who cannot differentiate between a desire and a want)

Can the media be considered a custodian of democracy?

- Decisions made by the government can be conveyed to the people through mass media; not
only does it inform the people, it also explains the reasons behind the decision and its impacts.
The government has media agencies and departments in information and broadcasting
- Many thinkers believe that the existence of a free press is one of the key elements of good
democratic governance.
- Promotes it in 2 ways: watchdog of good governance, fosters public opinion and makes people
politically active
- Creates an arena for political debate
- The media can only function properly if they aren’t dominated or restricted by the government.
Hence, it’s commonly said that the lesser the restriction on media, the better is the democracy.
- A huge disadvantage is that sometimes media channels or newspapers are funded by politicians
(Sun in Tamil Nadu, dominated by the DMK and Jaya, dominated by the AIADMK) which always
provides biased views which are in favour of the politician’s interests
 Civil Society

Introduction

- However independent and resilient a person is, human existence outside society is unthinkable.
Civil society tries to direct social dialogue and dictate social norms. Civil society is an invention
where the state has relatively less power. The state’s power increased in general after WW II.
- The relationship between the State and civil society is not always harmonious. Eg: how the
Greenpeace first started as a forum of critique and then moved on to confrontation. One must
also remember that civil society will be the poorest substitute of the state, if it fails due to the
poor infrastructure of the state. There is a symbiotic relationship between civil society and state.
Civil societies are definitely not the best tools for governance and therefore would be poor
substitutes for state. If state fails, civil society often becomes non-existent. Empirically shown
that the infrastructure on which civil society is based crumbles. This leads to the conclusion that
there is a symbiotic relationship between state and civil society.
- Example for civil society: “India against Corruption” movement in October 2010 which was led
by Anna Hazare and led to the drafting and passing of the Lokpal Bill.

Thinkers

- Aristotle and Plato: state and society were the same [though to be true till 17 th century]
- Locke: believed that everything was fine within society but then with the formation of
government, the society precedes the state.
- Marx: believed that civil society is a bourgeois, middle class, social construct.
- Most pluralist thinkers are for the idea of a civil society

Functions of civil society

- Accommodation - amplifies what the state is already doing

- Negotiation – asks for amends in the state’s actions; reduces the power of the state as this gives
an arena to the people to challenge power
- Confrontation – Entire sacrosanct idea of state-action needs to be re-looked at

Stages of formation of a civil society

1. Edmund Burke: He distinguished state from autonomous groups. He believed that civil society
was independent and formed by individuals who wished to pursue their own interests. Civil
society consisted of pressure groups, businessmen and families.
2. Hegel: He made a clear distinction between family, civil society and state. So according to Hegel,
NGOs would come under universal altruism while in reality they are actually a vital part of civil
society. Universal altruism: family and state are institutions which benefit the common good;
Particular egoism: Businesses come under this.
3. Civil society forms the bridge between the private sector and the state. It is an aggregate of
NGOs and institutions that manifest interests and wills of the citizens, independent of the State
which make them voluntary, self-generating and self-reliant.

Two levels of accountability –

- Doctrine of checks and balances; Media (provides transparency, informs the people)