Political Science

Question 1

What do you understand by political theory? Elaborate on its relevance.

Solution

The most fundamental aspect of political theory is how to control behavior of the individual to fit the norms of society. In other words it is about law and order. Then there is the matter of how best to insure productivity. How to motivate and educate the individual to the point that he is an asset and contributor to society. Then there is the matter of how best to protect the homeland and how to build goodwill abroad.

A kingdom is generally speaking thought to be the most stable form of government. There is no competition between opposing parties. The king has the last word and that is accepted by all. Some have said that a compassionate kingdom is the best form of government because it integrated decisiveness with an understanding and compassion for the will of the people. The problem is as the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

No matter how compassionate the king, there will be those who disagree and are offended by the kings decisions. So, why not allow the people to decide who they want to lead them. That way the people have no reason for resenting the rulings of the law. And, finally why not let the poles or a vote of the people decide the law with a direct vote. The problem with that is that the people are not sophisticated enough to make laws that are binding and sufficient to maintain liberty and justice for all. There will be loopholes and contradictions. And the problem with democracy generally speaking is that nothing prevents the people from becoming tired and resentful of government. Nothing is there to insist that the people maintain their government in good working order. When too many interests goes in so many directions there is chaos. This is democracy in its two forms.

Karl Marx then created communism to counter the bad effects of Capitalism. It was not Democracy that Karl Marx opposed, it was Capitalism. In a democracy with capitalism the moneyed interests end up controlling everything. According to Marx, in a capitalist economy under democratic rule, the people lose control and end up as slaves to the capitalist. Karl Marx saw this and created the concept of communism. In a communist society, the working class owns everything, and everyone works toward the same communal goal. The big disadvantage is that there is no incentive to excel at what you do because everybody (at least in your pay grade) gets paid the same. Competition is not a big deal with Communism so there is no incentive to excel at what you do.

Next is the concept of socialism. Communism and socialism are economic and political structures that promote equality and seek to eliminate social classes. The two are interchangeable in some ways, but different in others. Socialism is an economic system while communism is both an economic and political system. Both have the goal of promoting equality for all.

The last and most recent economic and political system is a Social Democracy. Among the most important features of a social democracy should be the right of workers to participate directly in the control of the firms in which they are employed. Social Democracy is known by advocates to be the best system for promoting self development. The countries of North-eastern Europe have gone to this form of government and they, according to census reports, own the title of having the happiest and most productive societies.

  1. Classical political theory: Classical political theory starts from 6th century B.C. and covers the political ideas of a large number of Greek, Roman and Christian thinkers and philosophers. Plato and Aristotle are the two great giants of the classical period who had enormous influence in their own times and on later thinking. Classical political theory included (i) politics, (ii) the idea of theory, and (iii) the practice of philosophy. Politics referred to participation in the public affairs, theory referred to the systematic knowledge gained through observation, and philosophy referred to the quest for reliable knowledge - knowledge which would enable men to become wiser in the conduct of collective life. Thus political theory was a systematic inquiry to acquire reliable knowledge about matters concerning public affairs.

Classical political theory has certain specific characteristics. Firstly, it was dominated by philosophy. The great philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle were great because of the comprehensiveness and scope of their thought. They were more than political thinkers. The dimensions of political theory included description, explanation, prescription and evaluation.

Secondly, there was no clear distinction between philosophical, theological and political issues.

Political theory was not an autonomous subject as it is today. Thirdly, political theory was concerned with probing into issues, asking important questions and serving as a sort of conscience keeper of politics. Fourthly, classical tradition believed that political theory dealt with the political whole - the theory must be all-comprehensive and all-inclusive. It included ruling, warfare, religious practices, economic problems or relations between the classes and also beliefs such as God, justice, equality etc. The quest for an absolutely best form of government was also an important preoccupation of classical political theory. Fifthly, since classical tradition believed in the ultimate good, political good was a part of it. State was a part of the moral framework of mans earthly living. State was considered as a natural institution and prior to the individual because the individual when isolated is not self-sufficing and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole.  State was also an educational institution which made man a good citizen, sensitive to the recognition of law and virtue of civic obedience. The end of the state was the promotion of good life. Though there has been a debate about which comes first the common good or the individual good, but the classical tradition believed that the common good was the good of the individuals as part and member of the society and sought by them precisely as members of society. The common good was more complete than the private good of the individual and it was this completeness which determined the greater excellence of the common good. And lastly, an important theme of classical political tradition was the search for an ideal state and the most stable system of government. Classical theorists repeatedly asked questions like: Who should rule and why, what is the best form of government? Theory was preoccupied with analysing the sources of conflict and to enunciate the principles of justice which might guide the political organization in discharging its distributive functions of assigning material and non-material goods. The search for an ideal state provided an invaluable means of practicing theory and of acquiring experience in its handling. The trend of an idealist state as set by classical political theory had clear reflection on later political thinking.

  1. Modern Political Theory: Critically examines the contemporary state of political theory, making an assessment of the achievement and limitations of the Behavioural Revolution in its totality, and reviews objectively the major paradigms and conceptual frameworks adopted by the discipline. The salient features of the contending conceptual models elaborated by leading scholars, operating from separate locations and disparate premises, have been highlighted and intellectual inter-linkage in their works traced.

The Behavioural Revolution having exhausted the vigour of its first tidal wave, has gone into the background, with some of its eminent exponents in the fields both of Political Science and International Relations turning to a philosophical approach, and greater recognition being given to contemporary political philosophers like Carl J. Fredrich, Christian Bay. Leo Strauss and Eric Voeglin. Besides, one new chapter on Gandhi and Contemporary Political Thought has also been added.

Thoroughly revised in the light of new trends of thinking, the book is primarily meant as a textbook for University students of Political Science, and a reference book for all students of social sciences and Political Theory.

  1. Contemporary political theory

Since 1970s, there has been a revival of interest in political theory in USA, Europe and other parts of the world. At the heart of this renaissance has been the emerging clash of values on the one hand and the changes in the humanities and social sciences, on the other. Moreover, the passing away of the shadows of second world war, re-emergence of Europe, and crisis in the ideologies of socialism and Marxism brought about a new fluidity in political ideologies.

Whether it is Marxism or socialism, liberalism or democracy - all stand challenged and new powerful social movements are seeking to redraw the issues in political theory.

During the era of domination of behaviouralism, political theory was overpowered by political science. Theory was denied the status of a legitimate form of knowledge and inquiry. Though the hold of empiricism did not last long, yet it left an enduring legacy in the development of political and social sciences particularly in North America in the form of scienticism.

The encouragement for the regeneration of political theory came from many sources. While a number of thinkers (such as Thomas Kuhn) challenged the whole model of what is science, there were others who felt that there are distinctive problems of understanding the social sciences and social issues which could not be grasped by the model of a unified science. This is because of two factors: Firstly, the object of social sciences is the self-interpreting social being and different thinkers interpret the social issues differently. Secondly, political theory cannot be limited to a systematic account of politics; it must also perform its critical role, i.e., its capacity to offer an account of politics which transcends those of lay men. As a result of the great debates, a number of important innovations in the study of political theory followed. Though it is not possible to give a detailed account of these developments, a few distinctive features of the contemporary political theory can be summerized as follows:

  1. An important feature of empirical theory was its break with history. Contemporary political theorists believe that political theory must not be disassociated from history. Political theory has once again been renewed as history of political thought.
  2. All knowledge about human activities involves interpretation and the interpretation can lead to different conclusions. Hence the idea of political theory being neutral and value-free is wrong.
  3. Political understanding cannot escape the history of tradition. Knowledge is a part of the tradition and the process of understanding aspects of the world contributes to our self understanding. However, the process of self-understanding is never complete. History does not belong to us but we belong to History. There is no final truth. As such there can be no such thing as the only correct or the final understanding of the political phenomena. The meaning of a text on political theory is always open to further interrelations from new perspectives
  4. Political theory is concerned with conceptual analysis. This involves seeing political theory as a systematic reflection upon the meaning of the key terms and concepts like sovereignty, democracy, right, liberty, justice etc.
  5. There is a revival of normative element. Contemporary political theory is concerned with the systematic elaboration of the underlying structure of our moral and political activities, as well as examination and reconstruction of the principal political values such as justice, liberty, common good, community living etc.
  6. Theory is concerned with both abstract theoretical questions and particular political issues.

This is due to the belief that consideration of political concepts without detailed examination of the condition of their realization may not be able to bring out the actual meaning of the concept.

Political theory should be problem-oriented and should probe issues like democracy, market, equal opportunities in such contexts. Political theory is a theoretical aspect of political science, trying to construct a theory on the basis of observation.

In short, according to David Held, contemporary political theory involves four distinct tasks: Firstly, it is philosophical, i.e. it is concerned with the normative and conceptual framework; secondly, it is empirical, i.e., it is concerned with the problem of understanding and explanation of the concepts; thirdly, it is historical, i.e., it is concerned with the examination of the key concepts of political.

 

Question 2

Discuss the various theories of democracy.

Solution

The concept of democracy may be seen as a part of a conceptual cluster or a family of concepts, in which the concepts of rights, freedom and equality are most central. Underpinning these is the principle of individualism and individual autonomy as developed in the early liberal tradition, especially in the writings of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. The principle of autonomy expresses the value that we attach to possessing control over our own individual persons, decisions and life-choices. Individuals are autonomous beings, capable of rational thought and, therefore, of determining what is good for them. However, while we are individuals acting for ourselves, we are also members of collectives or associations, and decisions taken in these affect our lives. Hence, we assert the right to participate in the making of those decisions, this constitutes an act of self-determination as much as the decisions we make in our private lives about our career and other personal matters.

In classical liberal political theory, autonomy, freedom and equality form the cornerstone of the liberal theory of democracy. The principle of autonomy, along with the concept of freedom, suggests the importance of popular government. As in the writings of John Locke, government must guarantee the rights and personal liberty of the individual and it is the job of the government to protect the individuals life, liberty and property from being undermined by other individuals and the state alike. It asserts that all individuals, by virtue of being human beings, equally possess these rights.

But how is equality to be achieved in the making of political decisions? Democratic theorists make a distinction between prospective equality, and retrospective equality. Prospective equality obtains when, in a decision that is to be made, every citizen starts off with an equal chance of influencing the outcome of the democratic process, and no persons or groups suffer particular disabilities that prevent them from determining that decision. Retrospective equality is achieved if, in a decision that has already been taken, we can say that everyone equally determined that decision. Now, it is clear that in most situations it is hard to say this, unless the decision was unanimous. But since unanimous decisions are rather rare, decision by majority is the only procedure which satisfies the test of democracy. It does so because it fulfils the condition of prospective equality - viz., that everyone started off with an equal chance of determining the decision - and is also the best in terms of retrospective equality, because it may be said that more people favoured the winning alternative over all others.

Though freedom-and equality form the cornerstone of the liberal theory of democracy, a greater emphasis on one or the other takes democracy in very different directions. Thus, if our starting point is the principle of freedom, we would give the greatest importance to the rights and personal freedoms of the individual, and this might even lead us to argue that the state should play a limited and minimal role in society, and it should not impose on us any particular view of the good life or the perfect society. Freedom-centered views have led theorists to argue that it is illegitimate and wrong for the state to tax its wealthy citizens" to provide free or subsidised public services for poorer citizens.

If, however, equality is the starting point of our theory, we will argue that formal political equality is of little use, unless individuals really possess the capacities by which they can determine their life-plans. So, if we wish to extend the control people have over their own lives, we have to first remove the disadvantages that they suffer from on account of social and economic inequalities of caste or class.

JUSTIFICATIONS FOR DEMOCRACY: INTRINSIC AND INSTRUMENTAL

Democracy may be justified as having intrinsic or instrumental value. When we value democracy as a good in itself and for itself, we assert the intrinsic value of democracy. That is, we argue that democracy is valuable for its own sake, because it is the fairest way of giving expression to equality among citizens. On the other hand, democracy may also be valued instrumentally, or as a means to some other end. Thus, it may be argued that democracy is good because it fosters competition among political leaders and so gives us a better choice of leadership. Or it could be said that democracy is good because it makes everyone feel that they were a part of the decision-making process. Democracy may also be justified as a way of minimising the abuse of political power, by distributing it equally among citizens. Another instrumental justification for democracy is its role in human development, to the extent that it encourages people to take responsibility for their political lives.

Democracy may have instrumental value, but its intrinsic value derives from its moral superiority as a way of giving effect to political equality. If we view it as a way of arriving at decisions-among a group of persons – whether citizens of a polity or members of a neighborhood association or sports club-democracy is morally superior to any other way of arriving at decisions. This is so because the human race has not been able to devise any other way of arriving at decisions which are binding on all, and which takes everybodys interests into account. This implies, of course, that people are the best judges of their own interests, and that equal citizenship rights are necessary to protect those interests. However, even if individuals agree on the general purposes of their collective endeavour, they will almost certainly disagree about how to achieve it. Even if they shared the same view of what constitutes the common good, individuals would surely hold different opinions of how to actually achieve that good. In such situations, democracy represents a fair moral compromise among people who live within the territory of same state, but do not share a single conception of the good life.

DEMOCRACY: PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE

In large and complex societies, it is not always possible for people to gather together to make decisions on each and every issue, as they did in the direct democracy of ancient Athens. This is why modern democracy works through representative-institutions. People elect their representatives to a legislature or assembly, and these representatives are authorised to take decisions on behalf of those who elected them. Ultimate sovereignty, however, remains with the people, who can hold their representatives accountable, and refuse to re-elect them when the next election comes round. Representative government is almost synonymous with the idea of democracy today.

However, democracy should not be seen merely as a set of institutions -e.g., free and fair elections, legislative assemblies, and constitutional governments arising out of these. This view of democracy is described as procedural democracy, because it emphasises only the procedures and institutions of democracy. It fails to see that notwithstanding formal political equality, some citizens may be more equal than others, and may enjoy a greater voice than others in the determining of decisions. More often than not, it would be the poorer, less educated, and the socially disadvantaged citizens who would be unable to fully practice their democratic rights. Social and economic inequalities make it difficult for a formal participation to be effective. This is why theorists emphasise the importance of substantive democracy. This ideal suggests a society of truly equal citizens, who are politically engaged, tolerant of different opinions and ways of life, and have an equal voice in choosing their rulers and holding them accountable. The outcomes and decisions of the democratic process would then be mindful of the interests of all, rather than the interests of a few powerful groups and individuals in society. This also means that democracy is and should be the principle of organisation not only of government, but also the organizing principle of all collective life in society.

We could argue, however, that this is not possible unless and until the background conditions for equality are met; because social inequality makes formal political equality relatively meaningless. Even the free exercise of the franchise, for pie, may require freedom from caste superiors, from dominant landlords, or, the case of women, from the male head of the household. This freedom may be curtailed when people do not have the power of independent decision-making or adequate access to relevant information; and, above all, when despite - their exercise of the franchise, they are unable to get a responsive administration. In societies where there are minorities based on religion, language and ethnicity, the majority principle tends to work to the disadvantage of minorities, for they may be systematically outvoted, and may never have a real or equal opportunity to influence the outcome of the decision-making process. Technological innovations make governments more or less accountable? Is it really possible for citizens to participate in them