What is Politics? It is very difficult to answer this question because it is the most controversial topic of social life. Civilized man has always been searching for answer to this question. Everybody, from the common man to the political philosophers, has been interpreting it in his own way, but no satisfactory solution has been found so far. These days everybody acknowledges this fact that politics is influencing every aspect of human life. Whatever the type of administration, political activities seem to be going on around us. We may, or may not participate in political activities, we can't get rid of politics. People are considered to be the rulers in democratic countries and they are given the right to choose their representatives to rule over them. Therefore, the citizens of such countries are more vigilant about politics. They, not only choose their representatives after every five years, but, go on evaluating the work of their rulers daily. Thus, all citizens take active part in politics in a democracy.

In modern time, state is considered a social welfare institution. Therefore, it is always busy in making the daily life of the citizens happy and, consequently, it fulfils every type of their need. This work is done by those persons who are elected rulers by the public. They run the administration according to the will of their voters. Thus, there is close relationship between the rulers (elected representatives) and the ruled (voters). Rulers, for remaining in their position, always try to secure the support of their voters through various means and on the other hand, the voters, with the help of their limited wisdom, try to hand over the reins of administration in the hands of those who work for public interest. Election of the rulers by the voters and the effort to solve the problems of the citizens by the rulers is the most significant problem of the modern times. The solution of this problem gives birth to politics.

It is because of this relationship of politics with common man's life that Aristotle has called man, a political being. Politics is involved in the mutual relations of men, in the relations of citizens and rulers and in the efforts of satisfying the unlimited needs of man with limited means. When Aristotle calls politics, the Master Science, he tries to prove that the knowledge of politics is extremely essential to understand the environment around the man. In the views of Aristotle, political aspect of man's existence is the most important aspect and this aspect determines the other aspects of human life. He has said that legally politics tells us as to what we should do and what not.

Marxist View of Politics: Though, because of spread of communism, there is no dearth of writers who support Marxist view of politics, yet because of the defects in the Marxist ideology, there seem to be certain defects in the Marxist View of Politics. That is why, Marxist View has been critically discussed below.

1. The individual-self is merged in the social-self. Idea of Marx about the individual has actually merged the individual-self with the social-self. The fact is that, in liberalism, society was so much neglected for the individual that some powerful persons of the society fully exploited others, but, on the other hand, because of discussion of the all-round development of the individual as a part of society in communism, free personality of the individual was lost. Perhaps, unknowingly, Marx like Hegel merged the self of the individual in the social self. Thus, it may be liberalism or communism, the class, owing the material resources and political power, uses the common man of the society as a means of the fulfilment of its interest. Marxists claim that politics is an instrument of development of the individual, but, practically, they use him for exploitation. This fact becomes clear by studying social set-up of those countries where dictatorship of the proletariat has been established.
2. Material conditions are not the only basis of politics. Marx recognizes man only in his economic capacity, and he thinks that the other aspects of his life depend only on material conditions. Religious, cultural, moral and other sentimental aspects of individual are influenced by his economic life and direction is provided by it. That is why, Marx has come to the conclusion that material conditions of man are the basis of politics.

This point of view of Marx can not be accepted. It is a fact that material conditions influence politics, but these are not the sole basis. In addition to cultural, religious, spiritual and moral values, traditions and customs of a country also influence its political process. Marx admitted this fact in his later writings and admitted that only economic conditions are not believed to be the whole process of political development. Clarifying this fact, Fyodorov says, "Marxism-Leninism, however, does not consider that whole process of political development is only directly and indirectly dependent on production." Avineri also says that Marx, in his later writings, did not consider politics only as a reflection of the economic conditions. Thus, political process, as explained by Marx, seems to be defective in itself.

3. Politics is not merely the study of class-struggle. Marx has divided the Society into two mutually opposing classes, whose interests are always opposed to each other and they constantly go on struggling. In the present era, it can not be accepted that whole society is divided into two mutually opposite classes (capitalists and labourers). The fact is that every society is divided into various classes and those classes are not necessarily organized on economic basis. Some of these classes may be such that they have no fronomic basis and there is no condition of their being in struggle. Even between the capitalists and the labourers, as explained by Marx, these days, there is cooperation and not struggle because, needs of the labourers having been fulfilled and the functions concerning their welfare having been performed, the difference between the labourers and capitalists, as discussed by Marx, do not seem to be working now. So, saying that politics is merely a study of class-struggle is not logical because that form of class-struggle does not seem to be working in the society.
4. All political conflicts are not class-struggle. It is wrong to accept all political struggles as class conflicts. It may be possible, that there is a very important economic reason behind every political question, but it will not be reasonable to call them class-struggle. For example, in India, it is being demanded that right to vote should be giver at 18. But the arguments, being advanced for this demand, are more political and social than economic. If a young man of 18 can become an able, efficient and reliable soldier who shoulders the responsibility of defence of the country, why should he not be allowed to take part in the politics of the country? Similarly, a young man of is considered fit for handling the property as an adult person, how has he become unable to participate in the administration of the country? We do not see that between 18 years and 21 years' age, there is an economic class of the young men and they have a struggle with the ruling class. Now the youth aged 18 is permitted to cast votes or in other words he has been given adult franchise. The public of a country wants to establish democracy in place of monarchy or wants to establish presidential form of government in place of parliamentary government, the form of this struggle is political or social and not economic. Therefore, it is correct to say that every political struggle is not class-struggle.
5. Economic conditions of the proletariat have improved in the capitalist society, Marx had said that, in a capitalist society, politics is an instrument for exploiting the labourers, and consequently, economic condition of the labourers will worsen but the study of social organisations of capitalist countries indicate that there capitalist class has made many changes and arrangements have been made for ameliorating economic and social conditions of the labourers and for the security of their lives, their health and education. Because of these arrangements, on the one hand, there is amelioration in the economic conditions of the labourers and, on the other hand, their professional efficiency has increased. It does not prove sertion of Karl Marx that politics will become the basis of economic exploitation in the capitalist countries.
6. Politics also did not create consciousness for revolution. The countries, where communist revolutions have occurred, were not industrially advanced, as Marx had claimed. And, in modern times, no revolution has been brought by the labourers in the industrialised countries. The fact is that because of fulfilment of economic, social and cultural demands and because of betterment in their condition, consciousness of class struggle did not develop in the labourers in capitalist countries. If any consciousness had developed it was for co-operation with the capitalists. It is correct that, sometimes, the labour class becomes ready for struggle with the capitalists, but it is not for establishing dictatorship of the proletariat, but for betterment of their economic conditions. So, it is clear that in the capitalist society, politics does not prepare ground for class struggle.
7. The politics could not become a means to establish a new society. According to Marx, after the revolution, Politics will be utilised for destroying remnants of capitalism and to eradicate the traditions and moral values of capitalism and out of it, such a society will be established, in which there is no place for class struggle. The whole of society will become one class in which there is no antagonism of economic classes.

The Liberal View: The above given views of the liberals may be criticized as under.

1. Liberals have viewed individual and society differently. Though the focal point of liberalism is the individual, yet it is criticised on this point that they have discussed the individual separately from society. Thus, the individual and the society become opponents of each other. That is why, the liberals advocate the uncontrolled rights to protect the interests of the individual.

And, because of this, they consider the state as a "necessary evil."  In fact, liberals have discussed the interests of the individual and the society separately as opposing each other. For protecting the interests of the individual, liberals have neglected the society. In the modern era, this problem is before even those liberals who are in favour of welfare state. In reality, they face difficulty in discussing the relation of the individual and the society. The fact is that man is a social animal. It is unreasonable to discuss him as separate from the society because the interests of the individual and the society are interdependent. S. Avinan, in his "Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx” says "The individual cannot be conceptually isolated from his social context: by definition any meaningful sentence about individual must simultaneously refer to his environment, and anatomistic model of an individual is philosophically unsound."

2. Open Competition safeguards the interests of the people having power. The liberalists' assumption that it is necessary to have open competition in society for the development and the common good, has been severely criticised by the communists. They have said that few powerful people succeed in a competition whether it is open or closed, and the weaker section of the society becomes more backward. Communists say that the plan of competition has been presented by the catalysts for the exploitation of the weak. Following this plan the weak go on becoming weaker and the rich go on becoming richer. Open competition is not only seen in economic fields but also in political as well as thinking fields. Through political competition the rich keep. Their strong hold over the government and the administration because he has the strength to buy the poor in the elections. In the field of thought, through various means they propagate the theories of the liberals in order to protect their interests. Thus liberalistic, in order to fulfil the common good (interests) and develop the society, advocated such an open competition which has ultimately fulfilled the interests of the capitalists and exploited the toiling millions.
3. The harmony of interest is not possible because the society and the individual are viewed differently. As already discussed, liberalism has considered the individual and the society separately, and, for them, the individual is the end and the state is a means. The aim of liberalism is the protection of the rights of the individuals. On this basis, it is very difficult to create harmony because society has been considered against the interests of the individual. That is why, the more the liberals try to create harmony between the individual and the society, the more conflicting it becomes.
4. The welfare of the weaker sections is not possible. The liberals of the present century consider state as a Welfare state. They feel that the state is in a position to fulfil the needs of the common man. It should perform functions concerning the interest of the public so that there may be welfare of the weaker sections. That is why in the liberal states, the jurisdiction of the state includes education, health and social security etc. But the Communist say that the basic aim of the liberal states is to protect the interests of the capitalists. The state leaves the weaker section for exploration by the capitalists in the name of welfare functions and creates the idea of status quo in the weaker sections. But welfare of the whole society will not be possible until plans are implemented by keeping the whole society, including the above given two opposite classes, in view.
5. Liberal democracy safeguards the interests of the capitalists. In the liberal states, where democracy is appreciated so much, the reality is that it has been organised in such a way that it takes the permission of the poor and the weaker sections for capitalists to rule over them. In no liberal state, the rule of the poor and the weaker sections has been established. The rich, by spending lot of money, buy the votes of the poor and, by thus controlling the government, they frame laws in their favour. Thus, a liberal democracy always protects the rights of the rich.
6. Politics will not establish the rule of order and justice but will ensure the hold of the rulers on society. Liberals feel that politics will establish law and order by ending the present conflict in the society and by doing the welfare functions; it will try to achieve common good. The Communists have vehemently opposed this idea of the liberals. They say that politics is that process which creates conflicts and disagreements. This is an institution for continuing hold of the men in authority over society. In this condition, the powerful men satisfy their interests. Thus, the idea of the liberals, that law and order can be established in the society with the help of Politics, is wrong. The other way, there is more exploitation of the ruled in the liberal States.
   1. Peaceful social change is merely a fraud. The Communists also criticize this point of the liberals that, in the liberal states, the possibilities of peaceful change are always present. According to the Communists in liberal states, there is always one sided competition. The ruling class, with the help of its unlimited resources, rules over the ruled in such a way that the ruled feel that they are being governed by the rulers, according to their (those of the ruled) will. In fact, capitalists, with the help of their unlimited resources, rule over them with the help of their votes.

The Elitist Theory of Democracy: In the twentieth century thinkers began to question the Classical Liberal theory of democracy by asking questions like: Can the public really play a role in day to day politics without democracy and not be participative and representative? Can ordinary citizens who are busy with many things like trying to earn a living spare the time and energy to play a public role? Will liberty be destroyed if the impulses of masses is allowed free play via electoral democracy without restrictions? In an attempt to answer these questions new theories came up like the Elitist Theory of Democracy and the Pluralist Theory of Democracy.

The term 'elite' is used to refer to a minority among a group of people who are in advantageous position in that community due to some factors whatever they may be. Elites are usually those minorities who stand out in a society for their pre-eminence in the distribution of authority. The political elite is composed of a 'minority of specialized leaders who enjoy a disproportionate amount of power in the community's affairs' according to Presthus.

The Elite theory arose after the Second World War and the main contributors have been Vilfredo Pareto, Geatano Mosca and Robert Michels and American authors like James Burnham and C. Wright Mills. The elite theory has as its main premise the belief that society consists of two kinds of people - the special selected few or the elite and a vast mass of people. The special people always rise to the top because they are the best and have the qualities. The elite, particularly the political lite performs all political functions, monopolises power and enjoys the advantages that power brings. The numerically vast and larger non-elite is ruled by the elite and directed and controlled in a manner that is essentially arbitrary. It is always the organized minority that rules over the unorganised majority. Robert Michels who gave what is known as the 'iron law of oligarchy' claimed the non-elite should submit to the elite because the majority of human beings are ‘apathetic, indolent and slavish and permanently incapable of self-government. The main features of elitist theories of democracy are: (a) People are not equal in their abilities and so the development of a elite and a non-elite is inevitable, (b) The elite can contr power and command influence because of their superior abilities (c) The group of elites is not constant and their is constant entry of new people and exit of old people from the group (d) The majority of the masses who constitute the non elite are apathetic, lazy and indifferent and so there is a need for a capable minority to provide leadership and (e) Ruling elite in the modern times are mainly either intellectuals, industrial managers or bureaucrats.

Joseph Schumpeter in his book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942) first formulated what can be regarded as a systematic formulation of the elite theory of demoracy. Later it was supported in the writings of Sartori, Robert Dahl, Eckstein, Raymond Aron, Karl Manhiumand Sydney Verba etc. This concept of democracy is based on the idea that the vast majority of people who are mostly incapable and disinterested chose from a group of competent people who comprise the minority elite and who are mostly chosen on merit. Te people this way get a narrow choice but a choice nevertheless between rival elites who control political parties. The minority are too busy earning a living and are anyway neither interested mostly nor capable of having rational well thought out views on issues and so they chose from among the elite and follow the leadership. The Elite theorists of democracy approve of this state of affairs as they see it to be and argue in complex modern societies the way to efficiency is through specialisation and so rule should be of the elite. The Elite theory also sees too much participation of people as dangerous because a strong leader with dictatorial motivations like Hitler could use the mobilisation of the masses to achieve power and then destroy democracy itself, which would mean end of basic liberties. So they argue democratic and liberal values can only be safeguarded by keeping the masses away from politics. Elite theorists argue there can not be any real rule by the people. Rule is always for the people and never by the people because the people have to choose their representatives who are inevitably from the elite. Democracy in other words should suffice to mean competition between rival groups of elite and people getting a chance to decide which group of elites will rule. So democracy is just a procedure really whereby one of a narrow group gets to rule on marginally extra support from people. The Elite theorists also prescribe that there should be an agreement between elites on democratic values which is essential for the breakdown of constitutionalism. There should be a consensus they argue among the elites-political parties, leaders, executives of large business houses, leaders of voluntary associations and even workers unions so that the fundamental procedure of democracy can be protected from irresponsible leaders. It would seem while one of the aims of elite theory was to make the accepted idea of democracy more realistic and bring it closer to the empirical reality it only transformed democracy into a conservative political doctrine that is happy with the liberal or neo-liberal capitalist status quo at all times and wishes to maintain its stability.

The Elite theories have come under criticism from many thinkers like C.B. Macpherson, Greame Duncan, Barry Hölden, Robert Dahl etc among others. The main complaints against the elite theories are as follows:

(a) The Elite theories distort the very meaning of democracy and make it arbitrary without paying any attention to its fundamental characteristics. If the people only choose representatives, then they have no voice in running the country and hence the system becomes undemocratic

(b) The Elite theory of democracy takes away the moral purpose of the traditional classical notion of democray. The classical notion has the purpose of democracy the improvement of mankind but the Elite theory empties out that moral content and paints the whole situation just as an inevitable passive acceptance of minority rule by the elite.

(c) The Elite theories undermine the value of participation which is a central theme of democratic governance and instead claims no participation is possible. Hence they condemn rule by the people as impossibility.

(d) The Elite theories seem to patronisingly approve of a politically passive incapable common man who will only earn his living and in the evenings spend his time with his family or friends or listen to the media outlets and not do anything more personally than once in while choose between sets of elite.

(e) The elite theories have been obsessed with maintenance of the stability of the system rather than allow for radical changes through the democratic process. The main focus has been preservation of the democratic procedure and 'the creation of machinery which would produce the most efficient administration and coherent public policies. That is also why Elite theories see social movements as a threat to democracy and disruptive of the process of law managed by the elite.