Category: Political Science Notes

In India, according to Article 57 of the Constitution the President can be elected for the second term, but there is no restriction on him to contest for the third term. Our ex-President, Dr. Rajendra Prasad contested only twice and refused to contest for the third time. Thus he set a convention for not contesting for the third time.

In the Constitution of the Fifth Republic of France, which was adopted on September 28, 1958, there is no provision for the second term of the President. But the tenure of the President there is seven years, which is quite long.

There is no restriction on the re-election of the President in Russia, Italy, and in certain other countries of the world. The fact is that in case the tenure of the President is long, there is no need for giving him the right to re-election. If the tenure is five years or less, the President should have ‘the right to re-election. The President should not have the right to re-election for the third time, because it will make his tenure very long and he might establish an autocratic rule in the country.

Advantages of a single term:

The following are the advantages of a single term of the President:

(1) There is a great check on the personal ambitions of the President.

(2) If the President is allowed a single term, he will not have to worry about his re-election. Hence no time will be wasted in the preparation for his election for the next term, and he will be able to devote his time to the service of the country.

(3) If the President is not allowed to contest for the second term, he does not need to please everybody and thus he can perform his duties without any favour of fear.

(4) In the words of De Tocqueville, “The principle of re-eligibility renders the corrupt influence of elective government still more extensive and pernicious. It tends to degrade the political morality of the people and to substitute adroitness for patriotism”.

Disadvantages of the single term:

(1) In a single term, the country does not get the opportunity to take advantage of the services of an intelligent, experienced and a seasoned politician-President.

(2) There is no possibility of the continuity of policy in a single term.

Advantages of eligibility for re-election:

(1) The main advantage of re-election is that the country gets an opportunity to take advantage of the service of an able, experienced, intelligent and efficient President.

(2) There is possibility of continuity in foreign as well as in internal policy.

(3) An able President gets an opportunity for serving the country and proving the justification of his policies.

(4) If a provision is made in the Constitution for the re-election of the President, good politicians will be attracted towards this post. Hamilton has also supported this view saying that, “the desire for reward and fame is one of the strongest incentives to human conduct and the best security for the fidelity of mankind is to make them coincide with their duties.’

(5) The President will not go astray, if he is given the right to re-election. He does not misuse his power and render maximum service to the people, since he knows that he has to seek re-election. He tries to justify his home and foreign policy.

(6) If the President is not given the right to re-election, he will try to act arbitrarily. He, somehow or other, will try to extend his tenure. Hamilton has said. “An ambitious man, too, when he found himself seated on the summit of country’s honours; when he looked forward to the time at which he must descend from the exalted eminence forever. Such a man in such a situation would be more violently tempted to embrace favourable conjuncture for attempting the prolongation of his power”.

(7) If the President is not given the right to re-election, the nation will be deprived of the services of able persons. Within a period of four or five years a person is hardly able to understand and implement the policies fully. If the President is deprived of the right to re-election, the country is put to a great loss.

Judge Story has rightly said, “What could be more-strange than to declare at the moment when wisdom was acquired that the possession of it should no longer be enabled to use it for the very purpose for which it was required”.

Disadvantages of eligibility for re-election:

(1) It deprives other candidates of the right of election to the office of the President.

(2) There is a fear of the establishment of autocratic rule.

(3) Sometimes the Chief Executive, in order to be re-elected, tries to appease the majority party.

Upload and Share Your Article:

The term democracy is derived from the Greek word demos and kratos, the former meaning ‘the people’ and the latter ‘power’. Democracy thus means ‘power of the people’.

The following are the definitions of democracy:

Definitions of Democracy:

(1) Democracy, according to the Greeks, is the Government in which people rule over themselves. Aristotle considered it as a perverted form of government. Herodotus says, the democracy denotes that form of government in which the ruling power of the state is largely vested in the members of the community as a whole.

(2) In the words of President Abraham Lincoln, it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

(3) According to Bryce, “Democracy is that form of Government in which the ruling power of a state is legally vested, not in any particular class or classes but in the members of the community as a whole”.

(4) “Democracy”, writes Mazzini, “is the government of the best and wisest, for the progress of all and through all”.

(5) Prof. Seeley says, “Democracy is a government in which everybody has a share”.

(6) According to Dicey, “Democracy is a form of government in which the governing body is a comparatively large fraction of the entire nation”.

(7) Professor A.B. Hall, in his work on “Popular Government”, defines democracy as “popular government in the last analysis and for all practical purposes as being that form of political organisation in which public opinion has control”.

(8) According to Gettell, “Democracy is that form of government in which the mass of the population possesses the right to share in the exercise of sovereign power”

Democratic State:

Generally democracy is a form of government and we have given definitions of important writers above, but certain writers have made a distinction between democratic government and a democratic state. For example, Hearnshaw, while giving the meaning of a democratic state, has said, “A democratic state, m short, is simply one in which the community as a whole possesses sovereign authority, maintains ultimate control over affairs and determines what sort of governmental machinery shall be set up because democracy as a form of state is not merely a mode of government; but is merely a mode of appointing, controlling and dismissing government”.

It is thus evident that in a democratic state people have the rights to give a shape to the government, to appoint it and to dismiss it. The people appoint a new government after some years through elections, and express their will on important matters through the press or other means.

The Communists give a new meaning to democracy. They deny the need of democratic government, but emphasize the necessity of a democratic state. A democratic state to them is only a socialist state in which there should be the dictatorship of the proletariat.

They ridicule the Western system of democracy with its economic and social inequalities where domination is of the capitalist class. But the Communist state are really not democratic states where there is only one party and where there is no freedom to form other parties.

The dictatorship of the proletariat ultimately becomes the dictatorship of the Communist Party and the power of the state is exercised only by a few leaders of the Communist Party. In fact, democracy is a form of government in which everybody has a share irrespective of his or her political views, and everybody is provided equal opportunities for self- development.

Economic Democracy:

Western system of democracy is the Capitalist Democracy, with its economic and social inequalities. The socialist writes lay stress on economic democracy because they feel that without it, democracy cannot be called real.

Economic Democracy means no economic disparity and everyone should enjoy equal opportunity in the society, there would be no unemployment, the living standard of the people should be raised and they should have economic security. This is possibly only when there is no exploitation. The establishment of socialism is a sure way to guarantee this to all the citizens.

Kinds of Democracy:

Direct Democracy:

There are two types of democracy:

(1) Pure or Direct, and

(2) Indirect or Representative.

Direct Democracy:

When the people themselves directly express their will on public affairs, the type of government is called pure or direct democracy. The people formulate laws in a mass meeting. Hearnshaw has said, “A democratic form of government, in the strict sense of the term, is one in which the community as a whole, directly or immediately, without agents or representatives, performs the functions of sovereignty”.

Direct Democracy was established in ancient Greek city-states. In India, direct democracy was seen in Vajji Sangha during the Buddhist Periods. Today when large and complex societies have emerged and when area of is very extensive, direct democracy is impracticable. This system now prevails only four Cantons of Switzerland. They are Appenzell, Uri, Unterwalden and Glarus.

Representative or Indirect Democracy:

In a Representative or Indirect Democracy the will of the state is formulated and expressed not directly by the people themselves, but by their representatives to whom they delegate the power of deliberation and decision-making.

John Stuart Mill has said in this regard that “Indirect or representative democracy is one in which the whole people or some numerous portion of them exercise the governing power through deputies periodically elected by themselves”.

Another writer Bluntschli has said, “In the representative democracy the rule is that the people govern through its officials; while it legislates, and controls the administration through its representatives”.

This type of government was established in England in the seventeenth century. In France, it was established in 1830 and in Italy in 1948. In Germany it was established after the First World War according to Weimer Constitution. Again this system was established in West Germany after the Second World War. In India direct democracy was introduced in the Minto-Morley Reforms of 1909.

Today this system is seen in many countries like Japan, Sri Lanka, India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America, West Germany, Italy, France, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Austria and Belgium.

Basic Principles or Requisites of Democracy:

(1) Liberty:

The main basis of democracy is liberty and equality. The people enjoy maximum liberty and equality because criticism of the people is not only tolerated in this system, but it is also encouraged. In Great Britain, the leader of the Opposition is paid by the government and he is consulted by the Prime Minister in national emergency.

For example, when South Rhodesia threatened to declare its freedom unilaterally and when later on it declared its freedom, the British Prime Minister consulted the leaders of the Conservative Party and Liberal Party. When Pakistan invaded India during August-September, 1965. Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri consulted the leaders of Opposition parties.

The late Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri conferred with the leaders of the Opposition parties before leaving for Tashkent for talks with President Ayub Khan of Pakistan on January 5, 1966. In Monarchies, Dictatorships, Aristocracies and Oligarchies the people and the Opposition parties have no say in matters of national importance.

(2) Equality:

Special emphasis is laid on equality in democracy and there is no disparity among the people on the basis of caste, creed, religion and position or status. For example, untouchability has been abolished in India.

Besides this, all are equal before law and there is no privileged class in
India. It is essential to establish political and economic equality along with social equality. Thus, in order to establish political equality, all disparities on the basis of caste, religion, colour and sex have been removed in India and Adult Franchise has been introduced in order to give opportunity to all the citizens to contest election to Provincial Assemblies and Lok Sabha.

Efforts have also been made to establish social and political equality in democracies like England, Japan, France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, West Germany, the United States of America and Italy. Political and social equality is useless without economic equality. The Indian National Congress passed a resolution in its Bhubaneswar Session in January, 1964 to bring about socialism through democratic means. Sincere efforts are now being made to implement this resolution.

(3) Fraternity:

Democracy can become successful only in a peaceful atmosphere, otherwise democracy has to face many difficulties. For this purpose Jawaharlal Nehru placed an idea of Panch Sheel before the world in 1954. Our government and many other democratic governments of the world are making efforts to promote world peace. India was the President of the Non-Aligned Movement and propagating this policy.

(4) The people as ultimate source of sovereignty:

In a democracy, people are the ultimate source of sovereignty, and the government derives its power from them. For this purpose elections take place in democracies at certain intervals. In India and England, General Elections take place after every five years and in U.S.A. after every four years.

(5) Fundamental Rights to the People:

In a democracy people are given fundamental rights because in the absence of these rights the development of an individual is not possible. Fundamental rights have been granted to the people in their Constitutions in India, Japan, U.S A., France and Italy. In England the rights and freedom of the people are protected through the Rule of Law, Charters, Acts of Parliament, and Judicial Decisions given from time to time.

(6) Independence of Judiciary:

In a democracy, it is responsibility of the judiciary to protect the fundamental rights of the people. In our country the Supreme Court and the High Court’s protect the Constitution and the fundamental rights of the people. Wherever judiciary is not free, the protection of fundamental rights is not possible.

(7) The people are considered as an end and State as the means in a democracy:

This is one of the main characteristics of democracy that individual is a mean and the state is an end. It means that the state makes use of the individual for its own interest. In a dictatorship no attention is paid to the freedom of the individual.

(8) Welfare State:

Democracy is a welfare state and m it special attention is paid to the welfare of the people as a whole and not to a particular class.

Future of Democracy:

Democracy, no doubt, has its own defects, but no government is a panacea for all human ills. This is better than other forms of governments. Aristocracy, Oligarchy and Dictatorship. Democracy is preferred by the disillusioned and frustrated people of the world because it still offers better prospects and some gleams of hope.

Burns has rightly said, “No one denies that existing representative assemblies are defective but even an automobile does not work well, it is foolish to go back to a farm cart, however romantic.” John Stuart Mill says. “After giving full weight to all that appeared to me well- grounded in the arguments against Democracy, I unhesitatingly decided in its favour”.

After World War I, Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy established dictatorship, but they restored to victory, violence and war to gain popularity, with the result that the World War started in which they were defeated and ruined. After World War 11, democratic governments were established in West Germany, Italy, Japan, Austria, India, Sri Lanka, etc. Many African countries have achieved freedom and all of them established democracy.

Though dictatorships were established in Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt and Syria after military coups, yet, they are also leaning towards democracy. In the past, political parties were banned there, but now the ban has been lifted.

Press, people and political parties have now been given the freedom to criticize the government. The Communist governments are also proud of calling themselves democracies. Russian people say that they have established socialistic democracy in their country. Though we do not agree with this view, yet we can say that the future of democracy is bright and the world is now inclined towards it, because other forms of governments do not guarantee those rights.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Decline of Political Theory:

Meaning of Decline:

We know that after the Second World War all out efforts were made to base political theory upon the foundation of empirical research and to scrutinize political principles by data and facts. In earlier periods political theory had no separate existence and importance. Political science was made to cohabit with history, economics, and sociology. Serious research and investigation practically had no place in political science.

David Easton writes, “Political theory today is interested primarily in the history of ideas”. This was the exact character of political theory. Also it was inextricably associated with notions of value and general principles. Easton could not accept this position of political theory. He thought that value, principles and history cannot be the sole determiners of political theory.

The classical and modern traditional political scientists did not pay any attention to the development of the theoretical analysis with the help of data. It was the purpose of Easton and many others to rewrite the meaning of political theory and to treat it “as part of empirical science and to reject explicitly. The emerging tendency to identify the term with both metaphysical speculation (abstractions hopelessly removed from empirical observation and control) and the history of political thought”.

Eclipse of Liberalism:

The study of political science mainly based on history or supported by historical data exposes the bare fact that from the 1920s liberal political thought or liberalism was passing through a number of crises. One, the establishment of Bolshevik rule in Russia laid the foundation of Collectivism and curtailment of individual freedom initiative.

In other words after the First World War (1914-1918) a belief gathered momentum that only state sponsored projects and gargantuan type of state activity can be prophylactic device for the removal of numerous miseries from which common people were suffering. This drastically corroded the individual’s freedom.

Again in the 1930s American capitalism experienced an unprecedented crisis and the White House adopted certain measures which went against the liberalism. Easton diagnosed another reason of the “eclipse of liberalism”. In his opinion the problem of contemporary liberalism was its general failure to put its theories to the test of social reality. Scientific methods shall be used to discover social facts about the source of political power.

To sum up, liberalism as well as political theory must be based on rigorous empirical study. If this technique is strictly followed the fragility of liberalism and decline of political theory can be stopped. He has elaborated his conception of the idea of decline of political theory in The Political System.

Historicism and Decline of Political Theory:

According to David Easton the ever-increasing role of historicism is a major cause of the decline of political theory. In his words: “Political theory has been devoted to a form of historical researches that has robbed it of its earlier, constructive role”. What is historicism? It is defined as a belief that history is governed by inexorable laws of change and that human actions are guided by permanent ultimate purposes.

For long period political theory was in one way or other dominated by history and this led political theory to insignificance. Easton has cited the example of Dunning’s work. Dunning believed that political theory was nothing but a historical account of condition and consequences of political ideas. Traditional political, scientists generally built up the principles of political science on the basis of historical facts which they collected from past history.

This approach made political theory completely dependent on history and it lost its own identity. Not only Dunning, other political scientists were also exponents of this concept and among them Sabine is pioneer. He, in his famous work A History of Political Theory, has explained the deep and inseparable relationship between history and political theory.

He has said that political theory is the product of politics and history contains the incidents of politics. Easton is of opinion that because of the excessive dependence of political theory on historical facts and data there is practically no difference between history and political science.

Hyper-Factualism:

Another important factor responsible for the decline of political theory in the estimation of Easton is “hyper-factualism” which generally means excessive depen­dence upon facts and the failure to relate facts to the theory. It is said that from the very beginning of twentieth century there has occurred a lot of research in the field of political science but the contribution of this research to the articulation of political theory is not noteworthy. Political science research, according to Easton, is generally characterised by “Hyper-factualism” and a failure to marry empiricism to theory. Because of this hyper-factualism a conceptualisation of political theory has not taken place.

Easton has strongly criticised the approach of many political scientists. They normally collect data with a lot of enthusiasm and they begin to generalise them singularly. And this generalisation takes place in a narrow way. This narrow perspective was interpreted by science. But in the opinion of Easton this cannot be called science and this must not constitute the basis of any viable political theory.

In the opinion of Easton: “Most factual research is concerned with singular generalisation, not with broader type of theory. Such research is what we call pursuit of the facts about political life”. He also says that why or for what purposes facts are collected that is not properly explained. The fact is that Easton does not disapprove the collection of facts from history. What he disapproves is that excessive dependence of facts and apathy to explain them in proper context.

Domination of Moral Theory:

We shall now explore another aspect of the decline of political theory. For several centuries political science in general and political theory in particular was dominated by the moral premises of Western civilisation. The exponents of these moral premises have constantly and vigorously preached that they are right and no objection or criticism can be levelled against them. Presumably the researchers were not very interested in launching protracted research about the validity and acceptability of mere moral values and concepts.

This notion also crippled all sorts of research work. Students of political theory took no interest to verify the various aspects of political theory with the help of new facts and data. It was very much difficult for them to challenge the prevailing notion about political theory.

The consequence is political theory remained shrouded with vague notions and premises, Easton concludes. “This tendency towards moral conformity is both symptom of and a cause contributing to the lack of constructive approach; therefore it prevents the very kind of inquiry necessary for a thorough understanding of the values underlying research”.

In Easton’s account the influence of moral theory was so pervasive and powerful that political theory, in past, could not get any scope to establish to own identity. This is a cause of, its decline.

Ideological Reductionism:

The decline of political theory can be traced to “ideological reductionism”. Before entering into the depth of the matter ideology and
reductionism ought to be clarified. “An ideology is a more or less coherent set of ideas that provides a basis for organised political action”. Simply stated, ideology is a set of coherent ideas. Generally, ideology is related to politics. Reductionism is the practice of analysing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of its simple or fundamental constituents especially when it is said to provide a sufficient explanation.

According to Dante Germino (Beyond Ideology: The Revival of Political Theory) one of the major causes of the decline of political theory is colourful emergence of ideology or ideological reductionism. There are a number of pioneers in this field and most important of them is Karl Marx. Marx studied the history of several hundred years and after doing this he arrived at certain conclusions which formed Marxism. Though Marxism forms a part of political science, it does not constitute any important segment of political theory.

It is simply “ideological reductionism” and also partly propagandist ideology. Marx’s political concepts were preached and propagated for particular purpose and this purpose is emancipation of working class through the abolition of capitalism by means of class struggle leading to violent revolution. Marxism so much dominated the intellectual world and revolution; in particular that political theory could not get any scope to develop.

Contemporary Conditions:

Contemporary conditions of various parts of the globe have contributed to the decline of political theory. Some of these conditions are stated below: ‘One such condition is the emergence of communism or collectivism in several parts of Europe. In the communist countries party, bureaucracy and ideology completely dominated the political as well as ideological affairs of the state, the academic world hardly got any opportunity to think and express freely. Political scientists, researchers and other academicians were not in a position to pursue their academic works without any outside restrictions.

In fact, communist countries imposed thought and feeling upon the intellectuals and finally this destroyed the openness of society. The entire society lived in unbearable suffocation and this is treated as a cause of decline in political theory.

Even in so-called liberal or democratic countries people were fed with the idea that democracy was a kind of talisman, it can serve their all sorts of purposes which ultimately led people to be complacent with the prevailing form and prevented them from devising any alternative type.

This situation again was not congenial for the flourish of free thinking about political theory. At the same time most of the big powers were engaged in enhancing their image and capability in international society and the entire superstructure was surcharged with it. Free development of political theory was affected.

Absence of Man of Vision:

Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx etc. comfortably traversed the outer and inner roads and lanes of political science, political theory, philosophy, and political philosophy with a clear vision in their mind and far-flung outlook. We may not agree with what they propounded but they said something worthwhile.

But when the tradition and vision created by them came to an end the political scientists lacked the vision and zeal which their predecessors possessed and this lack of vision was to some extent responsible for the declining condition of political theory. Political scientists, theoreticians and philosophers had a transparent vision about the present situation of society and, at the same time, they had a vision about the structure of future society.

Plato, Aristotle, Marx etc. followed this general principle. Plato conceived of an ideal state, Aristotle thought of a polity which will be free from the causes of schisms. Marx imagined of a communist society. All these visions provided raw materials for building up a structure of political theory. Subsequently political scientists forgot to imbibe vision and cherish passion.

This ultimately resulted in a declining condition of political theory. So it is observed that only rejuvenation can help the revival of political theory. The advent of behaviouralism and empiricism is directed to that direction. At least the exponents of these doctrines claim so.

Resurgence of Political Theory:

Political Theory is not Dead:

The political theory during the last several decades has declined. But the declining condition does not indicate that political theory is dead. Incredible attachment to value conception, great apathy towards the application of scientific methods and techniques, and the predominance of philosophy over political theory made it considerably irrelevant in the real world.

So we can draw a subtle distinction between declining condition of political theory and its death. Political science in general and political theory in particular was always treated as very important branch of social science. Political science was and still is a very popular subject and is studied and taught in almost every university. Up to the Second World War political science generally meant the study of state and different political organisations and institutions such as legislature executive, judiciary political parties pressure groups etc.

The subject was restricted within the activities of these organisations and institutions. Political theory revolved around these traditional conceptions. This traditional outlook considerably dwarfed the content and scope of political theory: Particularly in the field of policy- making political theory had no spectacular role to play. But the real scope of political theory is much broader than the one envisaged by traditional thinkers.

Commencement of Resurgence:

The post Second World War period—specifically the 1950s—witnessed new directions in the development of political theory and it is observed that the War served as a dividing line between the old and the new concepts of political theory. A large number of scholars from Europe migrated to America and many of them began serious research work on political theory and their interest did not lie in the study of political theory in traditional way.

They arrived at the conclusion that the traditional method of analysing political phenomena and theory was not adequate for new reforms or rejuvenation of political theory. New methods are to be devised. This tendency finally laid the foundation of a new way of studying political theory. A critic writes, “Consequently the large new generation provided the impetus for the search of a new kind of political science”.

The main resurgence was found in United States where American Political Science Association and Rockefeller Foundation played the pioneer role. A large number of researchers gathered at various research institutes and universities of America and their painstaking efforts really enriched the empirical approach to the study of political theory leading to its resurgence.

Resurgence is Multifaceted Pluralism:

The Resurgence in Political Theory that took place after the Second World War assumed various shapes and manifestations and the present space cannot comprise them all. Some may be briefly stated. One such manifestation is pluralism. Pluralism wants to emphasise that in any society there are numerous individuals who cherish different tastes, interests and values. Pluralism has a clear liberal lineage.

The state or authority cannot impose any decision upon the people against their wishes. In any liberal society or pluralist society there can exist number of instit
utions and organisations to cater the interests and values of individuals. After the 1950s, states of Europe and America could not ignore the variety of individuals’ interests. Political scientists also wanted to propound the doctrine that there might be conflict among individuals so far as their tastes and interests are concerned.

But that does not create an atmosphere of animosity or long drawn struggle as Marx and his followers assumed. That is, pluralism proceeded to prove that pluralist society is much better than a regimented one. Pluralism further assumes that there is no need of class struggle or revolution for establishment of an ordered society. Pluralist society is endowed with certain self-regulating mechanisms which have enough ability to put society into order.

Even during the heyday of traditional political theory there existed pluralism. But after the Second World War it received larger impetus from many sources. Varieties of ideas and concepts rapidly developed due to the advance of pluralism and this helped the resurgence of political theory.

Behaviouralism:

Behaviouralism constitutes a very important aspect of the resurgence of political theory that took place at the beginning of the fifties of the last century. A brief definition of behaviouralism runs as follows. It is a belief that social theories can be constructed on the basis of observable facts and behaviour, quantifiable data and facts. Behaviouralism further maintains that various segments of human behaviour are both observable and quantifiable.

After a thorough analysis of the behaviour, facts and datas certain conclusions and models of political theory can be constructed. Behaviouralism in political science also states that it does not deal with all sorts of behaviour of the individuals but only with that behaviour which displays political character.

The behaviouralists, while analysing and scrutinising the behaviour, adopt such methods and techniques as are generally adopted by natural and physical sciences. The great pioneer in this field is David Easton. Behaviouralism opened the new vistas of political theory and at the same time injected new blood into the body of political theory. But this theory could not utter the last word about the status of political theory.

Rawls’ Normative Theory:

In the 1960s behaviouralism was faced with increasing challenge and criticism from several corners of academic world. In the 1970s a major challenge came from John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice which was published in 1971.

Rawls says: Justice is the first virtue of social institutions as truth is the system of thought”. Rawls’ theory of justice threw a gauntlet to Easton’s behaviouralism. Commenting upon Rawls’ theory and its impact on the thought system a critic says: He (Rawls) thus completely reversed the position Easton took on the nature of political reality: value notions such as justice are not unreal emotional addon’s to a real world of unevaluative facts, things that must be set aside in order to penetrate political reality but are constitutive of the political world.

What Rawls wants to emphasise is that the empirical theory cannot explain all the aspects of political theory and utter the last word about its nature and content. Nor can it produce a viable theory of politics. Empirical theory has failed to give due recognition to value theory. Any political theory must be normative theory.

In the opinion of Rawls any social theory, all organisations and institutions must aim at ensuring justice and if the authority fails to do this the entire social structure will face crisis and numerous problems: Throughout the book consisting of more than five hundred pages he has been found to offer us an innovation. David Easton and other behaviouralists were of opinion that value judgment and normative theory are incompatible with empirical analysis.

That is, normative theory cannot be explained by methods of natural and physical science. But Rawls challenged this notion by saying that normative theory is quite compatible with science. Rawls does not find any inconsistency between science and moral theory or normative theory. “Rawls attempted to show that moral theory is more or less isomorphic (similar in form or corresponding) with theory in natural science and that moral knowledge stands on ground as solid as that of empirical knowledge”.

It is interesting to note that John Rawls has to some extent modified the prevailing notion about morality and science. According to John Rawls both moral theory and natural science must begin with data. The data for science are empirical observations and the data for ethical theory are moral judgments. In this way John Rawls has tried to prove that moral theory cannot be set aside or ignored on the ground that it is not based on empiricism. Rawls’ attempt is really revolutionary and it poses a great challenge to Easton’s behaviouralism. 

Upload and Share Your Article:

The Meaning of Modern State:

The term modem state is confusing because in the continuity of time no specific age can be treated with special importance and can be called modern. Today what we call modern, after few decades or a century the term modern may be obsolete. So the term “modern” is a relative one and is not always meaningful. In 1926 R. M. Maclver, the well-known political scientist and sociologist (he is the famous co-author of the noted book Sociology) published.

The Modern State and it was read by students of political science as a textbook. Today political scientists and researchers avoid the term modern state. In spite of this difficulty I shall, in the following pages, discuss some of the problems with which a modern state is faced. Here I use the term in a special sense.

It is known to all students of political science that the concept of state has undergone radical changes during the post-Second World War period and this trend continued up to 1980s when globalisation spread its long arm over almost all parts of the globe. The nation-state is the symbol of modern state system. But this nation-state was forced to be plunged into several problems.

But neither globalisation nor any incident at international scale could jeopardies the very existence of state or nation-state. The state, notwithstanding the changes around it, is still the most acceptable political organisation and its existence haunts everyone. We shall discuss this state.

Concept of Power and Modern State:

The ownership of power and its use have been the source of heated controversy. The claim of the monists that the state is the supreme authority of sovereign power has been challenged by the pluralists on the ground that the numerous organisations within the state have freedom. The pluralists’ approach to the doctrine of sovereignty does not bring about the curtain upon the sharing of power by the state and other organisations.

Within the state there are many groups who are involved in a persistent fight to capture and exercise power and needless to say that this is the nature of any pluralist society. Modern political scientists, after surveying the nature of capitalist states, have argued that there are many elitist groups and there is keen competition among them to capture power.

This makes the political system unstable. Sometimes the state acts as an umpire and tries to keep the warring groups within control. This, of course, does not provide any solution to the situation because the existence of elite groups is an integral part of pluralist society.

Again, the concept of power and its use have made the role of the state both peculiar and problematic. If pluralism and the arguments of elitism are accepted one is to conclude that the state power must be drastically cut down. If so, who will act as a mediator in the case of the resolution of conflicts? Who will settle the disputes? If the power of the state is admitted, the problem is how far the state can go? Should it have absolute coercive power? Some situations may demand this. Others do not agree.

Problem of Social Choices:

There are many roads to the attainment of goals after which a modern state aspires. Put differently, there are a number of social choices which the state may adopt. But none of these choices is above controversy. Explaining Robert Dahl’s concept of power Davies and Lewis have said that there is a great polemics as to the selection of social choice. There are socialism, capitalism, planning, laissez-faire etc.

In all these social choices there is a specific role of the state and in modern time this role has been a hotbed of politics and heated controversy. Whatever the social choice the state adopts that will create controversy and, later on, problems. The opposite forces will work to scuttle it. Any system or social choice will produce good results if it is implemented with seriousness and worked out painstakingly.

But the modern state is not always allowed to work freely. Controversy surrounds it and makes its action and decision complicated. The point is not about opposition or to criticise, the point rather is people have no toleration to accept opposite view or no perseverance to allow the government to act freely or with a free hand.

In a democratic state, it is needless to say, this poses a very great problem and the authority, even after making persistent efforts, cannot come out of the vicious circle. We can also call it a cobweb. This is specifically relevant to any Third World state where the selection of social choice or an ideology poses greatest problem. Political instability is sometimes caused by this.

Role of the State in Economy:

Since the days of Adam Smith the role of the state in economy has been a centre of controversy. Adam Smith’s suggestion was that the state should adopt the policy of non-intervention in the economic affairs which should fall within the jurisdiction of individuals.

His argument runs as follows: The management of economy by the individuals, he forcefully argued, would produce the best results and any state interference has sufficient potentialities to damage the spontaneity of the individuals which is the important factor of economic development.

But in the first half of the nineteenth century the maladies of non-intervention of state in economy came to be so prominent that even the staunch advocates of laissez-faire began to suspect its efficacy in ensuring more employment and reducing economic inequalities. The intervention of state in the economic affairs was vigorously argued by many because they believed that only the timely intervention of state can save the economy from imminent disaster. Socialism, communism, Fabian socialism, scientific socialism etc. enlivened the topic—state intervention.

At the same time liberalism argued for non­intervention and it believed that market economy and its strengthening could provide the most powerful elixir to the rejuvenation of economy. After the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991 there has started a kingly march of market economy. But the market economy is not treated as the master-key which will be able to open all the locks.

Problems Relating to Right, Liberty and Equality:

Right, liberty and equality are the basic and very important democratic principles and every democratic government makes elaborate administrative and other arrangements for their realisation. As to their importance there is no difference of opinion.

But the problem arises in respect of their attainment in practice. All the three basic democratic principles are political in nature but when one thinks of their realisation, economic issues inescapably arise. For instance, if there are gross economic inequalities among various sections of the body politic, the economically dominant section will invariably try to control the weaker sections which will finally lead to the suppression of rights, liberty and equality.

This point was successfully pointed out by Marx in the second half of the nineteenth century and later on Laski and many others. It is admitted by almost all that for the proper realisation of rights, liberty and equality leveling of economic opportunities are essential and this task is to be done by the state.

The tragedy is that no government has yet been able to create a material condition favourable for these basic principles. Though some governments have good intentions to do something for their attainment, manifold problems stand in their way. The root of these problems has spread to the very depth of the society and it is very difficult for any government to uproot them.

What are the Problems:

We have noted that the removal of inequality is the most potential way of attaining the rights, liberty and equality and for this nationalisation of the sources of production can substantially help. At least the socialists can claim this. But the nationalisation of the primary resources cannot be treated as a panacea to all evils. There are differences of opinion.

Moreover, the nationalisation is not an easy task which can be done at a single stroke. Again, nationalisation will face stiff opposition and its opponents have valid reasons. Utilisation of resources other than nationalisation can be suggested but it is not also free from limitations. Rapid industrialisation can help in reducing inequality, helping the citizens to have access to liberty and equality.

But for this venture huge amount of investment, improved technology, etc. are required and a government of the Third World state cannot easily get them. There is a gap between the creation of opportunities or their quantum and the number of claimants. The explosion of population in the Third World states has created vicious circles.

The multiplication of population is so intense that a government cannot cope with the rapid rise of demands. An important solution to this intriguing problem is to check the growth of population. Here again the problem is the state authority is either callous because of which it cannot understand the problems, or is unwilling to take action on political grounds.

Problem in Respect of Justice:

From the days of Plato right up to Amartya Sen (the recipient of the 1998 Nobel Memorial Prize for Economic Science) large number of scholars have shed light on the idea of justice and the interesting fact is that nobody has been able to suggest a real way to achieve justice. Justice requires the distribution and redistribution of resources. It implies that wealth can be taken from those who have excess (of course in the form of tax) and it shall be allocated to them who are deprived of basic necessities.

Here the problem is government (or the state) will force the owners of wealth to sacrifice a part of their wealth which the state, from the standpoint of democratic principle, cannot do. Hayek concludes “The conflict between the ideal of freedom and the desire to correct the distribution of incomes is not usually recognised. To make distributive justice a grand success it is necessary to set up an elaborate and repressive machinery which will force the wealthy persons to sacrifice a major part of their wealth.

It is alleged that this involves the negation of democratic principles and rights of the owners of wealth. It also requires other arrangements such as planning out redistribution of wealth. The owners of the wealth and lovers of democracy will challenge this venture. Some critics also argue that this attempt will encourage laziness. The owners of wealth will try to conceal a part of their wealth to get rid of this.

Rawlsian Theory of Justice and the Problem of State:

Dr. Amartya Sen (Development as Freedom) calls Rawlsian theory of justice the “most influential… the most important of contemporary theories of justice”. Though we agree with Sen’s evaluation we should not fail to note that it has failed to eradicate the possibility of problems. Here we shall quote few phrases used by John Rawls. He calls justice as fairness. It is the first virtue of social institutions.

The realisation of justice requires cooperation among people. Only in a well-ordered society there can exist justice. He also suggests that everyone will be entitled to liberties compatible with similar liberties of others. For the sake of justice, inequalities can be admitted.

Finally, for a proper blossoming of Rawlsian justice a market economy is essential. Where is the problem of state? In all the situations noted above there is the issue of the involvement of state. The state must restructure the society (both political and economic) so that the market economy can work without any hindrance, the society gets to be well-ordered, and the state must see that all are in the possession of some basic liberties and rights.

It is the duty of the state to ensure that the inequalities are absolutely compatible with the attainment of justice. The moot point is that the Rawlsian theory of justice—though the most important contemporary theory—is difficult to realise without the intervention of state. It means politics and invites numerous controversies.

Development and Problem of State:

The development is the sole or one of the most cherished objectives of any modern state and particularly of the Third World states. The development is a complicated concept and its attainment demands the fulfilment of many conditions. Amartya Sen, in his recent work Development as Freedom claims that without freedom devel­opment, in fact, cannot be easily achieved. “Expansion of freedom”, writes Sen, “is viewed both as the primary end and as the political means of development. Development consists of the removal of various types of un-freedoms that leave people with little choice, and little opportunities of exercising their reasoned agency”.

These freedoms are political, social, economic, cultural etc. These are the “constitu­ent components of development”. Here we come across a very crucial matter. Though development is primarily an economic issue, its association with political aspects is also profound and when it is political the intervention of state becomes inevitable.

According to Dr. Sen the various freedoms are the constituent components of development. We feel that if the state does not take any action regarding freedom, the only consequence will be economic backwardness. We know that, in any society,’ there are two forces at work—pro-freedom and anti-freedom.

The governmental scheme must be so arranged as to resist the growth of anti-freedom designs. But this task is so hard that it cannot be performed early. Though government prepares different schemes to advance freedom and development many of them remain unrealised.

Anti-State Movements:

The problem of the state is aggravated by the uprisings that are taking place in various parts of the globe. Religious fundamentalism, terrorism or terrorist activities, anti-state agitation etc. are very common affairs or incidents in today’s world situation. The terrorist attack led by Al-quida under the leadership of Laden on the World Trade Centre on 11th September 2001 or terrorist attack on Metro station of London in 2005 are only few examples of terrorist activities.

Apparently it may seem that all these have no link with the authority and functions of state but, in close scrutiny, it will be found that these are activities against the state. Most of the time the terrorist activities are state-sponsored. One state encourages and finances the terrorist groups to launch attack against another state which she deems her enemy.

The problem is the terrorist activities destabilise the normal and stable political situation of a state. The state is forced to spend a major part of its scarce resources to combat the attacks and this invariably hinders its progress.

Whereas, the state cannot ignore these forms of destabilizing forces. The state’s efforts of rapid progress are adversely affected. The state, in fact, is sandwiched between the management of terrorism and efforts to go ahead on the developmental projects. Any attempt to neglect one will heavily cost the state.

Problems Relating to Functions of State:

The concept of the functions of state is perhaps the most explosive
theory that has evoked maximum interest and fuelled a lot of controversy. Many years ago (in the 1930s) Prof. Laski said that a state must do some essential work for its citizens, otherwise its utility and worthiness might be questioned by the people.

We think that there is lot of validity in this estimate. Scholars have debated about what would be the essential functions of a state and in this respect they are clearly’ divided into two groups (there are, of course, other groups). These are individualists and socialists.

The former is also called laissez-faire advocates. The individualists want to keep the functions of the state within certain limitations and they have urged that the state should not violate those limitations. Duly considered, according to individualists, the state will have to perform minimum functions so that individuals can get liberty in its maximum form. But the socialists have contested this standpoint by arguing that if the state wants to ensure maximum welfare, it should not make any attempts to confine itself within the limitations.

Even today there is no end of controversy and it will continue. The problem is whatever and whenever the state wants to do that gives birth to debate. The state-intervention is criticised by the libertarians on the ground that it will jeopardies human freedom. On the other hand, the failure on the part of the state will encourage the socialists that the state is neglecting its minimum responsibility.

Jurisdiction of State and Globalisation:

During the last two decades and half the advocates of globalisation have been paying glowing tributes to globalisations as the most effective way of solving the problems from which nations are suffering. But one or more than one aspects of globalisation has been ignored by many—it has encroached upon the jurisdiction of nation-states.

The multinational corporations, inter-state organisations etc. have grabbed the decision-making power of the nation-states in respect of finance, commerce and domestic as well as international politics that they are hardly left with any autonomy. Though many scholars differ in this respect, the fact is that the decision-making power of the nation-states is drastically curbed.

Whereas the rationality demands that every nation-state must have the freedom to decide its own course of action. Even the Charter of the United Nations recognises the sovereign power of every state. This (globalisation) poses a serious problem to the authority of nation-state. Two opposite forces have made the position of nation-state problematic.

The nation-states cannot sacrifice this sovereign power in favour of the growth of globalisation. Again, the globalisation is an inescapable condition of the present-day world. It is very difficult to keep, oneself completely away from the comprehensive impact of globalisation.

The problem, again, is there is no possibility of compromise. There is remarkable erosion of the authority of nation-states which evokes resentment in the mind of the people and this erosion creates problem.

State in International Society:

The international society, we know, consists of sovereign states and in that society all states, big and small, enjoy almost equal legal status. But this picture is apparent. There are very few states (precisely three or four) who, for all practical purposes control the world situation (particularly political and economic) and the rest of the states are forced to kowtow to the decision of the big and powerful states.

This is absolutely undesirable because no sovereign state wants to be subservient to other powerful states. It is ignominious and against national interest. The ignominy of the nation-state in international society creates an adverse situation for the nation-state in domestic politics. Whereas the state has no ability to come out of this situation. Though the state is in the possession sovereign power, it has hardly any scope to utilise this power for the rectification of the situation.

The state is, in fact, in a peculiar position from which it cannot come out. Before the collapse of the former USSR in 1991, there were two power blocs in the international society and that assisted the maintenance of power balance. But after the disintegration of Soviet Union there is unipolarism which indicates the supremacy of USA.

In the present day world situation, except very few nations, all other nations are incapable of taking any decision and this goes against their sovereign status. Sovereignty is something (true to its name) which cannot be compromised.

Compromise and the Modern State:

We have just now concluded that the international situation, today, has reached such a pass that the nation-states are forced to arrive at compromises, but their sovereign status or the love for sovereignty prevents them from doing this The problem does not exhaust here. From the mid-forties to the mid-seventies of the 20th century, the Cold War between the two superpowers was the dominant feature of world politics.

Today there is only one superpower and in spite of this the Cold War has not fully disappeared. There is a new form of Cold War—it is between nations of a particular region or among several nations. After the Second World War at different regions several regional organisations have been formed whose main purpose is to utilise the resources available at regional levels for the rapid progress of the areas. ‘In this regard no nation has any scope to act or behave in accordance with her sovereign power; circumstances force the nation to make compromises.

At the beginning of the twentieth century political scientists envisaged that the individuals could not live alone, they must form groups. After the 1960s the nation-states at regional level are turning to the formation of groups or small organisations. Apparently this tendency is innocuous, but it poses problems for the modern state.

The states, who are members of particular regional organisations, are to sacrifice sovereignty otherwise regional organisations cannot survive. Simultaneously, national interest demands compromise and, more specifically, sacrifice. This creates problem.

Problems of Right and Duty:

The question of right and duty poses serious problem for the modern state. The citizens claim rights for the realisation of their inherent qualities and the state is (both morally and legally) bound to meet those rights. We can say the state must recognise its obligation to the citizens in respect of the rights.

But this issue need not be treated as a one-way traffic. The citizens have also obligations to the society and state because they get their source of sustenance from the society and naturally they must perform certain basic duties in exchange of the rights they receive from the state. If the state and the citizens perform their duties in accordance with certain settled norms no problem could arise.

But the real situation is at variance with the ideal situation and it is the vital source of problem. The citizens are particularly conscious of their rights but are indifferent to the performance of duties. In many modern constitutions (such as constitution of India, China, Russia etc.) there are both rights and duties and unfortunately the constitutional declaration has considerably failed to make citizens dutiful.

This creates a complex situation. Citizens’ lack of sincerity to do duty creates not only complex situations but also vacuum. The complexity of situation and vacuum multiply problems. Social progress is affected, law and order gets a raw deal from the undutiful citizens. Law and order is disturbed and the authority is forced to take coercive measures. This is again strongly resented by many.

Relationship between State and Civil Society:

State and Civil Society makes a modest attempt to throw sufficient light on various aspects of state and civil society, including the relationship between the two, the problem arising out of the relationship has been deliberately avoided. We now focus our attention on that.

A civil society embraces the areas of social life such as the private life of individuals, their cultural and political affairs, functions of voluntary organisations etc. These are viewed as remaining outside the jurisdiction of the state.

But the problem as regards the jurisdiction of state and civil society is that there is no hard and fast rule. What is today private affairs of individual, may, in some other day, be affair of state. In the second half of the nineteenth century J. S. Mill made an attempt to distinguish the self-regarding activities from the other- regarding activities.

But subsequently that distinction evoked a lot of criticism. It is very difficult to draw a clear-cut demarcation between the civil society and the state so far as their role is concerned. In a dynamic society the role is bound to change. The dynamism demands, a reformulation of the relationship but the idea of reformulation is a vague term. Reformulation of what? The relation between the two envisages many aspects and does reformulation mean the inclusion of all of them? After the fall of former USSR the civil society has been re-emphasided but, at the same time, its role is being renewed which creates problems. The libertarians argue that the functions of the state should be reduced to the lowest level while this contention has been contested by the anti-libertarians. The renewed role does not specify the exact role.

The State Is Viewed both Negatively and Positively:

In recent years (particularly after the 1960s) there has developed two opposite and peculiar tendencies in the minds of common people. One such tendency is that the state should do minimum functions so that individuals can get largest amount of freedom. Another tendency is the state should ensure the maximum amount of welfare services for its citizens. In such services are included old age pensions, unemployment allowances, expansion of education and health care services.

To discharge these varieties of services, it is the duty of the state to expand its role in an increasing rate and this will invariably erode the liberty of the individuals. Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister (1979-1990) announced certain new policies that reversed the role of the state and this invited the wrath and objection from many segments of society.

Our central point is we do not conceal our love for freedom and, at the same time; we invite the state to take more and more responsibilities to ensure social services so that weaker sections of the society can get benefit. The problem is more state intervention and maximum freedom cannot coexist.

The problem is further aggravated by the fact that these two opposite tendencies are irreconcilable. In fact, many modern states in today’s world are to some extent helpless. It is not possible for them to meet both ends simultaneously. We can say that the state is faced with dilemma and it is unavoidable.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Meaning and Definitions of Liberty:

The word liberty is derived from liber. The root of liberty is another two words libertas and liberte. Liber means “free”. Many people are accustomed to use freedom. But both the words mean same thing and they are used interchangeably. In strict sense there is a difference. We call “freedom movement”, “freedom fighter” etc. but not liberty movement. Liberty is generally used in the case of individual and freedom refers to greater entity such as freedom of a country.

But this distinction does not always hold good. For example, we call national liberation movement of Africa or Latin America. Here liberation is used to denote freedom or liberty. In political science, however, the interchangeable use is the general practice.

The term liberty is associated with two other words—toleration and liberation. Toleration means to allow other men to do their duties and even if that creates disadvantage to some that should be tolerated. It is because the liberty of one is restriction to others, and vice versa. Naturally if one does not tolerate others’ actions, the people cannot have liberty. So we can say that liberty cannot be separated from toleration.

Similarly, in recent years we witness the emergence of another word which is a variation of liberty—it is liberation. Today the words ‘liberation movement’ are very often used. When a nation is under foreign domination it cannot be called a free nation so also the citizens (it is used in general sense) are not free.

There is large number of definitions of liberty or freedom. In our day-to-day speech or conversations we use the term to mean absence of constraints or limitations or obstacles. When we find that an individual is free to do as he likes it will be assumed that he is free, that is, he has liberty. Prof. Harold Laski’s definition is well-known and oft-quoted. “By liberty I mean the eager maintenance of that atmosphere in which men have the opportunity to be their best selves”.

Heywood says that philosophers and political scientists do not use the term in identical sense. The philosophers use it as a property of the will. It is primarily a matter of mind and psychology. By contrast, the political scientists use the term in different senses. It is connected with values, development of mind and inherent qualities of individuals. It also denotes a congenial atmosphere in which men will be able to flourish their good qualities.

Freedom also means the scope to select the required alternative from a number of alternatives. If this scope or opportunity is not available to the individual that will mean the absence of freedom. Hence liberty is an atmosphere where individuals will face a number of choices and they will pick up one or more according to their requirement. D. D. Raphael views freedom in this sense. He further maintains that freedom is the absence of restraints. Raphael further says that freedom means to carry out what one has chosen to do. This sense is generally used in political science.

Nature of Liberty:

After thorough study the political scientists have found out several features of liberty or freedom.

We note few of them:

1. Freedom to do means the freedom to choose among the alternatives which again means the freedom of conscience. This is an important characteristic of liberty. Whenever an individual intends to do something he is supposed to be guided by his conscience. The conscience is the force that guides the individual. But Raphael says that conscience is not always the force that guides the individual for action. There may be other forces.

2. Laski calls liberty an atmosphere. In the atmosphere, the individual will be permitted to perform such activities that will facilitate the development of the best qualities a man possesses. We can say that freedom is a material condition of social life.

3. Freedom is understood as voluntary and un-coerced action. Behind every action there shall exist spontaneity. When man is forced to do a work that will lead to the loss of liberty. We can say liberty and coercion are antithetical terms. This, however, is not always correct. Sometimes a man is forced to act accordingly to make way for the exercise of freedom to others. If a person creates obstacles, authority removes them by force.

4. Norman Barry pointed out another feature of liberty. He suggests to draw distinction between “feeling free” and “being free”. According to Barry the following is the distinction. Feeling free is a state of contentment and “being free” is a state in which major impediments to making choices have been removed. In his opinion liberty (Barry uses both liberty and freedom interchangeably) includes both meanings.

The distinction may be illustrated in the following way. A convict may commit a crime deliberately in order to go to prison for security reasons. Here the condition of “feeling free” appears, but not the “being free”. He says that “being free” and “being able” are two terms different from each other. When there are no physical impediments a man may undertake any work but his ability does not allow him to shoulder the burden of doing the work. So here we find that a person is free to do the work but he is not able to do it, and mainly for that reason his ability and freedom stand apart.

Explaining freedom we must take note of this distinction. It can further be illustrated by another example. A man has the freedom to go to any expensive restaurant and take choicest dish. But his fund or health condition do not allow him. Or it may be that doctor has advised him not to take food outside. In our analysis of the nature of freedom we must consider these subtitles.

5. A plausible distinction can be drawn between political liberty and other types of liberty. In a democratic state political liberty is especially stressed. Participation in all affairs of the state is encouraged. But the same individuals are confronted with dissimilar situation in social and cultural fields. In less advanced societies (these may be or are democratic) numerous superstitions inhibit the free lives of the individuals.

They are not always free to select their religious ways or to practice any belief or faith: on the contrary, in many autocratic states political liberty is very limited but religious or other liberties do exist- Our viewpoint is that for a proper analysis of the concept of freedom all forms of liberty are not to be mixed or confused. In other words various types of liberty shall carry their our identity.

6. Liberty is a very comprehensive idea and it changes with the change of time and other things such as outlook, physical conditions, attitude etc. By liberty one need not mean only political or any other’ particular type of liberty. The objective of liberty is quite ambitious—to make feasible the development of good qualities of man and for that purpose all types of liberty may be required and in this sense it is comprehensive in nature.

Liberty is, again, a dynamic concept. If attitude and outlook of individuals are changed the sphere or extent of liberty must also change. For example, women of today’s society are claiming more jobs or employment opportunities and they deem it as their right and they claim that they must have the liberty to do job.

Women are also demanding to do job with men in night shift and with full protection. In Western countries women work in night shifts and India is proceeding to that. The age of Information and Technology has enhanced freedom.

Liberty is Conditional, Not Absolute:

Prof. Ernest Barker, in his noted work, talks about legal liberty and this type of liberty is never absolute but always conditional. He says: “legal liberty, just because it is legal, is n
ot an absolute or unconditional liberty. The need of liberty for each is necessarily qualified and conditioned by the need of liberty for all”. Let us see what Barker wants to say.

It is a mistaken idea that liberty need not be restricted to limited number of persons. When liberty is legal, everybody has an access to it. But in many societies only a handful of persons have the opportunity to enjoy liberty and on the opinion of Barker this is to be done away with. How is it to be done? His suggestion is by legal way the state shall impose restrictions upon the individuals in regard to have access to liberty.

The state will enact laws as to the enjoyment of liberty. Everyone in the society has an identity and in that background he can claim liberty, Barker beautifully observes: [Liberty] is not the indefinite liberty of an undefined individual, it is the definite liberty of a defined personality”.

Liberty in the state, that is legal liberty, is always relative and regulated. When liberty is regulated, its amount is much greater than the absolute liberty. This is due to the reason that absolute liberty is the liberty of only few persons but the relative or regulated liberty is meant for all men. Even men whose liberty is controlled can enjoy liberty.

Conflicts among Liberties:

Barker has drawn our attention to a very interesting aspect of liberty. He says that in any modern society there are three forms of liberty. These are civil liberty, political liberty and economic liberty. These three types of liberties may come into conflict. How does this happen? His analysis runs in the following manner: By virtue of civil liberty an individual has the freedom to express his opinion through book, article or any other means. But the parliamentarians by virtue of their political liberty can impose restriction upon the freedom of expression or speech. Here civil and political liberties clash with each other and this frequently happens in any society.

Conflict is often found between civil and economic liberties. A worker can claim higher wages or less working hour and this falls within his economic freedom. On the other hand the employer has the civil liberty to enter into contract with the workers dictating the terms of wages, working hours etc. In this way different forms of liberty create conflict among the citizens and Barker believes that this is inevitable.

Everyone is eager to enjoy liberty to which he is entitled. There is no way of getting out of this dilemma and remembering this (perhaps) Barker has said that liberty is really a complex notion, it has the capacity to unite men and, at the same time, it divides or disunites them—clash of interest is the cause of disunity.

Law and Liberty:

We shall now turn to a very vexed issue—the relationship between law and liberty. There is a misconception that liberty is antithetical to law, or vice versa. Those who think in this line believe in the negative character of liberty, which implies that liberty is the absence of restraints. Law means restraints or regulations. Naturally, more laws will lead to the curtailment of liberty.

This idea about the relation between the two is erroneous. Liberty is out and out a positive idea. If liberty is to be made a meaningful concept, regulations are essential. Unrestricted liberty may cause enhancement of liberty for few persons, but it will result in the reduction of liberty of the majority. This makes liberty conditional. Liberty, to be proper, must come under the restrictions of law.

This is the exact relation between law and liberty. But the relationship between law and liberty must be judged in the proper perspective. Law will not be permitted to interfere with the freedom of individuals. The purpose of law, in regard to liberty, must be to protect liberty for all. Mention may be made in this connection that though law makes the enjoyment of liberty more liberal, blind obedience to law does not do that.

Obedience to law must be based on reason and rationality. Again, a law must be based on the approval of citizens. This does not, of course, mean that a law is to be approved by all, only majority support behind a law is enough. A law shall not be used to harass citizens.

Berlin’s Theory of Liberty:

Introduction:

Isaiah Berlin’s (1909-1997) theory of liberty is a highly acclaimed and widely criticised theory. His Four Essays on Liberty (1969) contains the following essays, Political Ideas in the Twentieth Century, Historical Inevitability, Two Concepts of Liberty and J. S. Mill and the Ends of Life. We are here concerned chiefly with the third essay—Two Concepts of Liberty. Berlin was born in Latvia and received partial education in St. Petersberg.

He went to Britain at the beginning of the 1920s and the rest of his education and service were in Britain. Berlin was a strong believer of liberal pluralism. In his Two Concepts of Liberty Berlin has carefully and pedantically analysed various aspects of liberty. Of the two types of liberty—positive and negative—his preference for the latter is quite clear. He believed in the existence of innumerable values and ideas and the conflict among them. In such a situation the positive liberty is likely to do more harm and may lead to totalitarian situation. His penchant for liberal pluralism encouraged him to lend support for negative liberty.

In the opening para of the Two Concepts of Liberty he has said that there is disagreement in every sphere of human society—political problems arise from and thrive on this disagreement. He further observes that people may arrive at agreement on the ends of society or functions of government but, at the same time, they will disagree on the means to achieve the ends.

Positive versus Negative Liberty:

In his analysis of positive and negative liberties Berlin wants to raise the following questions:

(a) Whether the difference he has drawn between positive and negative liberty is specious or too sharp,

(b) Whether the term liberty can be extended widely. But while doing so care shall be taken about the retention of significance. In other words, the extension of the meaning of liberty cannot curb the significance of the concept,

(c) Why political liberty is considered important. Berlin claims that he has slightly amended his earlier version of the concept of negative and positive liberty. This, however, does not change the core idea of liberty.

Berlin has discussed some of the definitions given by leading political scientists of his time. He, in the following way, defines liberty, “The freedom of which I speak is opportunity for action, rather than action itself. If, although I enjoy the right to walk through open doors, I prefer not to do so, but to sit still and vegetate. I am not thereby rendered less free. “Freedom is the opportunity to act, not action itself, the possibility of action, not necessarily that dynamic realisation of it”. Berlin refers to a very interesting aspect of liberty.

Normally we say that freedom means when man satisfies his wants. But if he cannot satisfy his wants he must learn the way as to how and in what way he can meet his wants. And, by adopting this method, he can contribute to his happiness. In this case the individuals will have to devise ways of meeting demands.

Negative Concept of Liberty:

Definition:

A man is said to be free to the extent that his actions and movements (and even views) are not controlled by other men or body of men. That is almost everything of a man remains beyond all sorts of control. Berlin defines it in the following language: “Political liberty
is simply the area within which a man can act unobstructed by others”. In this definition the important word is unobstructed. To speak the truth this is the core word or idea of Berlin’s definition of negative liberty.

Liberty will be called negative when an individual’s activities remain unobstructed by others. When the activities of a man are interfered by others or when he is coerced by someone he will reasonably be called un-free. So inability caused by coercion is another name of “Un-freedom”. Coercion means deliberate interven­tion by others and thus freedom and coercion do not coexist.

But, on the contrary, if the inabilities are the consequences of other causes then that cannot be called loss or absence of liberty. A man may be excessively extravagant —naturally he will suffer from poverty and will not be able to meet all the necessary requirements. He will not have the freedom to consult a specialist or make trip round the world or to visit a good eating house. “This inability would not be described as lack of freedom, least of all political freedom”. Berlin says that the inability caused by particular factors is special case.

Negative Liberty and Non-interference:

In the opinion of Berlin freedom in its negative meaning is equivalent to non­interference and he has given special stress on it. A man is free in the sense that he is not interfered with by others. A man will have the scope to do his work without any interference. In the support of his contention Berlin remembers Hobbes.

Talking about freedom Hobbes said “A free man is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do? No obstruction will stand on the way of doing anything which a man intends. He further observes that the law is the most powerful “fetter”. So, according to Hobbes, law is the killer of human freedom.

But a question here arises. What would exactly be the area of non-interference? Should it be limited or unlimited? Berlin, drawing examples from the writings of traditional political philosophers, has maintained that the area of non-interference must not be unlimited or wide.

If everyone wants to have unlimited or very wide area of non-interference, then a situation would arise when everybody will try to interfere with others’ liberty. “The classical English political philosophers disagreed about how wide the area should or could be. They supposed that it could not be unlimited! Because if it were it would entail a state in which all men could boundlessly interfere with all other men, and this kind of “natural” freedom would lead to social chaos”.

Negative Liberty and Interference:

We have just now noticed that negative liberty is not equivalent to complete non­interference. Such a situation will be another name of anarchy and anarchy is not freedom. That is why Berlin suggests that since the interests and aims of different individuals are incompatible a process to harmonise among them shall there be and this is to be done by law. Law will harmonise different objectives of men.

In the absence of law or any type of restriction the creation of a political organisation will be meaningless. Not only this, even if an association were set up its credibility will be at the lowest level. Here again a problem arises. What would be the extent of interference? We feel that it is necessary to arrive at a compromise.

This can be better stated in the words of Berlin. “But equally it is assumed, especially by such libertarians as Locke and Mill in England, and Constant and de Tocqueville in France, that there ought to exist a certain minimum area of personal freedom which must on no account be violated”.

Absolute non-interference is practically an impossibility. Keeping aside all considerations and issues we assertively say that men are by nature and due to circumstances are interdependent and if that be so there cannot be anything like absolute privacy. Interference, therefore, must occur and it will be taken as fait accompli.

Minimum Freedom:

Berlin has drawn our attention to a real situation. It is admitted on all hands that everyone shall have the opportunity to enjoy freedom and necessary steps to that extent are to be taken. But here arises a crucial problem. When in a society large number of men are underfed, naked, suffer from various diseases, they are deprived of basic education, is it not a political claptrap to allow them enjoy freedom?

Freedom is essential for all residents of a society. But which one is to be given priority- medicine, education, clothing or freedom? A peasant or an ordinary man must have the minimum freedom to have food, clothes, medicine and when this minimum freedom is achieved, he can claim larger amount of liberty which includes political liberty. But neglecting minimum liberty and thinking about larger amount of liberty is nothing but a mockery.

Liberty is a goal and indeed a very coveted goal but it cannot be treated in isolation. A society must make all sorts of efforts to reach the goal of minimum liberty and after that there shall be arrangements for ensuring greater liberty. Once Prof. Laski said that everyone had the right (or liberty) to take minimum food and when this liberty is attained some may claim to have cake. The satisfaction of minimum needs is the primary condition for granting better and higher privileges. J. S. Mill also said that all are entitled to minimum freedom.

Berlin and Mill:

In the course of his detailed analysis of negative notion of liberty Berlin refers to another famous thinker—J. S. Mill. Mill is also a protagonist of liberty and this is termed by many as negative liberty. Mill in his On Liberty had forcefully argued for unobstructed liberty. He said, “The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way”.

It may be stated here that this is the gist of Mill’s theory of liberty. Though Mill did not categorically mention the removal of limitation he, in his mind, had that idea. To him freedom was equivalent to pursuance of one’s own good and any obstruction could be regarded as inimical to liberty.

Why did Mill give so much importance to liberty? If we cursorily go through his On Liberty, we shall find that without adequate liberty civilisation could not progress. That is why he gave maximum importance to liberty. Mill believed that the progress of human civilisation was far more important than throttling the voice of some persons in the name of expanding freedom.

Berlin discovers few discrepancies in Mill’s analysis of liberty. One is that according to Mill all coercion is bad. But when coercion is applied to combat greater evil this should also be bad—Mill does not say. Another inconsistency, according to Berlin is, men should strive to find out the truth and that truth is to be found only in freedom. Though these two are liberal assumptions “they are not identical”. Berlin nevertheless, agrees with Mill’s views of liberty because it is modern.

Negative Liberty and Privacy:

When liberty is viewed in negative terms, the absence of external interference, it is closely linked with privacy. Because the external interference encroaches upon the exclusively private affairs of individuals and in Western society it is always given priority. Privacy is different from public realm and privacy conscious individuals do not intend any violation. Not only this, it is believed that a major part of the affairs, of the men of Western society comprises private affairs.

They also treat private affairs as sacrosanct. It has also been asserted that all the private affairs shall be within the management and control of individuals and the state authority has nothing to do with these affairs. So
far as the private realm is concerned the individuals should be left alone.

“Any intrusion to the privacy of persons is, in this sense, an infringement of their liberty. To prize negative freedom is clearly to prefer the private to the public, and to wish to enlarge the scope of the former at the expense of the latter”. It is still believed in the Western countries that education, health, to pursue arts etc. are all subjects of private realm and the state has nothing to do with all these.

These should be left entirely at the hands or discretion of the individuals. Even the state interference in economic field is uncalled for. A large section of modem liberal thinkers forcefully argue that the state should refrain from interfering in the economic activities because these are private affairs and the individuals understand these far better than the state.

Negative Liberty and Rationality:

Unlimited faith on the rationality and individuality of person is treated as a potential cause of the popularity of negative freedom. It is believed that the individuals are more or less rational and behind their activities there is proof of rationality. Though this has not been clearly stated by the advocates of negative freedom, it is surmised that each person understands his own interests and knows how to protect them. If the individuals are left alone they are capable of protecting their interests properly and efficiently.

On the other hand, if the state interferes and coercion is frequently applied in the name of general interests that will frustrate the spontaneity of the individuals. So, for the sake of proper development of rationality and furtherance of spontaneity it is essential that the state interference should be reduced to the lowest level. Modern thinkers have called the state interference as a type of paternalism and all forms of paternalism, however, well-intentioned, is enough to dwarf the respon­sibility and spontaneity of individuals.

Naturally any type of paternalism or attempt of paternalism must be nipped in the bud. It has been argued that if the individuals are left to themselves they will commit mistakes and that may inflict temporary loss to the economy or interests of the society. But the other side, and it is the bright side, of the picture is they will learn the right lesson from their mistakes and this is very important. State interference sometimes can guide the individuals but that can never be the permanent feature of state.

Positive Freedom:

Definition:

The positive meaning of liberty may be defined in the following words: It means that the individual is his own master. The life and decisions of one will depend on the individuals themselves. The individual is the instrument of his own affairs. The positive sense of freedom is concerned with the question “By whom am I governed?” rather than “How much am I governed?” “I wish to be a subject, not an object, to be moved by reasons, by conscious purposes which are my own, not by causes which affect me. I wish to be somebody, not nobody, a doer deciding not being decided for, self directed and not acted upon by external nature or by other men as if I were a thing, an animal or a slave incapable of playing a human role”.

The positive sense of freedom wants to emphasise the following:

“The freedom which consists in being one’s own master and the freedom which consists in not being prevented from choosing as I do by other men”. The paradox of positive freedom has been explained beautifully by Heywood, “Indeed a demos that imposes many restrictive laws on itself may be positively free but negatively quite un-free.

In its other sense, positive freedom relates to the ideas of self-realisation and personal development”. “I feel free to the degree that I believe this is true, and enslaved to the degree that I am made to realise that it is not”.

Positive Freedom and Self-realisation:

Berlin has assertively said that there is a close relationship between positive liberty and self-realisation. The best way of attaining self-realisation (realisation of the best self which a man possesses) is the positive form of freedom. Every individual has his own motive, mission and vision; he wants to act to fulfill that mission or vision. He decides his own method and makes plan. All these he will do as a free man. It means the person will have freedom. Freedom as he understands. He will utilise the freedom in his own way.

But the realisation of self will never be possible if congenial atmosphere is not available. It means that the individual will not feel any obstruction which stands on the way of self-realisation. Berlin says that self-realisation cannot thrive in vacuum or in an atmosphere free from all sorts of obstructions.

Berlin maintains, “The notion of liberty is not the negative conception of a field without obstacles a vacuum in which nothing obstructs me but the notion of self-direction or self-control”. What a man wants to do, he will have the opportunity and freedom to do. Berlin says that there is the necessity of obstruction for the realisation of self.

The aim of the restriction imposed by the state of society will be to help the furtherance of self-realisation. It has been assumed that obstructions are not always harmful. They have good effects and here lies the fundamental difference between negative freedom and positive freedom.

Relationship between Two Freedoms:

We have discussed two types of liberty and now we like to throw light, on the probable relationship between these two. The word probable is used here to mean that the purest form of negative or positive liberty is not found in real society. No liberty is absolutely negative or positive. Nevertheless there is a relationship between them. Berlin had earlier raised the issue which we have already noted. He asked whether the difference between negative and positive liberty is specious.

He proceeds to analyse the relation in this way. Berlin says that the two questions- How much am I governed? and by whom am I governed?—are not quite identical. But this is not to say that the distinction between these two questions is unimportant. Let us see what Berlin exactly says, “I confess that I cannot see either that the two questions are identical, or that the difference is unimportant”. He admits that two types of liberty are different but the relation between them cannot be ignored and Berlin has emphasised this.

In his analysis we find that there are many obstacles which the man cannot remove or ignore, and if these are not removed the development of personality or freedom will receive serious setback. For the removal of these obstacles the interference of an authority is indispensable.

This proves that freedom cannot be the absence of restraints. Berlin concludes “despite the heroic efforts to transcend or dissolve the conflicts and resistance to others, if I do not wish to be deceived, I shall recognise the fact that total harmony with others is incompatible with self-identity”. What he wants to say is that there cannot be compatibility among the interests of different men. If so, outside interference is a must. But that does not mean that persons will not have an area which can be called exclusive.

The two concepts of liberty—negative and positive—have very often been separately treated by their advocates. But a close scrutiny between them reveals that in ultimate analysis there is no important difference. The aims of both liberties are almost same. Both want the development of the qualities of men. Some people think that the removal of all hindrances can help the attainment of the objectives.

On the contrary, others are of
opinion that some sorts of outside interference are necessary. This is chiefly due to the reason that there are incompatibilities in interests and aims of differences and for their removal force or coercion is essential. Here the coercion should not be treated as abductor but liberator.

Coercion liberates individuals from enslavement. Since there is no fixed area of positive and negative liberties there is every possibility of overlapping. In society this overlapping frequently occurs. The distinction between the two is pedantic and psychological. It is the personal preference of the thinker.

Curtailment of Liberty:

Some critics have pertinently asked—Can the number of liberty be expanded and significance of liberty be kept intact? It is a very complex question and cannot be answered directly. Enhancement of the number of liberty is absolutely desirable. But there is a lot of difference between to desire liberty and the translation of desire into reality.

How much liberty a citizen can enjoy depends on the social, economic and political structure of society and, simultaneously, on the persons themselves. The citizens may cherish in mind to enjoy liberty but many hindrances stand on their way and this results in curtailment of liberty.

If we go through the history of Western political thought we shall find that from the middle Ages people are experiencing the curtailment of liberty. In the middle Ages individuals had very little religious freedom. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the rise of absolute monarchy drastically curbed freedom of general public. There were agitations no doubt but the situation did not improve considerably.

The Industrial Revolution of the second-half of the eighteenth century turned the situation to a different direction. The fabulous amount of wealth generated by Industrial Revolution was practically captured by a handful of capitalists leading to the gross inequalities of wealth and income. The number of have-nots began to increase astronomically. The have-nots were deprived of basic requirements of life.

In other words, the economic liberty was enjoyed by few persons and the majority was deprived of it. It is a tragedy that the stalwart liberals stridently advocated for liberty but their arguments were confined within the academic analysis. The result was that there was hardly any perceptible improvement in the condition of liberty.

Two opposite tendencies have developed in nineteenth and twentieth centuries. One is there has arisen an increasing claim for more and more liberty and, on the other hand, different techniques are being devised to corner the future prospects of liberty, specially in its positive sense.

The dominant class and elite groups are active and in various ways— they have established their full control over different branches of state authority. This has mutilated the basic norms of democracy based on liberty. So while we are talking about more and more liberty the tendency is developing in opposite direction. We wish to conclude this point by quoting large passage from Berlin’s book:

“Nor do I wish to deny that the new ways in which liberty, both in its positive and negative sense, can be and has been, curtailed have arisen since the nineteenth century. In an age of expanding economic productivity there exist ways of curtailing both types of liberty—for example—by permitting or promoting a situation in which entire groups and nations are progressively shut off from benefits which have been allowed to accumulate exclusively in the hands of other groups and nations, the rich and strong—a situation which, in turn, has produced … social arrangements that have caused walls to arise around men and doors to be shut to the development of individuals and classes”.

Importance of Political Liberty:

To the bourgeois theoreticians and politicians political liberty is of prime importance. It is because the political liberty means people’s right to pursue their own aims and interests in political field without any apprehension of state interference. The liberalisation of political liberty or its expansion beyond the narrow limits prescribed by some will undoubtedly enable the citizens to pursue their own objectives which will ultimately accelerate the development of society.

It has also been argued that freedom in the political sphere will have a positive impact on the economic sphere. People will get enough opportunities as well as freedom to proceed with their economic functions without any hindrance. The laissez faire doctrine, though primarily based on economic freedom, it does not ignore the political freedom because liberty in political fields will encourage citizens to start new schemes in other fields.

This can be illustrated by the functioning of democracy. Modern political scientists think in these terms. The New Right concept developed in the seventies and eighties of the last century wanted a general shift from the state oriented organisation to market- oriented organisation and this was implemented by Reagan in USA and Margaret Thatcher in Britain.

Robert Nozick also propounded a theory of minimal state. All these reveal that political liberty is to be given maximum importance. Of course arguments against this approach are huge in number. However, the fact is that the forward march of market economy has accompanied with it the political liberty.

Marxist Theory of Liberty:

Part of his Political Philosophy:

Neither Marx nor Engels did build up a separate theory of liberty. Their main interests lay in analysing the capitalist system and for unraveling its true nature they studied history. In the course of discussion they studied the nature of state, functioning of bourgeois democracy, condition of rights and freedoms of common people etc.

Their study of history is based on the materialist outlook and because of this Marx’s analysis is called materialist interpretation of history. Both Marx and Engels made strenuous efforts to show that in capitalist society the entire state structure is controlled by the bourgeois class for its own benefit. All the privileges and wealth are captured by the capitalist.

The capitalist class enjoys all sorts of rights and liberties and the machinery of the state are used by them to safeguard the interests of the ruling class. Naturally what is generally regarded as political concept or theory is merely the products of bourgeois brain. Political theory or any part of it can never be a variant of general capitalist political theory.

Whatever Marx and Engels had said about political theory in general was their reflection about capitalist society in general and political theory of capitalist state in particular. Political theory of capitalist state means political scientists and scholars discussed political concepts in support of capitalism. They have made suggestion, in overt manner, to strengthen the foundation of capitalism.

Marx on Human Nature and Society:

Marx and his followers believed that the aptitudes and attitudes of man are the products of society or social atmosphere, they are not hereditary. The material conditions of society determine the human character and if so if we want to change or remodel the human character, attitudes, aptitudes etc., it is first of all necessary to change the material conditions of society.

The capitalists have built up the structure of society in such a manner that common people or the working class have no scope to enjoy liberty or to exercise rights. Qualities of human beings are not innate and in order to remodel or build them up the whole social structure is to be rebuilt.

In the analysis of a Marxist we find the following obs
ervation: “The individual is the social being. His life, even if it may not appear in the direct form of a communal life carried out together with others—is therefore an expression and confirmation of social life”.

The term ‘individual is the social being’ means that he is an integral part of whole society and his identity cannot be separated from society. The individual develops his personality with the help of opportunities which are opened to him by the society. So if he fails to develop the qualities, it is not his fault, or he is not wholly responsible for it, the structure of the society is to be blamed. It is the society that determines how much liberty individual will enjoy.

Marxist Theory of Liberty is Positive:

The standard definition of negative liberty is its absence of restraints. Hence proper liberty must be free from coercion. But to Marx and many others liberty must be thought not in the negative sense. The Marxist concept of freedom, in larger sense, is heir to wider and richer view stemming from such philosophers as Spinoza (1632-1677).

Rousseau (1712-1778), Kant (1724-1804) and Hegel (1770-1831). All of them held the view that freedom is a way of self determination and development of mental qualities. Marx by freedom did not mean that it was the absence of restrictions. Its main focus is not what the state cannot do, but what it can do and what it must do for the all-round development of human personality.

The Marxists have never propagated the minimal state theory or the less done the better idea. It is the duty of state to do whatever is necessary. The objective of the state functioning should be to raise the development of man to the highest level.

We have already noted that aptitude and other qualities are the products of social system or structure and it is the primary function of state/authority to remodel that structure to the tune of human progress. In this notion of Marx and his followers there is practically no touch of negative outlook towards state. In other words the state must play constructive role in the arena of human development.

The bourgeois thinkers stressed the negative sense of freedom because they believed that too much restrictions would chain the freedom of capitalists and due to that they would not be in a position to exploit and control the society according to their wishes. If the activities of state were not kept at minimum level domination of the bourgeoisie would be drastically curtailed.

The capitalists never thought of liberty for all sections of society but only for the limited few and that is why they linked liberty with the imposition of restrictions. The capitalists also did not support the imposition of restriction still on another ground. They argued that the restrictions were very powerful to curb liberty of individuals. Spontaneity is crushed under the wheels of restrictions. So it is the best way to refrain from imposing restrictions.

It was also the belief that individual is the best judge of his own well-being and development because he is rational. But Marxists do not subscribe to this conception. Some individuals may be quite rational and intelligent but not all. For the upliftment of all individuals it is necessary that the state should play an important role and this approach lays the foundation of positive liberty which has received maximum support from Marx and his followers. So we conclude that in the conception of positive freedom Marx saw a constructive role of state.

Removal of Obstacles and Liberty:

A major part of Marx’s literature deals with the exploitation of working class and emancipation from all sorts of exploitation and in Marxism emancipation is treated as freedom. How could this emancipation be made possible? Marxism believes that only through the removal of obstacles to emancipation attainment of liberty is possible.

Let us see what is stated in the book just referred to: “Marxism involves wider notions of the relevant restrictions and options and of human agency. More specifically Marx and later Marxists tend to see freedom in terms of the removal of obstacles to human emancipation that is to the manifold development of human powers and bringing into being of a form of association worthy of human nature”. Mere realisation of emancipation of human being is not freedom because at any time it may be lost.

The counter-revolutionaries and reactionaries will try to destroy the socialist system and by doing that capitalist system will be able to establish its own hegemony. So to Marxism true liberty means the removal of obstacles to emancipation and only the socialist state can do this. The socialist state will have to play a constructive role.

So in Marxist theory of liberty we find two vital things. One is the issues or problems that jeopardise the emancipation must be mercilessly destroyed or defeated. Secondly, the state along with human agencies and institutions must try to remove them. The obstacles and their removal have been viewed differently in Marxism.

Marxist Freedom is Collective:

The Marxists never consider society as consisting of disparate individuals. All the members of the society are intrinsically related with each other and every society is characterised by interdependence. This is the collective nature of society and, if so, freedom is also collective in nature because the freedom of one individual depends on another individual.

In The German Ideology Marx and Engels have said: “The conditions of their life and labour (life of proletarians) and therewith all the conditions of existence of modern society have become … something over which no social organisation can give them control”.

The physical conditions of society created by the bourgeois class are such that it is not possible for the labouring class to overcome them individually. Only collective action on the part of the proletarians can bring about emancipation. “Overcoming such obstacles is a collective enterprise and freedom as self-determination is collective in the sense that it consists in the socially cooperative and organised imposition of human control over both nature and the social conditions of production”.

Freedom as the product of collective efforts asserts that only collective efforts can remove the impediments to liberty or what Marxists call emancipation. Again, for the development and enjoyment of freedom, cooperation among all the individuals is essential. Here lies the basic difference between capitalist notion of freedom and Marxist notion of freedom.

Marxist Freedom is Economic:

Mention has been made that the bourgeois theoreticians had excessively stressed the political freedom because the realisation of such freedom would materialise the social progress as well as the balanced progress by individual qualities. But coming to Marx we find a different notion.

To the Marxists economic freedom is far more important than political freedom and without the former the latter has practically very little significance. The economic structure of society is to be so constructed as to satisfy the economic and other needs of the people. So long the economic needs remain unfulfilled the political freedom is bound to be nothing. Marx and Engels drew this conclusion on the basis of the knowledge they derived from the thorough study of history.

They have also learnt that the economically powerful class, in manifold ways, controls almost all the agencies of state administration and utilises it for its own benefit! Though the neutrality of the state in between the different conflicting classes has been questioned by many it is a fact that the state generally acts as an instrument of exploitation and sometimes it poses as a neutral political organisation.

S
ince the capitalist class controls both the production and distribution the working class is deprived of economic benefits from production. This makes the proletarians subser­vient to the powerful class. Thus, in a political system where both production and distribution are controlled by capitalists, political freedom of the deprived class is a mockery.

Condition for Freedom:

Marx and Engels were of opinion that without socialisation of production and distribution freedom could not be achieved. But in capitalist system the socialisation of production could not be done. The capitalist would resist it. The socialisation of production and distribution means the dethronement of capitalists from power and authority. In such a situation the only alternative left before the proletarians is to seize political power through revolution.

In this way the capitalist class would be suppressed and that would make way for the Working class to capture power. This is the new society in place of the old bourgeois society. Marx and Engels have stated the matter in The German Ideology. “It is the association of individuals (assuming the advanced stage of modern productive of forces) which puts the conditions of the free development and movement of individuals under their control—the conditions which were previously left to the chance and had acquired an independent existence over against the separate individuals”.

In such an association or community each individual will have the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions. All the members of the community will have abundant opportunities to develop their gifts or inherent qualities. This is the central idea of Marxist concept of liberty. What Marx and Engels have said in the above-noted passage is that for reaching the coveted goal of freedom a new community is essential and the proletarians will build it up by means of revolution.

Assessment:

Marx’s critical analysis of liberty bears the hallmark of capitalist society. He is correct when he says that bourgeois concept of liberty is partial in character. Only a microscopic fraction of capitalist society has the opportunity to enjoy liberty fully. It is also correct that without economic liberty political liberty has no real value.

But unfortunately the bourgeois philosophers have always been found to pay excessive importance to political freedom. This is the most unfortunate aspect of bourgeois theory of liberty. Most of the bourgeois thinkers see justice and worth is the negative freedom. But we, from our practical experience, can say that absence or restraints cannot constitute liberty in real sense. Even Berlin has admitted it in his book Four Essays on Liberty.

The exponents of liberty in the latter decades of the twentieth century find enough reason in the Marxist analysis of freedom. Some of them are Heywood, David Held etc. They believe that both political and economic liberties are required for the proper development of the individual’s inherent qualities. Prof. Laski threw light on this aspect in his many writings in the thirties and forties of the last century.

But Marx’s view on freedom is not above criticism. For the realisation of true freedom Marx suggested (particularly in The German Ideology, it is a joint product of Marx and Engels) that the creation of a new community/association (Marx and Engels have used alternatively) was essential and only proletarian revolution could do it.

We, in this respect, simply hold the view that it is sheer Utopian thought. During the last one century and half nowhere in the globe socalism has been established. Naturally Marxist freedom still remains far and far away.

During the last five or six decades capitalism has undergone sea changes and one such change is it has amended itself remarkably to make it suitable for new society, attitudes and outlooks. We can call it the credit of capitalism. This change has enabled it to meet some of the genuine demands of the working class for which Marx and Engels thought a lot and shed huge tears.

Many of the workers, due to change in policy have raised themselves to the status of white collar employees. Our point is all of them are enjoying sufficient freedom and this they are doing without forming a new association. Marx believed that freedom could be achieved, not in a capitalist society but in a socialist society.

We however, do not agree. It depends, to a large extent, upon the individuals themselves—we cannot say that Englishmen are enjoying less freedom. Who will say that the quantum of liberty enjoyed by Soviet people during the Soviet regime was much larger than the freedom enjoyed by the members of capitalist society?

Upload and Share Your Article:

Main Features of Marxian Theory of Justice!

1. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme Marx makes the following remark. “The emancipation of labour demands the promotion of the instruments of labour to the common property of society and the cooperative regulation of the total labour with a fair distribution of proceeds of labour.” So we can say that the fair distribution of the proceeds constitutes the very foundation of the theory of justice and because of this we can say that Marxian theory of justice is distributive in nature.

Fair distribution is at the same time a claim or right of the labourers because the proceeds are due to their labour and naturally they have legitimate claim to that proceeds and the legitimate claim relates to fair distribution. Thus the legitimate claims and fair distribution are closely connected.

2. Since Marxian theory of justice is distributive it implies that all the benefits and burdens within the society shall be properly distributed among all the members of the society, and no discrimination shall be allowed to rise. Marx calls this fair distribution.

The proceeds of labour belong to all members of the society. To put it in other words fair distribution is a right which all workers can claim. When this right is ignored or not fulfilled then it can be said that in that society justice is not supposed to exists.

3. It we thoroughly study Marxism we shall find that standards of right and justice are internal to the specific modes of production. In The Critique of the Gotha Programme Marx says. “Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby”.

If so we can reasonably say that there is capitalist justice, there is socialist justice etc. Whether such designations really carry any meaning and weight, is a different issue. But in the background of Marxian justice we can say that capitalism views justice from the standpoint of separate perspective.

4. Marx and Engels extensively studied the rise and growth of capitalism and they formed the conclusion that it was out and out unjust because its foundation was exploitation. A system or an economy based or exploitation can never be an abode of justice. He called exploitation not only unfair but also a “robber”. The working class was deprived of its legitimate share of profit or all sorts of benefits.

In capitalism profits and other pecuniary benefits are forcibly gobbled by the capitalists and their henchmen and this finally led the working class to the zenith of impoverishment and deprivation. In such a system there cannot exist justice. In Marx’s account capitalism is the symbol of injustice and the most tragic aspect of capitalism is the capitalists and bourgeois theoreticians call it freedom and perfect democracy.

5. Marx concluded that the abolition of capitalism and establishment of commu­nism can ensure the setting up of justice. One can infer from this statement that Marx was in favour of reformism. That is, he wanted to reform capitalist system for the sake, of justice and other lofty ideals. The exact situation is not so. He believed that not the reforming of capitalist system but its total abolition could bring about justice.

Marx firmly believed that only the abolition of capitalism can ensure the advent of justice. Compromise and adjustment have no role to play in the attainment of justice. Marx believed that without total revolution the wrongs and injustices of the capitalist system could not be done away with.

After the revolution a new society would be set up whose leitmotif would be to set up justice through the distribution of all goods and services. Thus we can say that Marx prescribed a new model of justice for a society created after the abolition of capitalism. Here it is clear that Marxian justice and capitalist justice are not of the same category.

6. Though Marx was not a moral philosopher or a devout advocate of ethics in the strictest sense of the term his concept of justice is not completely divorced from these two ideas. Let us explain it briefly.

It is moral and unethical to deprive a person or group of persons of their legitimate share in wealth, income, commodities and other forms of services. But capitalist system of economy had been doing this (depriving the working class of its due share) with the help of the three arms of state that is executive arm, legislative arm and military and police arm. So Marx and his followers wanted to establish a justice which would be moral and at the same time ethical.

7. It has been maintained by some especially Norman Barry that Marx had two concepts of justice-one for socialist society and the other for communist society and he made this mention in The Critique of the Gotha Programme. We may call one as socialist justice and the other communist justice.

Critics may raise question in regard to this classification because Marx makes no attempt to classify justice in this way. 

8. The basic characteristic of the socialist justice or the justice of socialist society is the ownership of the means of production and exploitation have been abolished and the distributive justice will commence its new journey. The worker will receive in proportion to what he produces. In other words, the remuneration will be in commensurate with his labour or contribution to production.

The abolition of ownership and exploitation will lead to the general ownership of the whole society and the workers will be the owners of the sources of production. The establishment of socialism, we come to know from Marx’s analysis, will augur a new type of justice basically different from capitalist form of justice.

Summarising Marxian concept of justice that prevails in socialism Norman Barry maintains: “Nevertheless, some inequality will persist since people’s labour contributions will vary according to their talents and many of the objectionable features of a money economy will remain”. In socialist society full form of justice will not find its implementation and Marx has admitted that it is inevitable because in socialism there shall exist some remnants of capitalism.

9. In communist society the distributive justice assumes different form and this has been stated by Marx in The Critique of Gotha Programme. “In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordinating of individual to the division of labour and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished after labour has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all round development of the individual and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly—only then the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and the society inscribe on its banners, from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” (Italics added).

The last sentence is of prime importance. Marx has said that the reward of a man’s share in wealth of society will not be in accordance with his contribution to the generation of wealth but with the special needs that each individual requires in order to maintain his physical existence and the development of mental qualities. Stated briefly, the reward an individuals will claim will be determined by the needs not what he contributes to the society.

In the first stage of the communist society which Lenin calls socialist society the reward shall be in proportion to labour or contribution? It is now quite clear that in Marx’s account there are two categories of justice—one is justice for a socialist society and the other for communist society. But both types of justice are distributive.

10. The nature of distributive justice in communism is, strictly speaking, Utopian. When will such a stage of distributive justice arrive? Though from the literature of Marx and Engels no definite clue can be discovered, it can be surmised that in a s
ociety characterised by opulence or abundance distributive justice imagined by Marx can exist. But such a condition is simply an imagination. It is nothing but Utopian.

It is utopian in an, other sense also. There shall arrive a sea change in the mental world of individuals who will be motivated to work selflessly without considering the reward or their share in the whole production. Only a man with missionary zeal will work more and receive less.

Such an individual will always give priority to the realisation of social welfare and social justice. He will think that doing more and getting less are reward for him because his needs are less than those who are doing less. Viewed from idealistic standpoint this will positively lead to the establishment of social justice and distributive justice.

11. Marx’s theory of distributive justice highlights another interesting aspect. This implies that benefits and burdens are to be properly divided and in capitalism this does not happen. Did he condemn capitalism on this ground? Many interpret Marx’s theory of justice in the light of moral positivism.

Barry says: “Those who interpret Marx as a moral positivist would maintain that it was not his intention to evaluate capitalist society by these conceptions since a different morality applies to that order”. The concept of justice is to be explained in the background of particular form of society and naturally justice in a capitalist society will differ from that of socialist society.

One cannot think about capitalist society without exploitation because of the fact that exploitation is an integral part of capitalist society. So if workers are exploited by capitalist that cannot be treated as injustice.

Similarly “his insistence in Capital that the wage relation as an exchange of equivalent values (labour power for the wages) involves no injustice to the worker”. Marx viewed justice for different economic and political background and this can be exemplified by his insistence on two types of justice—one for socialism and the other for communism.

12. A thorough study of Marx’s vast works reveals that he vehemently opposed the capitalist system with all its manifestations and naturally it can never be correct to hold that capitalism can have justice.

The worker sells his labour power to the owner of capital and by appropriating it he bags profit and surplus value. But he deprives the worker of this knowing fully well that the labourer is legally entitled to a major part of this surplus value. So this type of exploitation is the source of injustice and on this ground can it be justified.

Capitalism can, therefore, be condemned because, of its tendency to inflict injustice on workers. What is obvious here is that Marx viewed the concept of justice as it prevails in capitalist society has been modelled in separate background and philosophy. He could not agree with capitalist system.

13. The defenders of capitalism have argued that in such a system the workers get their wage or remuneration what is actually their due because wage of the labourer or the price of the commodity is determined on the basis of the operation of market forces that is demand and supply. The free operation of the market forces is the indicator of justice. But Marx and his followers have refused to swallow this argument.

Market forces are very often manipulated by the capitalists and this manipulation is most of the time done in favour of the capitalists and the unfortunate workers are always on the losers’ side. Capitalism is never a sacrosanct system. Nor are the capitalist’s caesar’s wife. The claim of the capitalists that free market is the guarantor of distributive justice is full of hollowness. Marx was also never satisfied with the so- called free operation of capitalism.

14. Capitalism dehumanises the humanity or it destroys the good qualities of human beings. A large number of interpreters of Marxism especially Kolakowski in his Main Currents of Marxism have discussed this. A dehumanising system cannot be a provider of justice. Man is crushed by the stringent economic laws and cruel behaviour of the capitalists.

The good qualities of the workers are nipped in the bud and they do not get the congenial atmosphere to blossom or to develop them. “Its most significant injustice is that it directs production for profit and not for the satisfaction of genuine human needs”.

Upload and Share Your Article: