Category: Political Science Notes

Decision-Making:

In Public Administration:

The decision-making as a process of administration has a wide range of application mainly in public administration and at the beginning of the fifties of last century it came to the limelight. Behind this the work of a celebrity of public administration was active and he was H. A. Simon. His renowned work—Administrative Behaviour; A Study of Decision-Making Process in Administrative Organisation was published in 1948.

Herbert Simon divided the concept into two main parts—one is decision— being arrived at and process of action. Mere making of decision is not enough and therefore its implementation. So both these sections are interconnected and impor­tant. Herbert Simon once said: a theory of administration should be concerned with the processes of decision as well as the processes of action. Simon pointed out that for the proper management of an organisation a policy of comprehensive in nature is required to be adopted.

So decision-making is a very important part of an organisation. Herbert Simon, in fact, is the pioneer in the field of decision-making concept because he felt that if decision were not taken properly and timely that may spoil the objective of the business organisation and keeping this in mind it is essential that an organisation will resort to utmost caution as to the adoption of decision and at the same time will focus on the implementation of the decision. So both taking and implementing decision are important.

Definition:

“Decision-making is usually defined as a process or sequence of activities involving stages of problem recognition, search for information, definition of alternatives and the selection of an actor of one from two or more alternatives consistent with the ranked preferences”.

Definition offered by the C.O.D. is, the mathematical study of strategies for optimal decision-making between options involving different risks or expectations of gain or loss depending on the outcome.

Decision making theory is a theory of how rational individuals should behave under risk and uncertainty. It uses a set of axioms about how rational individuals behave which has been widely challenged on both empirical and theoretical ground.

This definition has been offered by the author of an article published in Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics. The author emphasises on the rationality of individuals and at the same time how they should behave.

So we can say that decision-making denotes the formulation of general policy for the management of an organisation which may be business organisation or admin­istrative organisation. The point to note is that the nature and implementation of decision-making may be different in both places but it remains that in every case the importance of decision-making remains intact. To sum up, the decision-making means the adoption and application of rational choice for the management of private, business or governmental organisation in an efficient manner.

Nature:

If we go through the numerous stages of decision-making and the implementation of the decision we shall find that it has certain features, some of which are briefly stated:

1. In one of his writings Herbert Simon has said that decision or decision making “is a matter of compromise”. Why it is called so? There are number of alternatives, before a policy/decision maker and while making decision he is to select one or more alternatives which will be suitable for him or which will serve his purpose.

While pursuing this policy or technique the decision-maker is forced to make compromises and the main aim of compromise is to fulfill the objective of the organisation or management. The compromise becomes inevitable on another ground. The policy maker must see that the policy is not divorced from real situation and the real situation chiefly relates to the declared policy of the management or government organ.

An abstract policy adopted with a lot of fanfare may not come to the benefit of the government department. So whenever the state authority adopts any policy or takes a decision it must see that conflict between the authority and policy will not arise. That is why it has been found that the policy maker is compelled to make compromises and modifications of approaches and policies or decisions.

2. There must be rationality in decision making process. We have just now pointed out that compromise and decision making both is linked with each other. The policy maker makes compromises on the ground that this policy/decision will be a realistic one. Similarly, while a decision is being made the decision maker must demonstrate utmost rationality.

He must consider all the aspects of policy such as elements entering into the policy making process, implication of implementation or feasibility of application etc. While the decision-maker considers actively all these aspects it will be found that he is rational. A decision should be both subjectively and objectively rational.

A decision would be “objectively” rational if it maximised the given values in a given situation, “subjectively” rational if it maximised attainment relative to the actual knowledge of the subject.

3. An important characteristic of decision-making is that it is never a product of a single man. It does not originate from a single brain; it is always the product of several men or brains who work together. In any governmental organisation several bureaucrats or officers work together and after considering all the aspects a decision is taken.

Different agencies or organisations or institutions overtly or covertly participate in the decision-making process. As for example, in liberal democracies pressure groups, political parties and various non-governmental organisations partici­pate, though not in a formal way, in the decision-making activities.

This is because the liberal democracies treat all these as part of the political system and since the decision of the government affects all, their opinion should form a part of the decision making process. Even in autocracies the decision can reasonably be called the outcome of joint ventures. Different persons act as advisers to the autocrat and their suggestions influence the decision-making.

4. Decision-making does not relate to one issue or question but to a number of issues.

Some of the categories of decision have been identified by Wasby:

(a) Who made the decision?

(b) What was the decision?

(c) When was the decision made?

(d) How was the decision made?

(e) Where was the decision made?

(f) What were the characteristics of the decision situation?

(g) To what class or subclass of decisions does the decision belong?

(h) Why was the decision made?

Whenever a department or an agency of a government takes any decision or decides to take a decision that automatically comes into any one of the above noted categories. The decisions are never taken in vacuum. The decisions are made to serve definite purposes/purpose. We have already noted that behind every decision there must be rationality of the decision maker and there is no place of idiosyncrasy.

5. Experts of public administration and governmental organisations are of opinion that though rationality is the predominant determiner of decision-making process very often irrationality or partiality enters into decision making process and it is believed that this is inevitable in a democratic set up. Even in non-democratic systems irrationality becomes the focusing point of decision.

For example, the government is forced, (because of political consideration) to give priority to an irrational demand of a section of the community. But generally speaking this type of irrationality does
not become the common feature. However, this sort of occurrence is unavoidable.

6. It has been observed by many scholars that irrationality and rationality conception gives birth to a lot of confusion because the policy maker is chiefly motivated by real situation which sometimes gives no credence to rationality. In other words, conflict arises between rationality and reality or the general welfare of the bodypolitic. The policy maker firmly believes that if rationality is given priority that may jeopardies the prospect of welfare principle and in that situation the policy maker may be compelled to give his preference for the general welfare consideration. So the dichotomisation between rationality and irrationality may appear irrelevant.

However, this issue should not blur the conceptualization of rationality idea because in special circumstances the rationality principle may be neglected but this should never be the general principle. If rationality is not given due importance the decision-making process and the objective of public utility concerns will be adversely affected.

Decision-Making and Pure Science of Politics:

It has been claimed by many, specifically by Robert Dahl (Modern Political Analysis, Fifth edition) that decision-making processes constitute the pure science of politics. Now, the question is what is meant by pure science of politics? Dahl says that in earlier time’s pure science of politics denoted evaluation and normative analysis of politics because in those days’ normative approaches to the study of politics was considered scientific political phenomena and concepts were evaluated in the background of norms or normative values and the norms which could win the test were considered scientific.

But this outlook underwent sea changes in course of time and political scientists began to show indifference to normative aspects of political science. Modern approach such as behaviouralism of Easton or structural-functionalism of Almond heavily relied upon empirical analysis and the decision-making theory could not keep itself away from this type of approach. For arriving at decision, it was thought, facts, data, information etc. are essential as well as their interpretation and application appeared to be a must.

Robert Dahl says: “the term ‘science’ has increasingly come to mean an empirical science of politics. According to this view, ah empirical science of politics would be concerned exclusively with the validity of the factual or empirical elements”. The implication of this contention is that without the help of data, facts and information the policy maker cannot make any decision. Rationality along with the data is the most important element of decision­-making process.

In order to arrive at an acceptable and viable decision the application of rationality is not all, in order to be the decision rational empirical analysis is also essential which demands that the policy maker must test his decision empirically. Here several conceptual processes are mingled together. For example, decision-making process is inextricably associated with rationality, empiricism, application of other scientific methods.

The amalgamation of all these methods or streams of analysis has become inevitable because of the fact that decision-making, nowadays, is increasingly being considered very important part of the management of government business.

Naturally it is asserted that decision, as far as practicable, should be rational and scientific. That is why it has been found that the decision maker of the present epoch has become dependent on the empirical data and scientific methods.

Advent of scientific methods has become crucial because of the reason that modern age and the management of governmental agencies is becoming complex and in such circumstances speculation and inept handling will make any decision inchoate.

The interference of the scientific methods thus seems to be ineluctable. Application of sophisticated technology in management and globalisation has not adversely affected the importance of management in organisation. Rather all these have made management and politics more scientific.

Snyder’s Theory of Decision-Making:

Central Idea of Snyder:

The post-Second World War period witnessed a revolution in the thought system of political science. We have already touched behaviouralism, structural-functionalism communications theory etc. Now we shall focus our attention on Snyder’s approach to the study of political science which is commonly known as decision-making theory or approach to the study of politics.

From the mid-fifties to the end of fifties Richard Snyder published a series of writings whose chief objective was to propagate the importance of decision-making approach.

His decision-making theory can be ex­plained in the form of following points:

1. We know that the general systems theory of David Easton and the structural- functional approach of Gabriel Almond and other related theories are more or less static in nature which means that all these theories deal with those elements that are static. But Snyder’s point of view is that society is not only complex but also dynamic.

If so the real approach to the study of politics would be to conceptualise the analysis so that it can cope with dynamic aspects of society or the changes that are taking place very frequently. Snyder, therefore, claims that his decision-making approach is dynamic. While the decision makers make decision they consider all the (or most of the) situations. If they fail to do this the decision will not achieve acceptability and credibility.

2. It has been observed by Snyder that the decision-making process has been playing a very crucial part in the administration of any business organisation or governmental department. But it is unfortunate that none took care of analysing the concept in details. Only in the fifties of the last century two persons, Herbert Simon and C.I. Bernard dealt with the decision-making concept.

Simon’s Models of Man and Bernard’s The Function of the Executive were published in 1957 and 1958 respectively. Snyder draws our attention to two important points. One is decision-making plays so important a role in any business organisation and governmental department that it cannot be neglected at all. Secondly, if so a comprehensive theory based on empiricism and scientific methods is to be built up. It is interesting to note that Snyder, Simon and Bernard are contemporary.

Snyder says that it is essential to go through the processes of the decision making, what factors are involved in this process, to analyse the decision, their impact upon the society. If we treat the subject in this way we shall find that the concept has dynamised the political system and processes of analysing political phenomena.

3. We know that in liberal democratic systems various groups, political parties and non-governmental organisations play important role in the administration. Decision-making process includes all of them (or most of them) into the orbit of analysis.

Why Decision-Making?

1. Richard Snyder has maintained that in every society there is political action and behind every action there is the role of human activity. Again human action relates to policy decision. How the society is to be managed or governmental department is to be administered all is related to the decision taken by human beings.

That is the policy/decision is the dynamic force of action. Therefore, in order to study the society or the management of department it is necessary to analyse all the aspects of policy-making.

2. Analysis of policy-making processes also helps us to acquire a comprehensive knowledge about the dynamics of soc
iety. Knowledge about dynamics of society is required for the formulation of future policy. Society is always changing and naturally today’s policy may be irrelevant for future.

So it is very important for the formulation of a policy for future generation. If we stop our activity, society or its advancement will come to a halt.

3. Different elements such as human beings, economic factors, political phenom­ena, governmental departments, different institutions, organisations, groups etc. are actively or inactively involved in the social activities. But for a comprehensive social management a composite decision must be made and this cannot be done with the formulation of decision. Situations, factors, elements, processes, persons all are to be brought under an umbrella and this is decision.

Factors Influencing Decision-making:

Decision-making differs from society to society. A decision suitable for a developed, industrialised and highly educated society may not be equally suitable for a very backward agricultural society or a tribal area. For this situation the decision or the decision-making process is not at all responsible. A decision is made not for the decision itself but for the inhabitants of society.

Naturally the crux of the issue is how to be aware of the situation or material environment suitable for decision making and the chief exponent of the concept was aware of it’. Snyder has said that there are mainly three factors which in one way or other influence the decision-making process.

Broadly, they are three in number:

1. The first is internal setting of the society:

Internal setting includes many elements some of which are:

The nature and functioning of the social organisation such as political parties, pressure groups, non-governmental organisations, public opinion, agencies helping the formation of public opinion, nature of the political system etc. All these elements enter into the domain of decision-making process. In a democratic society social, political and other types of organisations enjoy freedom in their day to day activities.

A good rapport exists between the authority on the one hand and numerous organisations on the other hand. But in an autocratic regime such a situation cannot be thought. Naturally the content and type of decision in both regimes need not be identical. Again, the process of socialisation in all systems is not same. When the policy maker proceeds to decide a policy it is his duty to bring all these factors into his active consideration.

Especially the socialisation has an important part in the entire process. This is due to the fact that for an effective decision cooperation between the decision-makers and common people is necessary. Cooperation means people’s participation. Again, for the implementation of decision people’s cooperation is also required. All these are made easy by a high degree of socialisation.

2. There is external set up or setting. This condition is especially important for the policy maker who makes decisions for the external relations of the state. It is known to all the students of international politics that today the term international society has earned wide publicity and all the nation-states are the members of this society.

When the decision-maker of a state makes a policy/decision he must be aware of the fact that his decision must be in conformity with the policies and objectives of other nations and this should not lead to conflict among nations. If this were the objective of the decision-maker he cannot make policy according to his personal preferences or sweet will.

Moreover, in this age of globalisation the nation-states have come closer to each other and the interdependence among them has surpassed all the past records. It is absolutely unimaginable for a state; whatever may the extent of power (in military sense) and wealth be, to decide alone, to go alone and to live alone.

So, while making any policy, it is obligatory on the part of every state to think deeply about the impact of its policy upon other states. A failure in this respect will invite complexities and animosity among the states. It is generally observed that in the present day world system domestic policy cannot be separated from world politics and a policy maker must keep this in mind.

3. The decision-making is a process and passes through a number of stages. Many persons organisations, institutions etc. are involved in the decision-making process and even an ordinary decision cannot be taken abruptly. Serious and considerable thought is invested for a proper decision.

Snyder says that the communication and information network is closely associated with the decision-making process. Because for a decision various information and data are necessary and this can be provided by an efficient communication network. The psychological factor is also involved in the formulation of a policy.

For what purpose the authority is going to formulate a decision which means the motive of the policy maker. When all the materials are at the disposal of the policy maker he starts to formulate a policy. Moreover, there are different structures of a political system and these structures have their allotted functions.

The purpose of policy making is to embrace all these structures and their functions. Not only this, the purpose of all decisions is to make suitable all the structures and their functions for changed situations.

If so the decision-maker must see that the structures and organisations are doing their duties and he must consider what changes are required (if changes are at all necessary) to bring about improvement upon the organisational and functional aspects of political and other institutions. Viewed in this light Snyder claims that his approach may be applied in political science in general.

Decision-Making Theories:

New Tendency:

Before the end of the 1950s an elaborate idea about decision-making theory was built up by many and among them the most prominent figures, were Richard Snyder, Chester Barnard and Herbert Simon. The last two scholars developed a theory mainly for the public administration. Richard Snyder was interested in domestic and international politics and he applied his model in these two segments of political science.

But there is an overlapping of decision making process so far as public administration and political science are concerned. Some of the concepts of decision making meant for the public administration have also their strong bearing in political science. However, the central idea formulated and developed in the fifties continued to spread its wings and influence even in the seventies and early eighties.

Following is the remark of a well-known author: “Indeed during the 1960s and 1970s a distinctive area of study, policy analysis was developed. This set out to examine how policy was initiated, formulated and implemented and how the policy process could be improved”.

We call it a new tendency because interest about decision-making had already emerged in the mid-fifties but in the sixties arid seventies separate areas for the study of decision-making were selected and scholars devoted more time and intellect for the proliferation of the concept. Several factors contributed to the emergence of decision-making theory and the most important of them is the strong urge to verify the concept with the help of data and scientific principles.

Kinds of Theories:

Decisions are quite common to all forms of political systems such as authoritarian structures, democratic set up, totalitarian regimes. The management of a government department, the administration of private organisation and even a philanthropic association require decision and not one decision but a bundle
of decisions.

But the making of decision is not all, the implementation, revision and other aspects are also equally important.

Considering all these some have divided the decision-making process into several models and these may be stated in the following ways:

Rational actor model, Incremental model, Bureaucratic organisation model and Belief system model.

Rational Actor Model:

The basic idea of the rational actor model is derived from economic theory and utilitarianism. The core concept of the theory is based on the idea of “Economic man” who takes all sorts of decision on the basis of rationality and utility.

The economic man or the rational man decides to pursue a particular process which thinks in his judgment rational and which will ensure maximum utility. So rationality and utility are the two important criteria that lie at the heart of decision-making process.

While the decision is going to be made the following procedures are strictly adhered to:

(1) The issue or area is identified on which the policy is to be made.

(2) The objective of the policy is decided: The policy maker decides for what purpose the policy is going to be made.

(3) Materials or means are to be collected for making a policy.

(4) It may be that all the means or materials could not be used and then in that case the decision-maker selects only the relevant materials.

It is clear from the above analysis that the two criteria are active in the entire process of decision-making—rationality and utility. Keeping these two criteria in mind the policy-maker proceeds and proceeds very cautiously. He does not leave anything to chance. He wants to maximise the utility from the policy he is going to make.

Rational actor model may reasonably be compared with a well-known concept of economics or business management, and it is cost-benefit approach which denotes that when a businessman decides to adopt a policy he will see first of all how much cost he will have to incur for the implementation of the policy and then how much benefit he expects to receive.

Policy-makers and politicians fall under this category because of the accountability. They think that if the policy does not generate expected benefits or results they are not supposed to implement or take any decision. A decision must always be goal or benefit oriented. Borrowing from economists the political scientists have applied the rational actor model in political science for the purpose of making decision and it received forthwith admiration from many corners.

Incremental Model:

There is a second theory which is called incremental model. For a perfect and bold decision it is necessary that facts and information must be correct and impartial. But in practice this situation hardly prevails. The consequence is the policy/decision becomes faulty. Because of this drawback the decision-makers are not interested in making one time policy.

They feel that policies are to be formulated in such a way that there will be enough scope of review and change when ever required. This creates a scope for a new model labelled as incrementalism.

Stated briefly, the model is: “Policy-making is therefore a continuous, exploratory process, lacking overriding goals and clear cut ends, policy-makers tend to operate within an existing pattern or framework adjusting their position in the light of feedback in the form of information about the impact of earlier decisions.”

What transpires from the above analysis is the decision maker adopts a tendency of evasion. He wants to avoid or evade problem or uncertainty and for that reason he decides to follow a policy of incrementalism. Policy is not prepared once for all, rather it is made step by step and the decision-maker proceeds stage by stage. In such an approach there is great importance of flexibility in the policy formulation.

The policy-maker knows that a policy cannot be made once for all. Situation and circumstances change very frequently and the policy maker must amend policy other-wise it will not be able to serve the purpose. For this particular reason the exponents (particularly C. E. Lindblom) have propounded a thesis that it is a continuous process.

In the same line of thought another observer points out: “Policy is not made once for all, it is made and remade endlessly. Policy making is a process of successive approximation to some desired objectives”. If circumstances demand any change or reconsideration of policy, the decision maker takes steps in that direction.

The administrator or the policy-maker uses the past experience while making policy and he moves very cautiously. His movement comprises also very small steps. He avoids big jumps that would go beyond current knowledge. The decision-maker, of course, makes prediction but that is based on past experience. The decision-maker avoids radical change in any policy formulation his technique is incremental change or successive change.

Incrementalism also envisages, at limited scale, comparison of satisfactory results. If the consequence of the implementation of policy are satisfactory the decision-maker will make next step. Lindblom, the chief exponent of incrementalism, has said that in this approach of decision making there is very little scope of change, mistake and miscarriage of any policy because the policy maker refrains himself from taking any type of risk.

His past experience is his best guide. Moreover, there is ample scope of modification. We, therefore, see that in this model of decision­-making, policy-makers are not inclined in making policy at one stroke. He proceeds step by step and also is very cautious, and in the process he amends and changes earlier policy.

Bureaucratic Organisation Model:

We shall now deal with a model which was framed in the background of Cuban Missile crisis in 1962 and the model was championed by Graham Allison in 1971. We have already noted that the bureaucratic structure or the political organisation of political system have positive influence on the policy making processes.

It is believed that the large political and other organisations have their own values, ideas and long cherished and well guarded inclinations. All these create definite impact upon the decision-making processes. Hence, while decision is being made, the organisational process cannot be neglected.

In all political systems bureaucrats play a crucial role in the various stages of the formulation of decision. The head of the state, Prime Minister, Foreign Minister etc. have a role no doubt but the real and important role is generally played by the bureaucrats. However, the structure and the extent of influence of bureaucrats in all political systems are not identical everywhere.

The bureaucrats and related agencies have their own outlook, values and assessment about incidents and when policy making process starts the top government officers and allied agencies release their efforts to guide the formulation of policies in the light they cherish. In fact, the liberal democratic system state does not play an overriding role.

The state as state exists and it guides, but it is not the final voice on any national and international issue, organisational structure and bureaucracy are deciding factors. The exponents of the model believe that though the ministers have a positive role in the policy-making process, the actual function is performed by bureaucrats and it is held that during the Cuban crisis this came to limelight. The heads of the states had a role but more important role was played by bureaucrats.

Belief System Model:

Generally there is a belief system which can be termed as ideology or deep-rooted belief. Some scholars are of opinion that in the arena of decision-making beliefs or ideologies have a very important influence. Here crops up a confusion. If the decision-­makers are rational it will be supposed that they are not to b
e influenced by beliefs and ideology. But this argument does not stand the test of reality.

If the belief or attachment to ideology is pervasive, or firm the decision-maker may temporarily give priority to ideology or belief. The policy makers of a communist country will not formulate such a policy as will violate basic principles of communism although rationality demands the violation.

Two examples may be cited. In 1956, Britain, USA and France launched a combined attack against General Nasser, the President of Egypt, on the issue of the nationalisation of Suez Canal. Nasser wanted fund from USA and Britain for the construction of Aswan Dam on the river Nile.

First these two powers agreed and subsequently when they refused Nasser got assurance from the then USSR and this infuriated the two big powers and they attacked Nasser. Here the anti-communist feeling worked. The Cuban Missile Crisis is also the consequence of the same belief.

Fidel Castro, the President of Cuba, got economic and military assistance from communist Russia which was against American interest. These two are the handiwork of anti- communist feeling and policy makers made it a part of their policy/decision.

Stages of Decision-Making:

We shall now deal with a very important and interesting aspect of decision-making and it is various stages of decision-making. The decision-making can be divided into several stages. For example, at the very rudimentary stage it is to be decided that time is quite ripe for taking a decision because a problem has arisen and in order to cope with it a decision is to be adopted. Again the problem is not to be allowed to aggravate.

Taking of a decision is not all it is to be properly formulated. Then the issues of implementation and evaluation arise. Researchers have divided all these into four different categories which are: Policy initiation, policy formulation, policy implementation and policy evaluation.

Policy Initiation:

Policy initiation is the crucial stage of decision-making. A policy is initiated, generally, in the background of problems or critical issues. As for instance, there is pollution of different types and their harmfulness is quite known to all. But policies are not taken as soon as problems arise and this generally happens. There is a gap between the emergence of problem and the taking of a decision or clusters of decisions.

The problem of pollution started to arise in the fifties and sixties and the authorities began to think about it in the eighties. Similarly, there are the problems of unemployment and terrorist activities which are particularly crucial in some parts of the globe. Though the problems are quite old taking of action had actually started in the last decade of the twentieth century. This we call policy initiation.

Policy may originate from two sources. The first is the government or the authority of the political system can take action. This may be called policy from the above. In democracy very often the political parties, pressure groups, public opinion, mass media, political agitation etc. create pressure on the authority to take a decision in order to give relief to the people or to meet their demands. The authority knows that if demands are not met that will open the door to complications.

Number of factors play important role in the initiation of decisions. Some of them are stated briefly. Scholars, writers and academics are very important factors. These persons are not directly associated with the political activities and government but their writings and opinions initiate the decision-making process. J. M. Keynes, observations influenced the British government to adopt anti-unemployment mea­sures.

Similarly, many liberal thinkers expressed their anti-state views in unequivocal terms. However, the chief originators or initiators of decisions are government, parties, groups, ‘people themselves. People sometime create such situation or events that force the government to take policy on the eve of election parties declare schemes through manifestos and after victory implement them.

Formulation of Decision:

Once it has been decided that in order to cope with the situation or problem a decision is to be prepared, policy-makers then proceed to adopt decision and this is called policy/decision formulation which is the second stage. Making of decision is also highly complex because the persons associated with this task cannot do the job at a stroke.

Various proposals and alternatives are placed before the policy-makers and they are to select only the necessary ones. This is a tough job because the quality and efficacy of the decision depends to a large extent on the elements with the help of which it has been made. Again the policy/decision-making is a composite which means number of persons is involved in the preparation. Differences of opinion there may be and these must be settled before a policy is finally made.

Policy formulation also has a stage. The policy must be stated in clear terms and the objectives shall be stated clearly. It is the duty of the decision-makers to say that the decision has been formulated in the background of certain problems and issues and it is designed to perform such and such tasks.

In the decision it will also be stated that priority to some issues has been given. A decision is not a permanent matter, with the change of time and circumstances the policy must be able to adjust and there shall be provisions.

There is another aspect of policy formulation. A policy may be formulated on the basis of consultation which means that only few decision-makers are not involved in the formulation works. They do the job in deep consultation with others who are supposed to be associated with it.

Sometimes we see that few persons formulate a policy without taking into consideration of others’ views and finally it is imposed on others. The former can conveniently be called democratic procedure and the latter an autocratic method.

The formulation of policy may aim either at short-term or long-term objectives. Whatever be the case the formulators must proceed taking into consideration of the nature of the objectives. It has been found that the nature of policy depends on the attitude, outlook and belief of the persons who provides the leadership in the formulation. Margaret Thatcher was the P.M. of Britain during the period 1979-1990.

She formulated a number of policies whose core elements constitute deregulation and privatization combined with authoritarian social policy. In economic and social policies she wanted to reduce the importance and role of the state but once the state has adopted a policy of privatization that must be implemented by it with authoritarian power.

The Marxists also formulate policy for radical changes of society. But the final decision is taken by few top brass of party or bureaucracy. Even in the USA, top industrialists are found taking important part in the policy formulation.

Implementation of Policy:

Implementation of decision is the third stage of policy. In conventional analysis there is a dichotomy between policy-making and policy implementation. The political leaders or the government formulate decision and then it is left for the bureaucrats to implement it. In this way there is a clear dichotomy between formulation and implementation. But in recent analysis this dichotomy has been kept aside.

The formulators of the decision decide the aspects of implementation. They will not formulate such policies as well face problems in the period of implementation. If the formulators could not predict these problems implementation will face not only troubles, the very objective will remain unrealized. In a democratic state if the persons in charge of implementation do not do the job
properly the political leaders must be prepared to give explanations to the electorate.

There is another aspect of implementation. Once a decision has been implemented the formulators will have to study the impact of the decision. This is necessary because of the reason that if the policy fails to reach the goal its revision or reformulation will be required. Of course, hundred percent successes in implementation can never be expected.

But there is moderate range and if it is not achieved the persons will review the policy. So we find that implementation of policy is a stage which can warn the formulators. In democratic systems the impact of the implementation of policy is highly considered because the persons want to know the effects of policy. This they did taking account of the forth-coming elections.

Evaluation:

The final stage of the decision-making process is the evaluation. The policy makers or the authority after the implementation sits to ponder over the pros and cons of the policy. The chief objective is to study the success and failure of the policy.

This is called evaluation. On what basis the authority starts to evaluate the decision which has been implemented? It collects facts, data or information about the decision and on the basis of all these the evaluation task is done. Needless to say that here, the communication network function and the political system fully utilises this for its purpose. What are the consequences of evaluation?

(1) If the activities of the decision are fully unsatisfactory that is the decision has squarely failed then the authority/policy makers may think of abandoning the policy. Of course this is not a very usual procedure because if the decisions were made after applying a good deal of rationality the question of abandoning it does not arise. If it is abandoned a new policy is being imitated to replace the old one.

(2) If the decision is partly successful, the decision-makers start to investigate the causes of such results and if they feel that there are reasonable grounds of partial success and partial failure, then in that situation they seriously think about revising the decision keeping the causes of failure in mind.

(3) In the cases of complete and partial failure the authority orders a thorough enquiry. It wants to know whether the decision itself is defective or ill-timed or in­appropriate.

(4) If the cause of the failure is the defective or ineffective communication net­work, then the policy makers will make an attempt to rectify the communication system.

(5) The failure may be caused by the people’s unwillingness to accept the decision. If the people feel that the decision implemented by the political authority of the state cannot meet their needs, they will not co-operate with the authority in this regard. Or the people may object to the policy or ideological or political grounds the implementation may cause problems.

(6) The success of a policy/decision largely depends upon people’s acceptability and this again depends on the answer to the question—who gets? What? And at what cost? In the operative aspects of the decision this questions are of vital importance.

If a policy is rejected root and branch, a new policy is initiated by the authority and the stages start anew. A decision is initiated, formulated, implemented and finally evaluated. One point is the whole process of decision making along with its implementation are very complex and almost all the segments of society are interlinked with each other. In democracy there is no question of imposing a decision on the public. People always view decision from the standpoint of teleology.

General Assessment:

1. There is a large proliferation of the decision-making theory. There is a decision­-making approach in business organisation. For the satisfactory management and administration of the big business organisation, decision-making process is being structured and it is periodically assessed and amended to suit the needs of time and attitude of society, people etc. Again there is a decision-making approach for domestic politics.

The bureaucrats and other policy makers formulate policies for agencies and various governmental departments. Thirdly, there is a decision-making approach for international politics. So these are the three different approaches. Andrew Heywood suggests four different models viz. Rational actor model, Incremental model, Bureau­cratic organisation model and Belief system model.

All these models suggested by Heywood have viewed decision-making theory from their respective standpoints. It is generally believed that all these models unnecessarily create confusion in the minds of readers. -We can ask what is the exact approach to the study of decision-making approach?

2. Critics have raised objection about the too much emphasis on rationality. The term rationality is associated with the concept of economic man who seeks to take a venture in the business world on the basis of cost-benefit calculation.

The critics observe that what holds good for one discipline may not hold good for another discipline. Rational economic man and rational policy-maker are not same or identical persons. The approaches of both are likely to differ and to produce different results. Hence the application of rationality with same context may raise eyebrows.

3. The application of rationality raises question. For examples, it means the decision maker very carefully proceeds while he decides to take an action or announce a policy. He weighs all the aspects and sides of any venture. This is rationality. Secondly, he analyses and judges all the alternatives and their advantages and disadvantages. Thirdly, after considering everything he takes a decision. This is called rationality.

But critics argue that this is the extreme manifestation of rationality and it is too difficult to apply in reality. Situation, alternatives, circumstances etc. are subject to change and in that case the concept of rationality will prove futile.

4. Some critics are of opinion that too much dependence on alternatives and numerous other considerations are not the suitable way of framing decisions. This excessive dependence is the manifestation of irrationality.

The decision-maker will definitely weigh the pros and cons of all alternatives and factors but, in ultimate analysis he will have to take a final decision. This will reveal his intelligence, acumen, experiences, and ability to form opinion and to take decision. A good decision-maker is one who takes decision on his own after considering everything.

5. Rationality of the decision maker can never be the sole determiner of any effective policy/decision. For an effective policy besides rationality also required other elements such as correct and impartial facts and information, normative value of society beliefs and faith etc. It is unfortunate that Snyder fails of give due consideration to all these elements/factors.

A decision-maker frames a policy on the basis of news provided by an efficient communication-network. But this is also a quite separate issue and the relation between decision-making and the communication network is to be properly studied and investigated. In Snyder’s analysis we do not find that confir­mation.

6. There is another drawback of this approach. In the decision-making process very often personal liking/disliking, phobia etc. play vital role. When this happens the decision-making process and the decision itself both are bound to be imperfect. Without highlighting this aspect Snyder has committed a mistake.

During the heyday of Cold War period Washington was at loggerhead with Moscow without any valid reason. The main plank of animosity was intolerance, blind opposition to other’s belief and faith and to destroy the opposite. All these cannot be the proper criteria of decision-making process, but during the Cold War they were.
Since these constituted the bases of decision-making process the decision itself failed to be imperfect and defective.

7. “When examined more closely rational calculation may not appear to be a particularly convincing model of decision-making…. The model is more easily applied to individuals”. The implication of this criticism is the individuals in their personal cases may take the help of this model and for large business organisations or governmental departments this is not a fruitful way.

8. Y. Dror has criticised Lindblom’s incremental model of decision-making. Dror argues that incremental change by successive limited comparison is only adequate if the results of present policies are reasonably satisfactory, if there is continuity in the nature of the problem, and if there is continuity in the available means for dealing with it. Lindblom’s incrementalism cannot satisfy all these “ifs” simultaneously.

9. There is hardly any importance of the political leadership in the bureaucratic organisation model. In both parliamentary and presidential systems political leadership always gets precedence over the bureaucratic leadership. But bureaucratic organisational model offers us a scheme in which bureaucracy plays a leading role in policy-making process.

This is unusual. F.D. Roosevelt’s role in New Deal period is known to many. All the major policies to combat the Great Depression were initiated by him and bureaucracy had nothing to do. But so far as the importance of bureaucracy in policy­making affairs is concerned Ralph Miliband, noted Marxist, holds the view that in USA bureaucracy plays vital part in both policy formulation and administration.

(a) A bundle of drawbacks stated above should not detract our attention from the contribution Snyder’s theory of decision-making makes to the analysis of international policies in general and power politics in particular.

During the Cold War period and even in subsequent years Snyder’s decision-making approach was profusely used to explain the international events and the gestures of the big and superpowers. The decision-making approach is regarded as a convenient and effective method of analysing foreign policy and the relations among nations. So, the worth of the approach is undeniable.

(b) We know that in international relations and politics (sometimes two are separate) there are several factors such as states, individuals, international organisations, transitional organisations etc. In different spheres these actors have been found to be active. In the wide area of foreign policy both the states and the individuals are both actors.

It is the duty of the state to prepare the general guideline of any foreign policy and the individuals prepare the foreign policy. This is the decision-making. Without individuals (they may be bureaucrats, technocrats or any other person) the decision making concept will never be translated into reality. The state is an abstract concept. The individuals perform everything and the decisions go in the name of state.

(c) It has been observed by the critics that the decision-making theory is more concerned with the processes of decision-making and less with the consequences of decisions. But this criticism is unfounded.

In the incremental model it has been said that the policy-makers do not always jump upon policy-making. They proceed slowly and cautiously and study the consequences of a policy after which they decide the next course of action. Every decision-maker meticulously observes the impact of the policy and after that considers how to proceed.

(d) Snyder has approached decisions-making from a particular angle which is— individuals play important part. But we have analysed other models which highlight the other aspects of the decision-making approach. For example, some scholars have said that beliefs and ideology have important part in the decision-making process.

Again, various organisations and institutions have made their contribution to the making of foreign policy or decision making processes. So Snyder’s theory does not offer us a complete picture about decision-making process.

But this does not mean that his approach is wrong or has no meaning in reality.  The credit of Snyder is he is a pioneer in this field and he has drawn our attention to the fact that decision making approach can conveniently be used to study foreign policy and to investigate international events.

Conclusion:

In conclusion few more words may be stated. The decision-making approach is not without any limitations. But the mere fact is that it has immense importance in the present day structure of administration and relation between authority and public. The state must do some works for the welfare of the people, and that requires policy formulation.

The state cannot move in an uncharted sea and if it tries to do so that will be a fruitless venture. Hence for the proper and effective performance and administration decision/policy is essential and if so there must be a logical and scientific method of policy making. Decision-making is an important part of state administration and we should not have any hesitation in admitting that Snyder has done a seminal job by initiating and popularising the decision-making approach to politics.

Upload and Share Your Article:

About the models Held has said that the models are complex networks about economic and social conditions of the democratic state. While presenting the model Held has not allowed his prejudices to dominate. He has impartially portrayed the picture of democratic structure. Explaining the nature of models Held maintains, “Models of democracy involve necessarily a shifting balance between descriptive, explanatory and normative statements”.

The following are the six models of democracy:

1. Classical Democracy:

Location and Nature:

The classical democracy was direct democracy and Athens was the abode of such a democracy. There were, besides Athens, other Greek city states but among all the city states Athens was most prominent and powerful. Direct democracy in Athens developed in between 800-500 BCE (Before Christ Era). The Athenians were really proud at the type of direct democracy that worked in their city-state.

What were the characteristics of Athenian democracy which was the symbol of classical democracy?

(1) The classical democracy of Athens assumed the form of mass meeting. The Athenians periodically met together to take stock of the situation of the state and make policies and decisions.

(2) All the full-time public officials were chosen by the Athenians through lottery or election.

(3) The arrangement was made in such a manner that every citizen could get (at least once in his lifetime) the scope of participation in the offices of the state.

(4) The Athenians never hesitated to participate in the affairs of state or to shoulder the responsibility.

(5) Official positions rotated among all the citizens and no special training was required to run the administration.

(6) However, there were special training arrangements for military generals. In this way the Athenian democracy—the representative of classical democracy—worked in ancient Greece.

Ideals of Classical Democracy:

The ideals of classical democracy or Athenian democracy (these two terms may be used interchangeably) can be stated in the following manner. The chief political ideals were equality among all people (here the appropriate word is citizens), liberty and respect for law and justice. The Athenians paid high and glowing tribute to justice and law. What we now call rule of law, that system prevailed in ancient Greece and from there it later on, ramified in other parts of Europe.

Because of the prevalence of equality in Greek city-states all the citizens could get the opportunity to participate in the policy/decision making process of the state. Thucydides stated the ideals and aims of Athenian democracy in an address attributed to Pericles’ funeral.

Thucydides (460-399 BC) claimed that Athenian democracy was unique in the sense that its constitution, system of administration, institutions were not copied from other systems. Rather the Athenian democracy was a model to be followed by others. Every Athenian had equal right to be equally treated by law.

Equality before law and equal treatment of law enabled justice to prevail in almost all the spheres of society. Political life was free and open. All the citizens took active interest in public of fairs and naturally they were not at all neglected. Every man showed obedience to law and authority. Disputes were settled among themselves.

Aristotle’s Account of Democracy:

Aristotle’s The Politics (written between 335 and 323 BCE) provides a very beautiful account of democracy. He said, “The foundation of democratic constitution is liberty. People constantly make this statement implying that only in this constitution is there any share in liberty at all. Every democracy has liberty for its aim. “Ruling and being ruled in turn” is one element of liberty.

Then there is the democratic idea of justice as numerical equality, not equality based on merit and when this idea of what is right prevails, the people must be sovereign and whatever the majority decides that is final and that is justice………. The result is that in democracies the poor have more sovereign power than the men of property.”Live as you like” is another mark of a free man. “Living as you not like is the mark of one enslaved”.

In this lengthy passage Aristotle has delineated the basic features of democracy. Needless to say that all these are today treated as valid. Liberty, justice and sovereignty of the people or popular sovereignty are the basic pillars of democracy. Aristotle gave priority to these three features.

He believed that only in democracy ruling and being ruled in turn take place. It is absent in a state which is not democratic. The absence of the opportunity to rule is the symbol of slavery. He also asserted that in his democracy equality is to be interpreted numerically and it is not based on merit.

Principles of Democracy:

Aristotle has laid down certain fundamental principles of democracy. These may also be called the basic features of democracy. We have already noted the conception of democracy as it obtains in The Politics.

Following are the fundamental principles:

1. Officials of the city state will come through the elections and all citizens are eligible for all posts or offices.

2. A common rule will operate throughout the state and this rule is rule over each and each by turn over all.

3. All the citizens are eligible for all posts excepting the posts which require special qualifications or experience.

4. No tenure of office dependent on the possession of property qualification.

5. The same man not to hold the same office twice. A man will be allowed to hold office only for once in his lifetime. However, in the field of warfare this principle will not hold.

6. Aristotle prescribed short tenure of office.

7. Jury courts will be chosen from all the citizens and will adjudicate on all.

8. The Assembly (in Greek it was called Ecclesia) will have the sovereign authority over anything except minor matters.

9. Payment services in assembly, in law courts and in the offices shall be regular.

10. Good birth, wealth and culture shall be the marks of the rule of the few. The opposite shall be the rule of the many.

11. Perpetual tenure of office is not favoured by democracy.

Criticism:

Whatever may be the novelty or importance of classical democracy of Athens, the critics: are not sympathetic to it.

Some of the criticisms are:

1) The Athenian democracy was limited only to a small fraction of population. The male citizens above the age of 20 could take active part in the affairs of state. The female citizens, irrespective of their qualification, had not the liberty or right to participate in the policy-making affairs. So the classical democracy was the democracy of the male citizens or patriarchs. The women had no civil or political rights.

2) Large numbers of Athenians were also ineligible to participate in the proceedings of the city-states. They were immigrants and slaves. In Athens large numbers of immigrants lived and their contribution to Athenian culture, development etc. was not negligible at all. The slaves in Athens constituted a major part of the whole population and the Athenian economy and development rested on their labour. But they were not permitted to take part in the offices and other branches of the state.

3) The treatment meted out to slaves and immigrants does not prove the existence of rights and equality in Athenian society.

4) All citizens did not enjoy equal status and all the opportunities were not open to all.

5) Many have called
Athenian democracy as the tyranny of the minority.

6) Held has said that various aspects of the classical democracy can legitimately be questioned.

2. Protective Democracy:

Definition:

The main theme of classical democracy was the participation of all citizens in the processes of state and the Athenians (where the classical democracy flourished most prominently) believed that they could achieve equality. So the basis of classical democracy was equality in respect of rights and privileges.

But the protective democracy highlights a quite different aspect. In the words of Heywood “democracy was seen less as a mechanism through which public could participate in political life, and more as a device through which citizens could protect themselves from the encroachments of government, hence protective democracy”.

Here democracy has been viewed as a means at the disposal of individuals which they can use to safeguard their rights and liberties. In the middle Ages and early modern period the autocratic rulers on any flimsy ground and in most of the cases without any ground encroached upon the basic rights and liberties of the citizens and they were absolutely helpless on the face of the steamroller-like administration.

In ancient Greece many had the idea about protection of rights and liberties. Plato thought that the rule of the guardian class could serve the purpose properly. But Aristotle asked —”quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” Its English meaning is who will guard the guardians? From all these conceptions arise the idea of protective democracy.

Origin of the Protective Democracy:

The origin of democracy as an instrument of protecting human rights and liberties can conveniently be traced to the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.

More specifically John Locke (1631-1704) is regarded as the great apostle of protective democracy. His civil society based on democratic principles was created through the instrumentality of social contract to protect the right to life liberty and property and ensure pursuance of happiness. Another person who acted behind this type of democracy was James Madison (1751-1836), a key architect of American constitution.

The three stalwarts of utilitarianism were also the important figures of the protective democracy. They were Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) James Mill 1773-1836) and John Stuart Mill. The utilitarianism was forcefully advocated in favour of protective democracy. The leitmotif of utilitarianism was to safeguard right liberty and opportunity and these are basic principles of democracy.

These must be protected at any cost and democracy according to them was the best form of government which could guarantee these. Bentham, James Mill and his philosopher son argued that only in democracy all sorts of individual interests could be protected and advanced.

Locke, Madison, Bentham, and the Mills-all were in favour of protective democracy and it is an aspect of liberal democracy. In their hands this received best treatment. In fact, Bentham and the Mills were the representative thinkers of protective democracy.

Basic Features:

The following are the basic features of protective democracy:

(1) Protective democracy believes in popular sovereignty. But since people cannot directly take part in the processes of state, they do it through their representatives.

(2) Both the popular sovereignty and representative form of government are legitimate.

(3) It is the primary duty of the state to protect the rights and liberties of citizens and whether this is properly performed or not people keep a strong vigilance over the functions of state

(4) The authority is accountable to the People and in order to establish it elections are held on regular basis. There are also other ways of establishing accountability

(5) A very important way of protecting the rights, liberties and distribution of privileges is the division of powers among legislature, executive and judiciary. This is done in all liberal democracies.

(6) There is prevalence of constitutionalism. Both the ruler and the ruled are controlled by the principles laid down in constitution.

(7) Constitution is the source of power for all and is the guarantor of rights and liberties. There are also measures to prevent the violation of rights and liberties.

(8) Organisations associations groups have enough freedom and they always act as friends of citizens and fight against any violation of rights or encroachment on liberty.

(9) Competition in all spheres is a feature of protective democracy.

(10) A clear distinction between state and civil society is strictly maintained.

Mechanisms of Protective Democracy:

Bentham, J. Mill and J.S. Mill elaborately discussed the various aspects of protective democracy. They were firmly convinced that only a democratic government could secure all rights and liberties for all citizens.

In our analysis of theory of rights we have noted that Bentham disapproved the natural rights because they were not recognised by the state and the state owed no responsibility for their protection Bentham and the Mills (J. Mill and J.S. Mill) were convinced that if proper mechanism is not provided for the protection of rights they were liable to be violated and the proper mechanism could be ensured only in a democracy. Hence to the three utilitarian philosophers democracy meant a mechanism for protecting rights and in that sense it is protective democracy.

Mention has been made earlier that C.B. Macpherson (The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy, 1977) drew our attention for the first time that one of the very important functions of democracy was to protect rights and privileges of citizens and this could be done through accountability. “For Bentham and Mill liberal democracy was associated with a political apparatus that would ensure the accountability of the governors to the governed”.

Accountability, therefore, possesses sufficient potentiality for the realisation of rights and liberties. Once Bentham said, “A democracy has for its characteristic object and effect securing its members against oppression and depredation at the hands of those functionaries which it employs for its defence”.

James Mill in An Essay of Government stressed elections, separation of powers, liberty of the press, freedom of speech and expression and freedom to form association and organisation as the basic ways to protect rights and liberties. Through these machineries general interests of the community could be sustained.

The continuity of competition among the citizens, free play of variety of ideas and thoughts were necessary for the proper development of individuals’ faculties. In the conception of protective democracy the free markets have a special place. The utilitarian thinkers were of opinion that free elections and free vote were no doubt important ingredients of protective democracy.

But along with these free markets system was essential because this could give the individual’s right to earn living and right not to be neglected. Also is required right to property. All these, however, are to be protected, through the mechanism of law, by the state. James Mill even went a step forward by saying that any threat to the free market system and the right to property is also a potential threat to the realisation of rights and privileges. For this reason the utilitarians argued with strong assertion that these two must have their rightful and convenient place in the society. Otherwise rights could not be protected.

Minimal State and Protective Democracy:

To cut the state to size is an i
mportant way for the realisation of rights and liberties of the people. The term to cut the state to size means to limit the functions of state within specific limitations.

Again, specific limitation means the state will perform certain minimum functions which the individuals cannot normally do. Beyond these specific limitations the state would keep itself away. This is generally called the minimum state or minimal state. Bentham and J.S. Mill also advocated such a state and theirs was called theory of limited state.

Theory of minimal state does not mean absolute nor-intervention. To maintain general public good the state must see that rights and liberties are properly realised because it is the primary duty of the state. Moreover, in democracy, if successfully implemented, people will enthusiastically and voluntarily shoulder the responsibility of policy-making processes and that will reduce the burden of state.

“Free vote and the free market were the sine qua non. For a key proposition was that the collective good could be properly realised in many domains of life only if individuals interacted in competitive exchanges pursuing their utility with minimal state interference”.

Robert Nozick was also an advocate of the minimal state theory and his contention was that only through a minimal state concept could justice be realised. He believed that only in an atmosphere of minimum state intervention there could be proper justice.

Functions of the State:

If the functions of the state were to protect the democratic rights and liberties it is essential to throw light on certain principal functions which a democratic state must perform and Jeremy Bentham in Principles of Civil Code has pointed out four such functions. These are: to provide subsistence, to produce abundance, to favour equality, and to maintain security.

Let us briefly state these functions. It is an important duty of the state to see that all the citizens are in possession of sufficient materials for comfortable and smooth livelihood and the failure on the part of the state will create resentment in the minds of men. In order to achieve the first goal the state must adopt all measures for the production of consumers’ goods in abundant amount and without it the citizens can never get the taste of comfort and demands will not be satisfied.

The state’s another duty is to ensure equality in all spheres and if this is not achieved the state should take steps to reduce gross inequalities. Finally the citizens expect security from the authority and the latter must provide it. We know that the inhabitants of the state of nature were in insecure condition and this impelled them to find out a security and for that purpose they setup a civil society. (Here the term civil society is not used in Gramisci’s sense) They believed that only a political organisation/civil society could meet their demand.

When Democracy Becomes Protective?

If the state administration and structure are rearranged and remodelled properly and successfully, it is believed democracy will ultimately become protective in nature and when it assumes that character what will be its nature? Let us now state it.

When a democratic state gives special attention for the fulfilment of rights and liberties in that state there shall grow a number of power-centres and various interest groups will grow.

(1) An important aspect of a protective democracy is a clear line of difference will be drawn between state and civil society and the latter will have sufficient autonomy.

(2) There will be domination of private enterprise in the field of production as well as distribution. In other words, the economy will be privately managed and operated and this will make open for the furtherance of liberty and rights.

(3) A corollary to the second condition is the advent of market economy which indicates free competition among all participants in the economic activities. A number of fora will be engaged in economic activities with full freedom. The appearance of market economy is not all, the guarantee of freedom and autonomy is also important.

(4) Within the boundary of civil society there shall arise political, cultural and economic organisations. People’s freedom will thrive through these institutions. The protagonists of protective democracy stressed all these.

3. Developmental Democracy:

Introduction:

In the last sections we have focused our attention on two aspects of democracy— classical democracy and protective democracy. Though these two models are important, there are other models and we shall now deal with developmental model, or we may call it developmental democracy.

Before going to the details of the matter we want to quote a lengthy passage from Held’s book Models of Democracy:

“If Bentham and James Mill were reluctant democrats but prepared to develop arguments to justify democratic institutions, John Stuart Mill was a clear advocate of democracy, preoccupied with the extent of individual liberty in all spheres of human endeavour. Liberal democratic government was important to him (J. S. Mill)…because it was an important aspect of the free development of individuality. Participation in political life was vital to create a direct interest in government and responsibility a basis for an informed and developing citizenry……….. and for a dynamic developmental policy”.

J. S. Mill is a prime advocate of developmental democracy. He did not concentrate his attention mainly on the power and function of democracy to protect rights and liberties but also on its power to develop the faculties of man. J. S. Mill viewed democracy in this light and C, B. Macpherson first drew the attention of political scientists to it.

Definition and Origin:

According to Macpherson and Dunn to J. S. Mill (henceforth only Mill) democracy was a very powerful mechanism of moral self-development and highest and harmonious expansion of individual capacities. We are thus in a possession of two elements of development. One is moral self-development and the other is development of individual capacities.

We know that Rousseau prescribed a form of democracy known as direct democracy of the Greek city-state type. His main concern was all- round development of moral qualities of men which were degraded (Rousseau believed so) in the midst of development of art, culture and civilisation.

Rausseau’s view is quite polemelical, but he thought so. By individual capacities Mill meant the argumentative power of men, intellect, reasoning, to understand the distinction between right and wrong and above all the ability to participate in the processes of government. Mill was also indebted to de Tocqueville Democracy in America. It was the conviction of Tocqueville that the increasing intervention of state was bound to curb the freedom of individuals and that would be harmful for progress.

The government must keep itself away from the intrusive interference. Mill whole-heartedly subscribed to this contention of de Tocqueville. Like Tocqueville, Mill concluded that if it is not countered, it “would become a recepe for capitulation to the dictate of the administrator”.

Summary of Mill’s Analysis:

Mill viewed his contempory state from a very close distance and what appeared to him was that:

(1) The state apparatus was accumulating more and more power jeopardising freedom of individuals.

(2) The increasing appearance of state on every aspect of social life was making individuals extremely dependent on the state. This threatened both spontaneity and freedom of men. This tendency is against devel­opment.

(3) Mill
did not think that the efficiency and pervasiveness of administration were not helpful for progress of individuals because these are anti-freedom.

(4) The ceaseless expansion of administration blocked the free flow of information because the government would try to withhold information for its own sake.

(5) To Mill an efficient and scientific administration meant overall control of bureaucracy. But he had no favourable view about it. The greatest shortcoming of bureaucracy is it is not accountable to the electorate/individuals. This unaccountability encourages it to act in the most irresponsible way.

(6) He believed that the ever rising expansion of state activities posed serious danger to mass participation in the governmental process.

(7) There is tendency of government to bring under its fold maximum number of people —particularly the educated, intelligent and efficient people. Later on the state uses them to support its functions, policies, and various schemes and in this way it grabs the entire society and the whole society becomes stooge of state apparatus.

Way Out:

After considering all the types of government or state Mill drew the conclusion that only the representative form of government was suitable for the realisation of rights and liberties without which no individual could develop his moral self- development and manifold capacities. In Mill’s account a representative form of government was quite equivalent to all types’ of freedom and various categories of liberty.

In other words, in a representative democracy an individual could find a favourable atmosphere for the development of freedoms and rights. Any alternative to representative democracy is direct democracy of the Athenian type. But, Mill argued, such a form of government was not possible for modern state.

So representative form of government, in the background of the attainment of right and liberty, was in a sense, quite unparalleled. It would act as a watchdog and from Mill’s assessment some people started to call state night-watchman. Since then we are accustomed to view the state in this light.

It is not true that a representative democracy protects right and liberty, through free elections, voting system, free competition among the parties etc. It inflames the urge to debate any matter and to act in accordance with reason. It may be added here that all these Mill said in the sixties of the nineteenth century and by that time Britain’s representative democracy attained certain amount of maturity.

Development and Intervention:

From the just-concluded analysis one can frame the conclusion that Mill did not approve state intervention. But such a view does not carry the exact stand taken by Mill in this regard. He supported interference of state for the protection of self. If the liberty or the life of the individual is in danger, the state intervention will be justified. Mill, in this connection it may be noted, divided the actions of the individuals into two broad categories—self-regarding and other-regarding. So far as the actions of the individuals concern their own interests or issues they should be allowed to enjoy absolute liberty.

This is called self-regarding. Men must have complete freedom. But if their actions concern others’ interest that is other-regarding, that is, the actions are likely to inflict harm to others; the state must have the right to interfere. It is the strong belief of Mill that “liberty and democracy create the possibility of human excellence.”

He was also very anxious about the emancipation of women. He believed that without women’s emancipation the progress of society was impossible; women were not born to be confined within the boundary of domestic affairs. It is, therefore, the duty of the state to adopt appropriate steps for the emancipation of women. We thus see that Mill was not against state interference. The interference, if done, must be based on solid ground and this is attainment of human excellence.

Features of Developmental Democracy:

1. In a developmental democracy citizen’s involvement is generally found and it is done through the voting mechanism which is held regularly.

2. There is a decentralisation of power. All the powers are extended up to the grass-root level and this enables citizens to participate in the various affairs.

3. Legislature and bureaucracy are separate from each other and the latter has no control over the legislators. However, as specialists the bureaucrats enjoy certain amount of freedom.

4. There are constitutional and legal provisions which guide both the ruler and the ruled as well as all the branches of state administration and judiciary.

5. Special arrangements are available for the promotion of right and liberty. Various social economic rights are given priority.

6. A system of checks and balances exists in developmental democratic system.

7. Representative form of government is the main type of developmental democracy. No other form of government is suitable for developmental democracy.

8. In developmental democracy, it has been observed, popular sovereignty is vested in people.

9. Powers of the government are generally separated from each other which stands in the way of the domination of one department.

10. The rule of law (which means equality before law and equal protection of law) is the important feature.

State Structure:

Let us see what is the exact structure of democracy which aims at development. In the first place, in such a democracy a clear demarcation (it is claimed by many) between the state and civil society is found. Each has specific area of jurisdiction. Secondly, under normal circumstances, the state does not interfere with the functions of civil society or different organisations.

These two arrangements ensure the autonomy of civil society. Thirdly, almost all the exponents (such as Hayek, Rawls, Nozick etc.) have supported market economy. In such an economy not only individuals get full freedom for the development of their faculties, it ensures economic liberty. Fourthly, all the agencies and departments are so arranged that a free competition can thrive. People get ample scope to set up or organise institutions in accordance with their choice and liking. Fifthly, a representative form of government is a party government.

The majority party in the lower house of legislature forms government. Party government has also other variations. But all the forms, more or less, adhere to the same principle that is party forms government. Finally, administration is so structured that one party, after the election, comes to power and the other party sits in the opposition. This does not lead to the break of administration.

4. Participatory Democracy:

Meaning of Participatory Democracy:

Two well-known political scientists Macpherson and Pateman (Participation and Democratic Theory) .gave wide circulation to the concept participatory democracy and today we very often refer to it in our academic purposes. Question is what do we mean by participatory democracy? Simply stated it means a democracy which is conducted by people’s active or direct participation.

Every type of democracy is based on certain type of participation. Hence the problem here is why a different model known as participatory democracy. The term participatory democracy has a different perspective. It is that type of democracy where people assemble at an open place and directly participate in all the deliberations.

There is no provision of participation through representatives. A participatory democracy never permits its functions to be performed throug
h representatives. People themselves enjoy supreme power and by exercising it they enjoy the absolute authority to take decisions which generally affect the state or body politic. C.B. Macpherson and Carole Pateman “have a number of common starting points and commitments.

Together, they represent a model of democracy which I shall simply refer to as “participatory democracy. This term is frequently used to cover a variety of democratic models ‘from those of classical Athens to certain market position”.

Rousseau and Participatory Democracy:

Attention of the readers will be drawn to the fact that after direct democracy that took place in ancient Athens, its revival occurred at the hands of Rousseau (1712- 1778). His chief concern was the protection of liberty because every man was born with liberty. But in the course of time it was lost. His second concern was how to revive liberty? The device he suggested was creation of a body politic which will be conducted and administered by the people themselves through open assembly sessions.

In other words, the sovereign power shall be vested in the hands of the people and it will be exercised by them. This is called popular sovereignty. In Rousseau’s thought system there was no place of representatives, political parties or any form of groups functioning on behalf of people. Rousseau said that sovereignty is inalienable and at the same time it cannot be represented. He had no faith on representative system.

Rousseau said, “The idea of representation is modern if it comes to us from feudal’ government, from the iniquitous and absurd system which degrades humanity and dishonors the name of man” (emphasis added). Rousseau wants to say that it is the direct participation of people that will make their lives good and help the development of morality. The participatory democracy of Rousseau wanted to make his citizens active and to involve them in all the affairs of state.

Aims of Participatory Democracy:

The aims of participatory democracy have been best described by Rousseau. If the law and general administration is meant for the people, it is logical that behind this law and running the administration there shall lie the consent of the people. He said, “Every law the people has not ratified in person is null and void”.

He also believed that the introduction of representative system was nothing but a device to insult the people’s power of reason and his intelligence. So it is the only form of government that recognises the worth and other qualities of human beings.

Mill developed different impression about this type of democracy. He has said that through the participatory democracy the development of human being can be achieved. Supporting Mill’s view Pateman says, “It enhances a sense of political efficacy, reduces a sense of estrangement from power centres, nurtures a concern for collective problems and contributes to the formation of an active and knowledgeable citizenry capable of taking a more acute interest in government affairs”.

The most important aim of participatory democracy is to make people interested in the political, legal and economic processes of the state. Through this they will learn to think that the state affairs are their own. In other words, it will make people more responsible. Every man has his own qualities and importance. Direct participation will be able to enlighten them. It’s another purpose is to kindle up the innovative qualities of man.

Features:

1. The important feature of participatory democracy is people will have the opportunity to directly participate in the functions and decision-making processes of state and there shall be no provision for delegating power to another body or organ.

2. At all stages of state administration (even local levels) people are the determining factors and that cannot be challenged or “done away with to facilitate representative system.

3. Though Rousseau was the champion of participatory democracy he did not favour party system. In modern times it is suggested that party system is essential for the smooth functioning of participatory democracy. Only political party can organise such democracy and lead it to the stage of success.

4. A system which has adopted participatory democratic system remodels and remoulds the social and political structure so that democracy can function smoothly.

5. Creation of institutions and organisation is not enough; in such a system there is an ever-vigilance to maintain these in suitable manner.

6. Though unanimity is emphasised, to make this form of democracy workable there shall be an option for majority decision system.

7. In participatory democracy equality is always stressed. Particularly political equality is the sine qua non of such democratic system.

8. Rights, liberties are also equally emphasised.

9. Rousseau said that people participate in open assembly to exercise rights and get freedom. None will be allowed to encroach others liberty.

5. Cosmopolitan Democracy:

Definition:

As a concept and as a form of government democracy envisages dynamism. As a form of government it is extremely desirable, but, it is believed, it must be suitable for changed circumstances. This feeling or attitude has led to reformulate it at different epochs. This may be regarded as background of cosmopolitan democracy or cosmopolitan model. It is quite well known to us that democracy is confined to the geographical area of nation state but cosmopolitan model thinks of democracy at global level.

Held’s observation is: “A cosmopolitan democracy would not call for a diminution per se of state capacity across the globe. Rather, it would seek to entrench and develop democratic institutions at regional and global levels as a necessary complement to those at the level of the nation-state. This conception of democracy is based upon the recognition of a continuing significance of nation-states while arguing for a layer of governance to constitute a limitation on national sovereignty”.

Cosmopolitan model of democracy is a compromise between importance, significance and requirements of nation states on the one hand and the globalisation or cosmopolitisation of politics, economy and culture on the other. In this age of increasing dependence of different nation states upon each other a revision of the attitude to democracy appears to be incumbent. So cosmopolitan model of democracy is not an exclusively new idea, it is a concept viewed in the background of new situation in international situation.

Assumption:

The cosmopolitan model of democracy is based on the following assumptions:

1. It assumes that in the present day world situation the nation-states are directly and indirectly dependent upon each other. The activities, schemes and policies of one state will invariably influence those of other states. Naturally “entrenchment of a cluster of rights and obligations” is necessary. If this is not done various rights and liberties will be in problem. The individuals of all nation-states will be deprived of some basic rights.

2. Social, political and economic rights and liberties are to be included in the basic laws of the nation-states. Constitution will be framed or laws will be enacted to include them.

3. At global level an association or assembly would be formed with the help of all democratic states to deal with all rights and obligations. For this purpose the jurisdiction of the international court should be extended.

4. It also assumes that all the democratic states and societies will jointly form an assembly which would not be under the control of any superpower. It may
be called a supra-national authority or a world government.

5. It assumes active cooperation among all states as regards the management of issues across the border of nation-states.

6. There is a further assumption. All the controversial transnational issues shall be settled by referendum. It denotes that the nation-states enjoy right to equal sovereignty.

7. The UNO must take initiative for the success of cosmopolitan model of democracy.

Causes of Origin:

In recent years the urge for establishing democracy at international level becomes active. Naturally question arises why there is such an urge? Of late it has been found that certain tendencies are weakening democracy in various parts of the globe. Proper measures are not being taken to protect democratic rights and liberties and privileges are not adequately distributed among those who need these. Above all, the most important aspect of democracy is its accountability to the citizens.

Whereas, democracy is an essential instrument for the protection of rights and development of the capacities of individuals. We can say there is a crisis in democracy at the level of nation-states. It is a firm belief of all lovers of democracy that it should not be allowed to reach the stage of impotency. At an international level democratic institutions are to be set up to monitor the functioning of democratic system of different states.

Globalisation and multinational corporations are becoming more and more aggressive and they have tended, in some cases, it is alleged, to erode democracy. The essentiality and utility of MNCs cannot be denied but it cannot be their function to curb democracy and to that end prophylactic device should be adopted and that device is supposed to be to set up democracy at global level.

The superpower politics has not always helped democracy to flourish. The cosmopolitan democracy will be an antidote to this ominous sign. There shall be a compromise between autonomy of state and overall development of humankind.

Conditions for Cosmopolitan Democracy:

David Held admits that the demand for cosmopolitan democracy is rapidly rising but a favourable atmosphere for it has not yet developed. He, therefore, suggests certain conditions for its creation as well as successful working.

Some of the conditions are:

1. It is believed that for a cosmopolitan model of democracy all the states of the world will have to take active interest, particularly big powers.

2. Reforming the principal organs of the UN especially the Security Council is necessary. The states such as India, Germany, Japan, Brazil etc. are to be made permanent members.

3. Many provisions of the Charter shall be amended. The Charter was framed when the Second World War was going on. The situation has changed since then.

4. It has been suggested that a global parliament should be set up to deal with the global issues.

5. Like European Union other regional bodies should be set up to deal with regional issues. It means the UN should take up the matter of more and more regionalisation.

6. It has been suggested that there shall be a military body to settle military matters.

7. A functional body to deal with issues like rights, liberties, obligations is required to be set up and this organisation should have enough power to see that citizens of all states are enjoying rights contained in the universal declaration of human rights.

8. For the purpose of tackling the legal matters a judicial body should be set up or the present International Court of Justice be armed with more powers.

6. Marxist Model of Democracy:

Failure of Liberal Democracy:

From the 1960s the exponents of liberalism and liberal democracy had been clamouring for less and less power of state and more freedom for men. Hayek, Nozick and Rawls are chief among them. And practically in the eighties of the last century there was a spectacular upward movement of liberalism at the helm of which were Thatcher, the former Prime Minister of Britain, and Reagan the ex-President of the United States.

But at the beginning of nineties serious thinkers of political science witnessed the revival of Marxist thought in general and Marxist model of democracy and behind this revival there was a clear case of the failure of liberal democracy.

Alex Callinicos and several others observed that at least on three fields liberal democracy failed:

(1) In the field of political participation liberal democracy has failed to evoke sufficient enthusiasm in the mind of men.

(2) Accountability of the government is not prominent. The chief feature of democracy is the authority shall be accountable to the people and in most of the cases this did not happen.

(3) In almost all the liberal democracies there was clear erosion of freedom and because of this people could not raise their voice against the policies of the government.

People’s lack of interest in participation is evident in American election. In the presidential elections of USA generally 48% to 50% voters cast their votes. There are, of course, exceptions. For example, in the 2004 election percentage was higher. The same picture repeated in Switzerland. Liberal democracy is characterised by positivity of citizenry. Expansion of bureaucracy reduces the accountability of authority.

Direct Democracy Model of Marx:

After actively considering the various models of democracy Callinicos (The Revenge of History: Marxism and the East European Revolutions) has offered his defence of classical Marxism which strongly supports direct democracy. The various forms of liberal democracy suggest a type of government conducted by people belonging to the upper echelons of society.

People belonging to the lower strata hardly get any scope to take part in the political process of state. Callinicos feels that the prevalence of this system converts democracy simply into a farce. In the earlier section we have pointed out the failures of liberal democracy and these failures were mainly due to the structural constraints of liberal democracy.

Even if the administration desires to put into practice the basic norms of democracy they could not achieve success due to these constraints. Marx envisaged direct democracy on the ground that only this type could ensure participation of people in the democratic process. This form of democracy has been called democracy from below.

The main features, in general terms, are that the public officials are subject to periodic elections, public officials must feel that they are servants of people and their activities are subject to scrutiny. All the elected officials are under the system of recall. There shall also operate the system of referendum and initiative. These are the chief features of direct democracy and we shall now see relevance in Marx’s thought.

Marx’s Commune Model:

Marx’s early conception of democracy was direct democracy and involved a “Rousseauesque critique of principle of representation and the view that true democracy involves the disappearance of state and thus the end of the separation of state from the civil society”.

The best exposition of Marx’s conception of democracy is to be found in The Civil War in France (1871). He said, “Instead of deciding one in three or six years such member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people, constituted in communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for workmen and managers in his business”.

Through his experience Marx learnt that the bourgeois democracy m
eant for a particular class which was minority. So such a democracy could never be the real democracy, it was the democracy of the minority and was based on complex process. It was characterised by suffrage to be availed of all adult citizens, political liberty and rule of law. Marx believed that first of all communes would be constituted and all the members of the commune would get the opportunity to participate in the processes of the commune.

It might be called participatory democracy or direct democracy as was thought of by Rousseau. Both Rousseau and Marx were dead against representative system of government. Rousseau once said the British people were free only at the time of elections because they could elect men of their own choice.

Nature of the Commune Model:

Let us throw some light on Marx’s commune model of democracy. He said that the commune model of democracy had the full potentiality to break the prevailing state power which arose or was created in Mediaeval Europe. The constitution of the commune, under no circumstances, could represent the interests of the bourgeoi­sie or any vested interest.

Let us quote him: “The communal constitution would have restored to the social body all the forces hitherto absorbed by the state parasite feeding upon and clogging the free movement of society….The communal constitution brought the rural producers under the intellectual lead of the central towns of their districts and these secured them in the working men, the natural trustees of their interests. The very existence of the commune involved local municipal liberty but no longer as a check upon the, now superseded, state power”.

He further observes that the commune was formed of the municipal councillors chosen by universal suffrage. The councillors were responsible to the electorate and were liable to be removed from their position on notice. This commune was not a parliamentary body. In the commune form of democracy, Marx said, there was no place of high dignitaries.

There was no scope for making any provision for high salaries of very few high dignitaries. The working men would constitute the commune and they would be in the charge of the communal administration. Thus commune would set up real democracy.

Marxist Democracy and Engels:

While Marx was in London, he wrote a very important book (all his writings are important no doubt, but for the present purpose The Class Struggle in France) namely, The Class Struggle in France and it was published in 1850 and in 1895 Engels wrote an Introduction. In this Introduction Engels stated something which allows us to assess Marxist conception about democracy.

In the commune model we have seen that Marx practically had no faith on the bourgeois type of democracy and because of that reason he thought of setting up a new model—commune model of democracy. But when Engels wrote the Introduction he did not refer to this model. In it Engels exhorted the working class and other sections of the exploited mass to fight against the bourgeois system and to utilise all the machinery of bourgeois democratic structure as instrument of fight in order to emasculate the entire structure of capitalist democracy or state.

This introduction consisting of 20 pages fuelled controversy among non-Marxist and even Marxist circles. Here Engels advised the working class to eschew the militant means such as armed struggle, sabotage, and to destroy the entire bourgeois structure of state administration. The purpose of the working class was to seize political power by revolutionary methods and not by constitutional and democratic methods. Before he wrote the Introduction he could not realise the importance of the bourgeois democratic methods.

What Engels Actually Said?

We have already noted that Marx ridiculed the periodic elections because it had not the capacity to establish real democracy. But Engels in his Introduction said that the universal adult franchise offered the scope for remodeling the bourgeois political structure. After every three years the proletarian would get the opportunity through the implementation of universal franchise to elect a new set of representatives who would rule the society.

The workers’ representatives would play active role in the parliament and fight for the causes and interests of the workers. They would be able to corner the liberal and bourgeois political parties and clip the wings of powerful bureaucrats. This would enable the proletarians to establish their authority on the bourgeois state.

A new form of society would come which would be in the nature of democracy—not direct democracy but representative democracy—which was earlier disapproved by Marx. Engels in his Introduction planned for a combination between incessant fight and democracy. Somehow he came to believe that real democracy or proletarian rule (also democracy) could not be set up overnight. Only the utilisation of universal suffrage could empower the working class to have that.

They could send large number of representatives to the legislature, form the municipal councils with their own representatives. Engels said, “Rebellion in the old style, street- fighting with barricades which decided the issue everywhere up to 1848, was to a considerable extent obsolete”.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Hayek’s Theory of Liberalism: Definition, Characteristics and Elements!

Definition of Liberalism:

Hayek in clear language has stated that he uses the word liberalism in the European nineteenth century meaning. It is, therefore, a clear indication of the fact that his concept of liberalism has attempted to revive the nineteenth century theory which is we have called classical liberalism. He defines the concept in different ways and one such definition is: “liberalism (in the European nineteenth century meaning) is concerned mainly with limiting the coercive powers of all government, whether democratic or not”.

Hayek’s another definition is “liberalism is a doctrine about what the law ought to be, democracy is a doctrine about the manner of determining what will be the law. Liberalism regards it as desirable that only what the majority accepts should in fact be a law, but it does not believe that this is therefore necessarily good law”.

In these definitions there are two clear meanings of liberalism. One meaning is liberalism means to limit the power and authority of the state authority. It is the most ordinary meaning of liberalism. Today we mean that when a government discharges its functions remaining within certain special limitations, we call it a liberal system. Hayek offers another meaning and this is liberalism is a doctrine. Since it is a political doctrine its envisages certain tenets and these we have already noted. It believes in natural rights, liberty of individuals and justice.

From the above analysis we come to know that liberalism is a policy—policy how to restrict the functions or policies of the government. Hayek refuses to call liberalism a political movement. His main concern is with its theoretical or doctrinal aspects. An important phrase in Hayek’s theory of liberalism is what law ought to be. We think this is the basic idea of liberalism because they ought to be character of law is to be decided by the people for whom it is enacted.

A political cannot be governed without any law. But what would be the exact nature of law, it is the people themselves who will decide it. If people’s verdict is not sought in enacting a law then there cannot be any distinction between authoritarian regime and liberal regime and because of that reason Hayek has included people’s role in the law-making process. He emphasises that a true character of liberalism will be understood by people’s role in law-making process.

The law-making proposal of the government must be endorsed by the people. This is the core idea of liberalism. In the first definition liberalism is equivalent to limiting the functions and authority of the state and people can exercise their power to restrict the authority of state through the direct participation in law­making process. Direct participation does not mean in Rousseau’s sense. A law must aim at satisfaction of people’s needs and when this happens that will be considered as their consent.

Characteristics of Hayek’s Liberalism:

If we go through the major portions we shall find some characteristics of liberalism:

(1) Liberalism occupies a middle position between socialism and conservatism. The aim of socialism is to reconstruct society in the line of ideology and schemes framed by the socialist. Hayek calls it “crude rationalism” based on the reason of an individual. But liberalism does not think of changing the social structure radically.

It envisages but those changes must be approved by the majority if not all persons. Conservatism has a strong attachment with the mysticism. It very frequently resorts to mysticism. Hayek claims that liberalism has no relationship with mysticism.

(2) Liberalism is never averse to evolution and change. Hayek observes that liberalism has never said that liberal ideas have been fully realised and nothing remains to be done. New ideas and views are enriching liberalism and it cordially accepts them. Liberalism also makes sincere efforts to translate them into reality and in this way this doctrine is advancing. From this point of view liberalism differs from the conservatism. The fundamental feature of conservatism is it is afraid of change but liberalism is never afraid of any type of change. Liberalism is eager to welcome change.

(3) Hayek has drawn an interesting difference between democratic way and liberal way. He is of opinion that a democrat always insists upon the principle of majority. Majority principle is no doubt a working principle because without this it is impossible to take any decision. The democrat further goes ahead when he says that a decision accepted by the majority is good. But the liberalism of Hayek does not agree with it Majority principle is not a sufficient ground for being good Hence the basic difference is liberalism emphasises on the character of ought to be and this ought to be is not satisfied by the majority principle.

(4) He points out a difference between democracy and liberalism, democracy is a political method to arrive at certain political, administrative and legislative decisions it is also the best method. But it is never an end in itself. Hayek s theory of liberalism proposes that liberalism is the end.

The end is the agreement on common general principles of long term in nature. Agreement on these long term common general principles is the sole objective of liberalism. “The dogmatic democrat feels that any current majority ought to have the right to decide what powers it has and how to exercise them, while the liberal regards it as important that the powers of any temporary majority be limited by long term principles”.

Elements of Hayek’s Liberalism:

(1) Market Economy:

An important component of Hayek’s theory of liberalism is the market economy. Hayek was always in favour of the introduction of market economy without which people’s economic freedom cannot function and flourish. At the same time if the individual entrepreneurs are deprived of economic freedom no economic progress is possible.

For this and other reasons Hayek has postulated the market economy as a part of liberalism. The advocacy of free market economy is based on the ground that too much regulations imposed by the government will destroy the initiative and spontaneity of the individuals. We know that classical liberalism also advocated in favour of unrestricted market economy and Adam Smith and his immediate followers proposed such an economy.

(2) Free Market Economy is not Without Rules:

The most interesting aspect of Hayek’s theory of liberalism is that he does not rule out the interference of state and its laws with the functioning of market economy. Here the main point is many classical liberals and economists opposed the intervention of law with the working of market economy. But Hayek does not agree with them. He has introduced a very innovative definition of free market economy.

He says: “Freedom of economic activity had meant freedom under the law, not the absence of ail government action”. He further observes that the working of the free market economy presupposes some activities on the part of the state authority. He does not support the inactivity or wrong-doing of the government because all these will cripple the market economy.

If it is allowed to happen (inactivity/wrong-doing) the whole concept of liberalism will badly suffer. For this reason Hayek argues that it is better to have some regulations than no rules and regulations and it would be the duty of the state to confine itself within these regulations.

(3) Compatibility Factor:

For the proper functioning of the free market economy, we have just now said, certain regulations are necessary within whose confinement the state will work. But the problem that arises here is what rules the government will impose? Here Hayek s reply is very straight forward. The market economy will welcome only those regula­tions. Which are compatible with it and which possesses sufficient expediency?

The rule and its application both are related to the coercive action and he believes that indiscriminate application of rule with coercion will invite uncertainties in the market economy. Therefore all coercive power must be circumscribed by a clearly formulated legal framework and this framework cannot be changed according to the sweet will of certain persons.

(4) Arbitrary Control and Liberalism:

Arbitrary control in respect of prices, production and distribution are incompatible with free functioning of market economy as well as liberalism.lt has been found that in the name of general welfare of the community or for the improvement of the economic conditions of the weaker sections of the community the government sometimes enthusiastically declares the policy of price and production control and he believes that such a procedure poses danger to the market economy Hayek has argued that it would be an impractical venture if the government fixes the prices and policy of production on a long term basis. Market conditions will change and such a policy will adversely affect the market economy.

There is another reason why controlled prices are harmful for the free market economy. If there are differences between the controlled prices and the prices that would be, the demand and supply would be unbalanced. When the government proceeds to control the prices that procedure is bound to be arbitrary because it is not acquainted with the price production and distribution.

The determination of prices should be left to the producers alone. If the government imposes restrictions on the economy these may not always be exercised with proper caution and care. Irrational exercise will prevent the market economy from functioning freely. There is every possibility that the government officers will misuse the power. This is the-general trend of all government controlled system.

Reconciliation between Government Control and Liberalism:

Hayek cautiously deals with a very sensitive issue. The issue is the relationship between the governmental control through the enactment of rules and laws on the one hand and liberalism on the other. He says that the relation has not been properly studied and as a consequence number of misunderstandings have cropped up particularly, many people think- that the imposition of limitations means curbing of the sphere of liberalism. But exact situation is quite different.

In democratic countries the citizens are allowed to enter into contract with other citizens and the freedom of contract is likened with other like freedoms Again in every democracy the performers are to obey certain rules and norms. Some people raise a general objection that the governmental rules go against the freedom of contract.

But Hayek does not subscribe to this general view. The finalization of all contracts must conform to the general rules and regulations and other legal processes the persons who have made contract must do this. Previously Hayek has said that liberalism does not exclude the existence and application of general rules and governmental procedures. What Hayek emphasizes here is that governmental rules must always conform to the general principles of liberalism.

On the issue of reconciliation between regulations and liberalism Hayek has suggested another condition. Hayek tells us that for a comprehensive development of liberalism it is unnecessary to adhere to the old laissez-faire which puts intervention and non-intervention into two watertight compartments. A free market economy does not recognise the old doctrine of non-intervention.

In his opinion we find the following: “The formulae of laissez-faire or non-intervention do not provide us with an adequate criterion for distinguishing of between what is and what is not admissible in free system”.

The old doctrine of laissez-faire simply states that any type of state intervention is against the interest of free market economy and simultaneously of liberalism. But Hayek in the light of his age and events does not agree with this. For the proper functioning of free market economy both intervention and non­intervention are necessary and the latter must help flourish the free market economic system. What he wants to say is that there shall be reconciliation between every type of intervention and non-intervention.

Both institution and society are to be rearranged and restructured so that the market economy is best placed. Let us conclude this part of our analysis by again quoting few words from Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty: “During the last few generations certain new aims of policy have emerged…. In order to achieve these aims, it would have to pursue a policy which is best described by the French word dirigisme, that is a policy which determines for what specific particular means are to be used”.

Planning, Free Market and Liberalism:

In our analysis of free market we have pointed out two important points. The assurance of the functioning of free market is the “foremost precondition” of liberalism. At least Hayek thinks so. Another point is, free market economy does not mean absence of all regulations and legal processes. In the background of these two points we like to throw some light on the idea of planning in relation to free market.

Hayek believes that any type of government planning aims at controlling the economy to suit the objectives and designs of the planning body and the market economy will be deprived of basic and necessary freedom of action. The control planning body will plan about prices, production, distribution and even the mode of investment.

The individual initiative in respect of production, prices and distribution will have no importance at all. Market economy will operate, Hayek says, on the basis of demand and supply. The discrepancy between demand and supply will invite a bigger chaos in the market sector. Naturally, the government will have to refrain from controlling the market through the pervasive planning mechanism.

There were two problems before Hayek—economic progress through the state sponsored planning and the same through individual initiative and spontaneity. F.A. Hayek threw his full weight through meticulous reasoning in favour of the latter and this he did for the sake of liberalism.

He believed that liberalism is the best way to release the human efforts for the betterment of society as well as the development of the individual. The vital aspect the Hayek’s liberal philosophy is through liberalism or liberal policy the all-round development of person and the society is to be assured.

Hayek smelt another foul element in government planning. In his opinion planning means coercion which acts upon the mind of a person and the authority apply coercive power in such a way that the individual is practically left with no alternatives.

He is to act in accordance with the directives of the authority. “Coercion is thus bad because it prevents a person from using his mental powers to the full and consequently from making the greatest contribution that he is capable of to the community”.

Planning has also another side. It delivers monopoly powers of employment, prices, production to the government as it is found in a socialist state. Hayek quotes Trotsky, “In a country where the sole employer is the state, opposition means death by slow starvation. The
old principle, who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one, who does not obey shall not eat”.

Here it is to be noted that in the considered opinion of Hayek planning does not normally help the progress of economy because the important elements of progress are spontaneity and freedom and planned economy is the enemy of these two elements.

Justice:

Definition and Nature:

Hayek defines the concept of justice in the following language, “Justice ought to be confined to the deliberate treatment of men by other men. It is an aspect of intentional determination of those conditions of people’s lives that are subject to such control….. Justice does require that those conditions of people’s Hues that are determined by government be provided equally for all. But equality of those conditions must lead to inequality of results”.

In this definition of justice there are few points to note. One, justice is mainly an affair among men themselves which means the state authority has nothing to do. Two, justice depends upon the activities among the men.

The overall justice of the society depends upon the behaviour, activities, attitude which men perform or demonstrate. Third, activities they do or behaviour show on their own accord. No outside force is behind the actions or behaviour constituting justice. Fourth, Hayek does not completely rule out the intervention of government in the matter of ensuring justice.

It is the duty of the government to create congenial conditions/atmospheres in which people can have justice. The creation of the conditions is not all; these must be equally distributed among all men. Though the conditions are equally distributed among men, the ultimate results may not be equal, and if the results are unequal the government need not interfere.

Principle of Distributive Justice:

Hayek explains his ideas about distributive justice: “Distributive justice requires an allocation of all resources by a central authority; it requires that people be told what to do and what ends to serve. Where distributive justice is the goal, the decisions as to what the different individuals must be made to do cannot be derived from general rules but must be made in the light of the particular aims and knowledge of the planning authority.”

Several points are implicit in this analysis of distributive justice:

(1) The prevailing distribution of income and resources is not in conformity with the basic principles of justice and naturally it requires modification or rectification.

(2) The modus operandi of the distribution shall be taken up by a central authority.

(3) People will be asked to do some work or to serve certain services.

(4) This is to be decided by the planning authority and not by the general rules of law.

(5) Hayek also speaks of a general consensus about the concept of justice. The authority cannot take any decision ignoring the general public opinion. The authority must respect the sentiment of the public.

In fact, there is hardly any place of arbitrariness in the efforts leading to the attainment of distributive justice. The central idea of distributive justice is to take steps for redistributing income and resources so that none can become the victim of wrong or unjustified distribution of resources.

Distributive Justice and Freedom:

In course of his analysis of distributive justice Hayek raises a very crucial question about the protection of individual freedom—an important constituent of liberalism. In his opinion there is a conflict between individual freedom and the governmental action in regard to distributive justice. In many democratic countries the rule of law is strictly observed and the chief objective of rule of law is to ensure equality before law, equal protection of law which aims at individual liberty.

It is apprehended that the steps designed to correct the inequalities and wrongs in the distribution of income and resources will ultimately come into conflict with the freedom of individuals. This consequence is absolutely uncalled-for if freedom is considered.

It has been found that any action on the part of the government for the rectification of injustice is bound to be discretionary and discriminatory. This is against the basics of liberalism. Hayek wants to say that the attempts to achieve distributive justice may be noble no doubt but the problem remains how to make them compatible with liberalism.

A recon­ciliation between governmental action and basic tenets of liberalism is a ‘must’ for all policy-makers. “The ultimate results of their efforts will necessarily be, not a modification of the existing order but its complete abandonment by an altogether different system—the command economy”.

Like other philosophers of the second-half of twentieth century Hayek believes that only a free market economy can be a guarantor of justice particularly in its distributive form. People’s share in wealth and income can come only through the free play of demand and supply.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Introductory:

After throwing light on important aspects of Rawls’ theory of justice we now embark on another theory of justice propounded by Robert Nozick in his Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974). Robert Nozick (1938-2002) was an American academic and a renowned political philosopher. His Anarchy, State and Utopia created a profound influence upon the contemporary academic world of political science and political philosophy. Rawls’ theory of justice was based on liberty, equality and inequality.

The policy makers shall pursue a scheme for the furtherance of liberty, equality and inequalities where such inequalities will benefit the least advantaged. But Nozick developed his theory in response to Rawls’ theory and he based his theory of justice on rights. Though both Rawls and Nozick have developed two theories of justice it cannot be said that Nozick was in any form critical of Rawls.

Rather he has showered huge accolade on the former. Rawls’ theory of justice, Nozick cautiously maintains, “is a fountain of illuminating ideas, integrated together into a lovely whole. Political philosophers now must either work within his theory or explain why not”.

In his early years Nozick was a great supporter of extreme libertarianism and in the fag end of life he considerably modified his extreme libertarianism. Some are of opinion that ultimately Nozick appears to us as a strong supporter of a political doctrine which is known to us as neo-liberalism and in this respect he is to some extent at par with Hayek.

Concept of Distributive Justice:

Before we start our analysis about distributive justice put forward by Robert Nozick we like to analyse very briefly the concept of minimal state. In the classical political as well as liberal political theory the state was primarily known as night watchman state which implied that the state had to discharge minimum functions.

These were to maintain law and order, to take action against violence, to fight the foreign aggressors, to stop theft and fraud, to implement all sorts of contracts. In order to establish its existence and credibility the state had to do all these functions. But subsequently it was felt that the functions of the state could not be confined within the above noted categories and for this reason the state that did these functions came to be designated as minimal state.

Many liberal thinkers are of opinion that the greater the functions of the state the greater are the infringement of rights of the individuals. Though the minimal state performs minimum functions still it is held that such a state has enough power to enter into the domain the rights of the individuals. In spite of this situation the minimal state is known as the most extensive state and such a state is justified.

The reason of justifying it is such a state is the most powerful vehicle for arriving at distributive justice. It is the duty of a political system to see that none is deprived of justice and for that goal the state will have to take action.

Entitlement Theory:

Mention has been made that Robert Nozick bases his theory of justice on rights. The rights come from the concept of entitlement. In other words rights mean entitlement. One has right or claim to anything means that one is entitled to it. If justice means the distribution of right, duties, privileges etc. then the idea of justice can appropriately be interpreted as entitlement theory of justice.

Nozick is reluctant to give preference to distributive justice because this concept does not give proper idea about the theory. He observes: “it would be best to use a terminology that clearly is neutral”. Implementation or realisation of the entitlement to holdings creates the foundation of the theory of justice. Thus Nozick’s theory of distributive justice and entitlement theory are same and convey identical meaning.

There are three different principles or three major topics of holdings:

(1) When a man acquires a holding (we can interpret it as property though Nozick does not use this particular term) according to the principle of justice and law, then the person concerned is entitled to that holding. In other words, property acquired in a legal and justifiable way shall cause under the authority of the person who has acquired it and it is a type of justice.

2. If a person happens to acquire a holding by means of transfer and here in this case the basic principles of justice has been strictly adhered to, then this justice- based transfer can reasonably be called an entitlement. The transfer takes place from one person to another. There are different forms of transfer such as voluntary exchange, gifts or any other type.

3. In all societies not all transfers or acquisitions take place in proper or legal or justifiable ways. There may be illegal transfers or acquisitions and it has been found that such cases are not at all rare. Naturally the rectification of this injustice or wrong can lead to another type of holding. Nozick calls it the “rectification of injustice in holding”.

When the three above noted holdings are conglomerated under one head that gives birth to a concrete shape of the theory of justice. It can be better put in the words of Nozick. He writes: “The general outlines of a theory of justice in holdings are that the holdings of a person are just if he is entitled to them by the principles of justice in acquisition and transfer, or, by the principle of rectification of injustice. If each person’s holdings are just then the total set of holdings is just”.

How do people come to know that injustice has been done to them in matter of holding? Nozick answers that from the fact/records of history or from various sources of information people gather the news that something wrong has been done to them and in that case they will move for the rectification of the wrong. If this does not happen, one cannot expect that justice will prevail.

Historical Principles and End-Result Principles:

What is Historical Principle?

For a better and illuminating formulation of a theory of justice Nozick has devised two principles-historical and end-result principles. Nozick has demonstrated that from distribution emanates entitlement and now the problem is how to decide that a distribution is just. If it is not just there cannot be justice.

In order to decide this problem Nozick has applied the criterion of historical principle. It says that the justness or unjustness of a distribution can be decided by the fact that whether it is historical or not. Historical principle means how it come about? Past records will show to what extent a distribution is able to satisfy the requirements of justice. Let us see how he defines. “Historical principles of justice hold that past circumstances or actions of people can create differential entitlements or differential deserts to things”.

If a scheme or distributive system is unjust or defective this can be rectified (of course if possible) or removed and in this way the distributive process moves from one stage to another or one scheme to another.

In the concept of historical principle there lies a clear hint of evolution of the theory of justice. There has occurred a gradual development of justice and this is chiefly due to the reason that the material circumstances of society change and this influences justice.

The End Result Principles:

Nozick has awarded another name to end-result principles and it is current time- slice principles. This concept demonstrates that how things, rights, duties and privileges are distributed and as a result of di
stribution who has got what is to be decided. Here we find that the question is not about distribution per se, we are to look into the consequences of distribution.

If the end result is satisfactory then it can be held that justice will be the result of distribution. Let us put the matter in his own words. “According to current time-slice principles (also read end-result principles), all that needs to be looked at, in judging the justice of a distribution, is who ends up with what (ital added), in comparing any two distributions one need look only at the matrix presenting the distribution”. Two important points to be noted here. Distribution must clearly state that who is getting what. The other point is this is possible only through comparison.

Nozick demands that only the end result principles can tell us what would be the exact nature of justice. If the procedure of distribution is incomplete or defective or cannot assure us of justice then the procedure can be changed. He also claims that this is the most reliable way of building up a theme of justice. We also partially agree with Robert Nozick. Partially because other factors are to be considered.

We thus come across the idea that the time-slice principles are also called unhistorical principles. Time-slice principles, end-result principles and unhistorical principles according to Nozick denote almost same thing. Noman Barry and many others say that utilitarianism and social justice theories are end-state doctrines.

According to Nozick the socialist theory about workers’ share in the profit of the company is based on historical principles. The workers claim that they also have a major share in the profit which the industry generates because this profit is the result of their labour. They have drawn this conclusion from the past history.

They have observed that the capitalists/owners of sources of production have gobbled the entire profit by nefarious means. “The socialist rightly holds onto the notions of earning producing, entitlement, desert and so forth and he rejects current time-slice principles that look only to the structure of the resulting set of holdings”.

From these two principles we form the idea that for a concrete theory of justice it is necessary to emphasise the entitlement concept. If there are any wrong doings in the acquisition of transfer of holding that must be rectified. Otherwise the justness of the distribution of entitlement will remain defective.

Patterned Principles:

After analysing the historical and end-result principles, Nozick has introduced another principle which he has designated as patterned principle. In the opinion of Nozick : “Let us call a principle of distribution patterned if it specifies that a distribution is to vary along with some natural dimension (emphasis added), weighted sum of natural dimensions, or lexicographic ordering of natural dimensions”.

Distribution of things, rights etc. should be controlled by other criteria. It may be moral, merit, usefulness to society or weighted sum of merit etc. It implies that the distribution will depend on merit, deserve, usefulness to society or natural dimension. The entitlement theory we have just now sketched does not fall in the category of patterned principle.

If a person possesses greater moral merit or if he has greater usefulness to society then he may naturally claim shares, greater reward or higher shares. And to deprive him of this rational claim will be tantamount to injustice. When the distribution is based on patterned principle it is also called patterned distribution.

Hence the whole sequence is justice is not based on equal liberty or any other principle enunciated by John Rawls rather patterned principle and the pattern relates to various elements such as usefulness to society moral merit etc. By enunciating all these Nozick wants to establish a new doctrine.

Criticism of Patterned Principle:

Nozick was quite conscious of the shortcomings of the patterned principle of justice and he has mentioned some of them.

We mention here few:

(1) Patterned principles only stress the patterned way of distribution of property and rights. But it is silent on the entitlement principles of holding and Nozick believes that only through the strengthening of this principle can justice be achieved. Hence its inability is not helpful for justice.

(2) In the opinion of Nozick justice depends on both receiving and giving of holdings or property. These two combinedly form the fabric of justice. But patterned principle only emphasises the receiving aspect and ignores the giving of property. So the patterned principle of distributive justice is a theory of recipient justice.

(3) Again there is a conflict between patterned principle and end-state principle. The patterned principle emphasises that men should be “rewarded according to the deserts is historical because it directs attention towards their past action”.

What is the conclusion? “Nozick’s own theory of justice is an historical un-patterned theory. It is an entitlement theory in which the distribution of individual property-holding is just if it is a consequence of fair acquisition. The only other aspect of justice is rectification, the principle which allows past injustices that is unfair acquisition to be corrected”.

Locke’s Theory of Acquisition:

Nozick’s theory of justice, sketched above, is a theory of entitlement and since it is a theory of entitlement it is also theory of acquisition or holding of property. Any theory of acquisition without any reference to Locke is bound to be unsatisfactory. Explaining the various aspects of social contract theory Locke has dealt with the concept of property.

He maintains that in a society the person who first lay his hand on a part of nature and made it usable with the help of labour that finally became his property. Here lies the idea of acquisition. Acquisition, thus, arises from man’s intention to use something for his personal use which will satisfy his requirement.

But there is a problem. Has every one opportunity to acquire holding/property through the utilisation of labour? This question originates from the concern that if everybody follows the same procedure ultimately there shall arise a shortage of property which means that everybody will not have any scope to acquire property.

The labour is the main factor behind the acquisition and every one will have the opportunity to acquire property by dint of his labour. Locke arrived at this conclusion because he believed that there would be enough in the nature and none would be deprived of property. “Whatever then he removes out of the state that nature has provided and left it is he has mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own and thereby makes his property. There is enough and as good left in common for others.”

In this way acquisition was established in Lockean concepts of contract theory and property. This proves that even after the acquisition process continues enough portions of state of nature will remain for the acquisition of others. This process will not worsen the right and position of others in respect of the acquisition of property.

But there is a complicated problem. If everybody goes on acquiring property freely or without any limitation, then time will come when nothing will be left or very little will be left for others which will not be enough for the sake of justice.

A thorough study of Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government assures us that he was quite aware of it. Nobody will be permitted to acquire more than what he needs. “A theory of appropriation incorporating the Lockean proviso will handle correctly the cases where someone appropriates the total supply of something necessary for life”.

Whenever a person
proceeds to appropriate holding/property he must not violate the Lockean proviso because any violation will go against justice. “Thus a person may not appropriate the only water hole in a desert and charge what he will. Nor may he charge what he will if he possesses one”. “But this proviso would not, in Nozick’s theory, prevent someone who discovered a cure for a fatal disease charging whatever price he liked”.

Criticisms:

Nozick’s theory of justice is apparently attractive and convincing but in final analysis it is not so.

Critics have raised several objections against it:

1. Nozick has given undue importance to distributive aspect of justice. Through the entitlement of holding he has built up the entitlement theory. Entitlement of holding may be in the form of acquisition or transfer or rectification of injustice.

These are the cases of distribution but what about production? He has neglected it and we think that it is unjust. Both production and distribution are closely connected and to ignore one will lead to an incomplete theory.

2. Robert Nozick was in strong favour of minimal state which is equivalent to night watchman state. It means that in any society the state has a role to play, though the role may be minimum. Nozick’s theory does not make it clear what role the state will exactly play in establishing justice.

Moreover, since Nozick’s theory falls into the category of distributive justice the state, through its elaborate machinery, must ensure proper distribution of holding, and at the same time entitlement to holding. If legal and other problems arise on the way of acquisition or transfer or rectification of previous wrong who will take the responsibility of rectifying this or solving the problem? In Nozick’s theory it remains unsolved.

3. Nozick has taken it for granted that people will strictly adhere to Locke’s proviso that enough will be left for the use of others for their use and the situations of others will not worsen. This implies too much reliance on the rationality of holders or users of property. But we cannot say that all the property owners will resist them from acquiring property/holding beyond their necessity.

If this happens in actual world, we are sure, there would not arise necessity of state or enforcing authority. Even the Utopian socialists and Rousseau could not imagine such a situation.

4. It is unfortunate that both Rawls and Nozick have offered us a theory of justice which they wanted to formulate in a society plagued by class divisions. If a society is divided into two opposing classes, and if one class is economically dominant the comparatively weak class would definitely be deprived of justice. For a real theory of justice, we firmly believe, there shall exist equality in its various manifestations.

5. Nozick, in his thorough analysis of distributive justice intends to highlight a greater philosophy and wants to draw the attention of his readers to politics which is popularly called liberalism.

But though liberal philosophy has many good aspects, its black spots and irritating aspects are not to be ignored. The real picture of liberal political philosophy of USA, Britain, and other states is not unknown to us and in that perspective we can say that neither Rawls’ nor Nozick’s theory of justice attracts us. They are meant for capitalism.

6. Justice can be divided into social, economic and political and all are connected with each other. Rawls’ and Nozick’s theory speaks least about their connection. Their theory is based upon certain principles.

Upload and Share Your Article:

In this article we will discuss about:- 1. Meaning of Pressure Groups 2. Characteristics of Pressure Groups 3. Salient Features of Pressure Groups in India 4. Techniques of Pressure Groups 5. Critical Evaluation of Pressure Groups in India.

Meaning of Pressure Groups:

Today there is no country in the world which is free from pressure groups. These groups try to influence and pressurise every political institution to serve their own interests and to ensure that at least in no case their interests suffer, if at all these are not promoted.

Prof. S. Finer has characterised these groups as ‘anonymous empire’ whereas Richard D. Lambert is of the view that these are unofficial government, which implies that no government can run without taking their view point into consideration.

These groups influence both public policy as well as administration and go a long way in determining political structure of the society and the form of government. In India Prof. Rajni Kothari has made a significant study of working and organisation of these groups.

Pressure groups are concerned primarily with certain issues and thus may not field their candidates at the time of elections. But those who have some common interest come together and try to change the course of public affairs.

If taken in this sense any social group which seeks to influence the behaviour of any political officer, both administrative as well as legislative, without attempting to gain formal control of the government can be called a pressure group.

It exerts persuasive powers to get certain political decisions in its favour. These groups have no public but only private interests and also these are organised groups of people who have some common interests for solving their own problems.

Characteristics of Pressure Groups:

Pressure groups everywhere have certain characteristics. Each group organises itself keeping in view certain interests and thus tries to adopt to the structure of power in the political system. But in every government and political party there are clashing interest groups and as such not only that they wish to dominate the political structure, but also try to brush aside those groups which are opposed to their interests.

Thus, each political system and party which is either in or out of office is pressurised by certain interest groups, which many a time inter-act, counter-act and react to each other. In India there is multi-party political system and in each party there are several pressure groups. In the unification and bifurcation of these parties, these groups go a long way i.e., play a considerable role.

Then another feature of the pressure groups is that these very quickly change political allegiance, as that suits to their conditions and protects their interests. The groups being both big or small, appear as well as disappear depending on the situations and the then prevailing conditions.

Accordingly difficult to catalogue these groups either on the basis of their size, or duration, or political allegiance or even the purpose for which these are organised.

Then another characteristic or feature of these pressure groups is that these try to follow modem means of exerting pressure, without boldly renouncing old methods. But their sole purpose of adopting old and modem methods is to promote as well as protect their own interests.

They adopt techniques like financing of political parties, sponsoring such candidates at the times of elections which are their close associates and who can be depended upon and to ensure that such persons hold executive jobs in the government who look after their interests.

These groups also keep bureaucracy and top high officials in good humour and pay them for the services which they get either from the political bosses or permanent executive. The pressure groups, in order to protest their interests, also employ traditional means of exploiting caste, creed and religion and in their name try to win their co-operation.

They finance caste and religious organisations, bodies and donate money at public meetings to become popular with them. While doing so they forget national interests or the cause of national integration. They keep their group interests above national interests.

Pressure groups have no political commitments. These try to side with the government of the day. These guess with which party to side, which can in the long run be to its advantage. Thus for this no norms can be laid down.

If any pressure group has any permanent political affiliation that can be only due to compelling circumstances. Not only this, but pressure groups will try to have their lobbies in every wing of the political hierarchy.

Still another feature of pressure groups is that these always try to see that there is no political stability and perfect law and order situation does not prevail in the country. In case that happens then both political bosses and bureaucracy will be in complete grip of the situation and the groups will have to play to their tune.

On the other hand, if there is instability and lack of law and order, then role of pressure groups will be more dominant These will then have upper hand in every walk of life.

These groups, in order to have an upper hand, create a situation of uncertainty, help creating explosive situations where violence becomes unavoidable or encourage strikes, etc. and in order to embarrass political bosses see that the people demonstrate, observe fasts and hartals and so on.

Salient Features of Pressure Groups in India:

In India pressure groups though comparatively of recent origin have so organised themselves that they neither openly support nor oppose any political party. Each such group tries to thrive on the support of some political party or power. These have a sort of fear psychology.

These always try to remain neutral in politics. In fact, in India political parties try to have pressure groups with them and wish to win their co-operation. One finds that at the time of elections political parties approach religious and trade union leaders for their active support.

The bigger the political party, more it shall be able to absorb and adjust pressure groups. In a weak political system pressure groups try to become equal partner with political bosses.

Pressure groups in India are required to work in multi-party system and thus they are forced to keep shifting their loyalties. They do not work independently but each one functions under the patronage of some political party. These pressure groups are forced to pay consideration to region, religion and caste rather ideology and national integrity and even political honesty.

They feel interested in creating a situation of disorder and lawlessness for having group advantage out of political instability. They use both modern and old techniques of putting pressures on the powers that be and thus they do not adhere to anyone method. No group has political commitment and thus many groups become anomic organisations.

In the words of Kochanak, “As the Indian case reveals, the political system itself sets the parameters for group activities and groups can be understood as part of a larger and more complex set of relationships which composes the larger political system.” Quite often in India pressure groups are over weighed by religion, caste and language rather than ideological considerations.

In India, however, pressure groups have made slow progress. Firstly, because Congress party though a political party, has been an important link between local groups and state governments. Then another reason for slow growth of these groups is that bureaucracy has seen these groups with distrust and t
hus never encouraged group people to come near it.

But in spite of this pressure groups in India have started playing important role. Hardgrave has said, “Interest groups not only are agents of interest articulation but they also increase political consciousness…. In addition, interest groups may be reservoirs of political leadership; this has been particularly true for trade unions of India.”

Techniques of Pressure Groups:

Pressure groups are very keen that their objectives should be achieved and for this they adopt various techniques in India. They try to go near those who can help them in achieving their objectives may he be an administrator or a politician. They, however, prefer the former over the latter.

They use caste, creed, religion, relationship and above all money power to go near the power that be Such an approach is made usually indirectly because under code of conduct public servants wish that their identity should not disclosed while because of party discipline, ordinary members of a House of a legislature cannot support a particular cause, against the established policy of the party.

The pressure groups try to have their representatives in various committees which are set up by the government from time to time, particularly when their interests are involved. They approach the experts to convince them of their view point and even establish their contacts with public servants at the low level.

They attach special importance who are either decision makers or can articulate effectively their view point. They provide funds to political parties at the time of election or when otherwise needed by them and for them that is an investment. Trade unions adopt the methods of strikes, demonstrations, gheraos, etc., for getting their demands met. Sometimes these even resort to violence.

Thus, in India pressure groups use different types of techniques but on the whole these are weak and at the developing stage.

Critical Evaluation of Pressure Groups in India:

Pressure groups in India, by and large, have no political commitment. They are weak and do not openly extent their support to the political party other than the one which is in power. They hesitate to displease authorities and government. It is hoped that these groups will always be non-violent and follow secular policies.

These groups try to strengthen only such parties, which they feel are likely to come to power, if already not in authority. For them their own interests are supreme and paramount and when they feel that these clash with those of the others, in order to preserve their interests, they go to the other extreme end.

Pressure groups in India have not been much success because of several reasons. The main reason for this is that they have failed to organise themselves as a second body. They have no well developed infrastructure which can help in regularly and vigorously pursuing their interests.

Single party dominant system at the centre is also considerably responsible for their slow growth. Political parties do not wish that any serious challenge be thrown to their authority even by powerful pressure group. Not only this, but even pressure groups have tried to develop under the patronage of political parties.

The funds are provided to them in a bid to go near them and directions are received from political bosses. Even political parties try to divide each pressure group and to have strong hold over one such group at least. Then by and large they follow negative method for getting their work done. As is well known such a method is negative rather than being the positive one.

Then another cause of their slow growth is that in India individual legislators have not been found very effective by the pressure groups. Each such group realises that because of party discipline and with the operation of Anti-Defection Act, each legislator must vote on party lines. Thus, contacts should be developed with the party and not with any individual legislator.

The pressure groups also realise that in India bureaucracy is very strong and can help them a lot. But somehow so far these groups, by and large, have failed to corrupt bureaucracy. There is also no unity in pressure groups. In fact, there is no group which is not a house bitterly divided in several factions and sub-groups one speaking openly against the other. In several cases there is also lack of good leader.

In several cases pressure group leaders try to become political leaders. Their political ambitions frustrate the basic character of the pressure group. Most of the pressure groups like trade unions, student organisations, etc., are not financially very sound and without finances these cannot function effectively.

Thus, on the whole, in India so far the impact of pressure groups on politics has not been felt and is also not going to be much deep rooted unless things radically change to their advantage. It is, however, being noticed that pressure groups are trying to get roots as in advanced western societies, though still these are in the initial stages.

Upload and Share Your Article:

In this article we will discuss about functions of the cabinet in the parliament. 

In India, both cabinet and Council of Minister are required to perform very many functions and these are increasing day-by-day; particularly in the case of cabinet, the work load has much increased and it is being lightened by the device of committees of the cabinet. Every cabinet in a parliamentary form of government is required to perform executive, legislative, financial, judicial, etc., functions.

These are:

Each Cabinet Minister is head of a department. It is his duty and responsibility to see that decisions taken by the Parliament are immediately implemented and these too in right spirit. In fact, executive infuses blood and skeleton in the decisions of the legislature. As executive head a Minister is to ensure that there is proper co-ordination and co-operation at different levels in the official hierarchy of his department.

He is to see that the work of the Ministry does not receive any set back for want to proper guidance. Not only this, but since the whole government functions as a co-ordinated whole, therefore, it is also his responsibility to see that work of different departments is properly co-ordinated.

Then as executive head of his department he is to advice the President through, of course, his Prime Minister, about all important appointments to be made in his department. He is to ensure that all available positions are timely and properly filled and persons of high standing and sound knowledge and integrity man the jobs.

Thus, he should rise above narrow considerations of nepotism and favouritism, while making recommendations about personnel for various available jobs in his Department.

Cabinet as a body makes all high appointments, including those of the Ambassadors, High Commissioners, Chairman and Members of the Union Public Service Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General of India, etc. In addition, from time to time the government appoints certain Commissions/ Committees, etc.

The cabinet also approves and appoints the chairmen and members of these Commissions and Committees. Under the constitution it is the responsibility of the President to appoint Governors of the states. The cabinet takes decisions about the names of the persons to be appointed, though formally their names are announced by the President.

Similarly the Chiefs, of the Army, Navy and Air Force, are appointed by the cabinet and so is the case with the appointment of Chief Justice of India and Judges of the Supreme Court.

Like the responsibilities in the field of executive, the cabinet has a lot of work to do in the legislative field and its responsibilities in this regard are quite vast. The members of the cabinet and Council of Ministers are the members of either House of Parliament.

It is their responsibility to see that Parliament meets at the most suitable time and the work of both the Houses is so conducted that it remains busy throughout the session.

The cabinet initiates all important legislative measures in the House. It ensures that all outdated Acts are annulled and those which need to be modified in the light of experience gained are modified. Similarly each Minister brings forward and pilots bills which his department needs.

He is to ensure that all Bills initiated by him are passed and if during the course of debate there is criticism on the working of his department that is fully replied and the critics are kept well satisfied In case some ordinances have been promulgated during inter-session period, he is also to get these approved so that these become the law of the land.

During the course of debate opposition members make some criticism and also give some suggestions. Similarly some members of the House who are not members of Council of Ministers also bring forward certain bills.

The cabinet decides how far the suggestions made can be accepted and bills initiated by private members are to get the approval of the government and also its support. In fact without government approval or its support, no bill can be passed.

These days world has become very short and each nation is becoming more and more dependent on the other. Every nation is quite keen that it should have cordial relations with the others. Not only this but each nation wants to develop commercial ties with as many nations as possible.

Similarly in every state there are citizens of other states, whose interests are to be fully well protected. For this relationship is to be established with other states. For the purpose the cabinet appoints ambassadors and High Commissioners in other states.

When other states appoint their representatives in India before these actually arrive in India, the cabinet decides whether such a person is a persona non-gratia or not and whether his appointment is to be or not to be accepted.

Similarly the cabinet decides whether activities of a member of diplomatic mission of any country are prejudicial to the interests of India and if so what will be the results of expulsion of any diplomat on mutual relations of the two countries. Similarly the cabinet decides how far India will improve or strengthen her relations with a particular nation or region of the world.

If any basic changes are to be introduced in foreign policy of the country, these are also to be decided by the cabinet, before making these public. How important are foreign affairs, these days is evident from the fact that Pt. Nehru himself used to be the External Affairs of the country and this portfolio is since then being held by a very senior Cabinet Minister and member of the party.

In the financial field again the cabinet has many functions to perform. Of course, the budget is prepared by the Finance Minister and in the initial stages it is discussed with the Prime Minister and with the inner cabinet, whose approval is treated as the approval of the whole cabinet. But the cabinet is not taken by surprise. The proposals are discussed in the cabinet at some stage in one form or the other.

Then it decides how far should the revenues of the state be collected and what tax relief should be given to the people. Similarly, it/is the responsibility of each Minister to see that budget proposals of his Ministry are approved by the House.

It is, of course, very trying time for the Minister when his budget proposals come forward and a wide ranging criticism is made on the working of the Ministry and the Minister is expected to defend the performance of his Ministry. In fact no budget proposal in the House can come unless that is initiated by a Minister.

Planning Commission in India plays a very big role in channelising economic resources of the country. Prime Minister, who is the head of the Council of Ministers, is also the chief of the Planning Commission. All plan proposals are approved by the cabinet and that also decides plan policies and gives guide-lines.

Without its approval, the plan is not finally approved. The members of the Planning Commission are also appointed by the cabinet. Several Cabinet Ministers are also members of Planning Commission.

Council of Minister in India, also decides about the imposition of President’s rule in the state and also duration of that rule. It is important because during such a period, real power and authority for the governance of state is vested in the hands of the central government which in effect means the Council of Ministers.

It is Council of Ministers, more particularly cabinet, which takes all financial, legislative and administrative decisions during this period.

Similarly the Council of Ministers decides about the time and duration of emergency, both internal and external. Needless to say that during this period Fundamental Rights of the people are suspended and for all practical purposes federal structure of the country turns out to be unitary. Many functions which it is not normally required to be performed
, are now discharged by it.

Because of reasons of secrecy the decisions taken in the cabinet meetings are not recorded. The decisions taken are almost always unanimous. The cabinet meets usually once a week unless there is great urgency to meet early.

Upload and Share Your Article: