Category: Political Science Notes

1. Private Laws:

Private laws determine the relation of citizens to one another. They regulate the relations among individuals. “In Private Law”, says Holland, “the parties concerned are private individuals above and between whom stands the state as an impartial arbiter.”

2. Public Laws:

Public laws are the laws that determine the relation of citizens to the state. Distinguishing Public Law from Private Law Holland says, “In public law also the state is present as an arbiter, although it is at the same time one of the parties interested.

3. Constitutional Laws:

Constitutional Laws are all those “rules which t directly or indirectly affect the distribution or the exercise of power in the state”, and which are “enforced by the courts”. Constitutional Laws are the basic laws according to which the government in a state conducts itself.

In short, the laws that define, interpret and regulate the functions of the government are known as constitutional laws. The laws which are not related to the forms and functions of the government and to the fundamental rights but are related to the social and economic affairs of all citizens are known as ordinary laws. For example, the election of the President, the powers and functions of the Supreme Court and method of the appointment of the Governors are the constitutional affairs but the abolition of child-marriage, prohibition of wine, Hindi Code Bill, etc., come under the command of ordinary laws.

4. Statute Laws:

The laws which are framed by the Legislative Assembly or by the Parliament are known as Statute Laws. These days Democratic Government is popular in most of the countries and most of the laws are framed there by the Parliaments in those countries.

5. Ordinances:

Ordinances are the orders issued by the executive branch of the government within the powers prescribed to them by the law of the state. In simple words, the President issues the orders, in the absence of Parliament, in order to face the emergency. As a rule ordinances are not permanent. They are issued for ne special purpose of facing emergency.

6. Common Laws:

Common laws are those laws which rest on customs but are enforced by the law courts like statute law. Common laws are quite popular in England.

7. Administrative Laws:

According to Dicey, administrative laws interpret the office and responsibilities of government servants. Administrative laws enable the public officers to separate law and procedure from private individuals. These laws also attempt to interpret the privileges of government officials.

These laws are not popular in England, U.S.A. and India. They are popular in France and a few other countries of Europe. If there arises a dispute between a citizen and a government-servant, the citizen goes to the Administrative Courts.

The Administrative Court resolves the dispute with the help of administrative laws. Such Administrative Courts are not popular in India, England and U.S.A. Here all the cases are filed in the ordinary courts.

8. International Laws:

International laws are rules which determine the conduct of the general body of civilized states in their dealing with each other. International laws stand for the body of the rules which regulates the relations between states. These laws are not framed by any sovereign law-making authority nor is there any sovereign authority to enforce these laws.

But these laws are backed by International Public Opinion. These laws are meant for regulating the conduct of various states in the world. They have the force only to the extent to which they are recognised and accepted by the different states of the world.

For example, it is a universally accepted international law that the plane of no foreign country can fly over the territory of any country without seeking its permission. This international law is universally accepted by all the countries of the world.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Meaning of Approach:

From the days of ancient Greek political thought scholars, philosophers and political scientists have analysed, investigated various types of political issues and incidents from the standpoint of their own perspective and on the basis of the study they have arrived at conclusions and prescribed recommendations.

This has inevitably led to the emergence of a number of approaches to the study of political science. Now we shall first of all try to analyse various aspects of each approach but before that we shall define approach. We have already noted Van Dyke’s points on another issue. According to Van Dyke the word “approach is defined to denote the criteria employed in selecting the questions to ask and the data to consider in political inquiry”.

In the opinion of Van Dyke, approach means criteria. A criterion is used to explain or analyse the political questions and data. Since the questions and data are very great in number and varied in nature each political scientist or philosopher analyses them in his own way by applying his own standpoint and method.

In physical or chemical science there exists an agreed method and more or less all researchers and scientists apply those agreed methods. But there is hardly any place of broad based agreement in political science as to the method and approach.

Another aspect of approach is methods employed by political science for its study cannot be distinguished from the methods used by other branches of social science. So also the approaches of political science are not different from other approaches.

However, this general observation is not hundred percent correct. Sometimes the approaches employed by political scientists differ in content from the approaches used by other social scientists. Thus variety of approaches for the study of political science is a central aspect of the subject.

Again from the past history of political science we gather the idea that at different periods different approaches have gained importance. In other words, the rise and fall in the importance of approaches is a noticeable characteristic.

Approach, we can say, is a scientific way of studying a subject. The students will have to analyse and categorize data, facts, events, problems etc. The point to note is that they cannot do it unscientifically or proceed haphazardly. To be precise, for a balanced and effective analysis and promising investigation analysts must proceed in a systematic way and for that purpose the students or analysts must apply a method or criterion and we call it approach.

Therefore, approach is a way to analyse a subject or what may suitably be called a discipline. It is believed by many that the application of an approach considerably enhances the importance and credibility of the analysis as well as discipline. So without an approach the analysis of the subject may not be in a position to receive wide support from the readers and also their credence.

Classification of Approaches:

The approaches employed by political scientists for the study of politics have been classified by Wasby in the following way: one classification may be based on fact-value problem. This leads to the division of classification into normative approach and empirical approach.

The other classification is based on the objective of study of political science. That is, in this approach the political scientists want to stress the specific purposes of studying and investigating politics. This broad group can again be subdivided into philosophical, ideological, institutional and structural approaches.

Some scholars are of opinion that Wasby-proposed classification of approaches is generally traditional in nature. Modern political scientists have made a broad classification of the approaches. On the one hand there is normative approach which to some extent liberal bias and on the other hand Marxist approach.

In the second half of the last century a large number of political scientists of America and later on other countries began to analyse political issues, incidents and behaviour from the standpoint of behaviour (particularly the political behaviour) of the individuals. David Easton championed this approach.

In formal language it is called behaviouralism or political behaviour and after very few years this behaviouralism landed on post- behaviouralism. Recently some scholars have attempted to analyse political science in a feminist way and it is called feminist approach.

Normative Approach:

The Meaning and Origin of Normativeness:

The term normative is derived from the Latin word norma, meaning precept rule, carpenter’s square. The word norm means usual, typical or standard thing. Normative relates to norm or standard. The central idea of normative approach is—the subject is viewed and analysed normatively that is there are certain standards, rules and precepts which must find their application in political science.

Again, political science means in its operative aspects. When the state starts its operation its primary objective would be to achieve the above-noted norms, standards and precepts. The success and failure will determine the nature, credibility, acceptability of the state or government.

Hence norms are several principles which an authority cannot deny. The accountability of the authority is also based on these norms and principles. Norm or normativeness is explained in terms of “should” and “ought”. It means that the authority should do it or adopt such and such policy or decision. Or it ought to do it.

Therefore, normativeness talks about preference. The word preference is not different from should and ought. To sum up, the objectives and functions of state are judged in the background of preference, should and ought.

Origin of the Approach:

Normative approach to the study of politics owes its origin to the political philosophy of Greek philosopher Plato. The thought of a good society or an ideal state and the entire structure of such a state are built upon the concepts like ‘should’, ‘ought’, ‘preference’ etc. He said that any state or society ought to be or should be ideal or good and he has elaborated the criteria of good or ideal in his The Republic.

The picture of state that prevailed in Plato’s time was very far from of what ought to be or should be. In most of the city-states in Plato’s time there was no place and recognition of morality, virtue, ideals and ethics. But he firmly believed that a state ought to have these eternal values and he also said that in order to be an ideal state all individuals must be ideal that is they must possess virtues such as morality and various ethical qualities.

His great disciple Aristotle followed the footsteps of Plato and elaborated the ideal state. In latter periods we come across a number of philosophers who emphasised the normative approach of politics and the great contractualist Rousseau is a prominent figure.

The normative approach stressed by Plato, Aristotle, and Rousseau etc has assumed the form and colour of Utopia. Utopia means something which has no practical foundations and it is not supported by reasons. Large number of philosophers began to scan the existing systems by Utopian criteria. Again with the help of this standard existing situations are to be judged.

Thomas More (1478-1535) imagined of a Utopia or an imaginary state. His famous book Utopia was published in 1516 and here he depicted the picture of an ought to be state. He disapproved the drawbacks that characterised the prevailing state of his time and that led him to think of an ought to be state.

Central Idea of Normative Approach:

The central idea of the normative approach to the study of politics is politics or analysis
of state or the functions of state are to be viewed in the light of what ought to be rather that what they are. The normativeness wants to give preference to should and ought to be. It wants the realisations of certain universal values, norms or principles through, the machinery of state. “Instead of asking how social policy decisions have come to be made, it asks instead about how they ought to be made. In such studies the aim is to examine a set of political principles, detail their logical characteristics and explore their implications for social policy, at least in broad institutional terms”.

It is assumed by some that since normative principles relates to what should be or ought to be these principles can easily be ignored. But the great adherents of the approach declare unambiguously that norms, or principles are not to be ignored but they are to be implemented. “Normative theory should be a reflection on practice, not a means of ignoring it”.

Thus we can say that values, principles or eternal ideas relating to politics or function of state constituted the central idea of normative approach to the study of politics. In other words, this approach says that norms or principles are to be followed in practice and the aim of such norms is to make the political organisation acceptable to all or majority people.

Components of the Normative Approach:

In the normative approach there is an emphasis on what is good and what is not good. It says that when a policy-maker proceeds to formulate policy or adopt a decision he must see that to what extent the policy or decision will produce desired results. The concept of goodness is linked with expectation.

The members of political organisation want to fulfill their manifold desires and they expect that the authority shall act accordingly. It may be that the expectations do not always tally the real results. But that does not matter. The expectations fall in the category of “ought to be”. Good also relates to the attainment of welfare objectives of the state. The term good starts to scan the policy, decision and function of authority.

The normative approach establishes the concept of responsibility. If certain norms and principles are put forward and if they are made binding on the authority, people can judge the success or failure of the authority. In other words, norms are easy of locating the responsibility.

Normative approach stipulates that norms or principles are of immense value and importance so far as the determination of policy and decision and their implementation are concerned. ‘Is’ or ‘what’ is happening, are important no doubt but every authority must follow these norms and ideals.

Normative approach envisages of striking a balance or equilibrium between what is or what happens and ought to be or should be. Any biasness will invariably plague the proper functioning of state as well as decision making process.

An authority aiming at the attainment of general welfare objectives cannot take the risk of neglecting either ought to be or what is. The balancing process is not a stable one. It is always in an unstable condition. It moves from one stage to another.

Normative approach never thinks of anything settled. Though it is generally argued that norms, values, principles are of eternal in nature but scholars are of opinion that the word ‘eternal’ need not be taken seriously.

Values, norms etc. are always subject to change and a responsible authority must take this change into account and also will act accordingly. That is normative approach though pays heavy emphasis on norms it proceeds with the change. In every age certain norms, values and principles are given more importance and they are given priority.

Importance of Normative Approach:

It is now evident that in normative approach there is lot of importance of norms, values, ideals, ideas. It further believes that they have got relevance in the study of politics. It is a fact that all these cannot be translated into reality. But on this ground the norms, values, etc. cannot be thrown into the wind. They have importance and a large number of political scientists and statesmen still believe that the norms have immense importance.

The normative approach criticises the functions, principles and policies of the existing states as did Plato in his The Republic. Even today the same approach is followed. The criticism by the supporters of the normative approach has not always succeeded in changing the prevailing course of action of the state or the un-normative principles of the authority.

But it has been able to aware the public about the state of activities of political organisation. This approach suggests that what is going on should be changed for the better. It is still believed that the normative approach can be helpful for the day to day activities of state.

It is alleged that normative approach to the study of politics is a smack of norms, ideals, values and principles which have not full relevance to the reality of social and political situation. But this criticism is not tenable. As every individual should decide certain principles which he wants, to follow, a state should also decide or set up certain ideals, norms and principles which it should apply while deciding policies and taking decisions.

All these are declared in various forms such as constitution, laws and general policy decisions. After deciding the principles or general objectives the state proceeds to implement them. This can be illustrated by the Constitution of India. The Preamble to our Constitution contains several lofty ideals and many of them are yet to be achieved. But this non-implementation does not invalidate the ideals.

The rise of welfare state and its increasing popularity have added new feathers to this approach. The concept of welfare state declares that the function of the state does not exhaust in maintaining law and order alone, it must perform many other functions which will bring about general welfare to the society. The welfare objectives on the one hand and ideals, norms, principles on the other hand are always at par. The welfare objectives pay more importance upon the ought to be or should be.

The function of the state is not a static one. In a dynamic society it should also be dynamic. It means that the state should make continuous efforts for the improvement of its functions and this again means that there should be certain ideals, principles and norms before it. Otherwise it will have to sail in an uncharted sea. But a pragmatic theory of state does not suggest that the state should sail in an uncharted sea. The fact is that the state should decide certain ideals and then it will begin its journey.

It is apprehended that there may arise conflict between practice and ideals or between “is” and “ought to be” and this conflict may dwarf the activities of the state. There is also a possibility that the norms could not be fulfilled. But the non-fulfilment does not call for its rejection. Norms are always norms and they always act as guiding stars.

Plato’s ideal state, philosopher king, Aristotle’s polity, Marx’s classless state or society, his communism, Rousseau’s moral state etc still haunt us. We all know that all these can never be achieved but we still hope that we must try to achieve them because they are our ideals.

It is not surprising that in the writings and thought systems of every philosopher there is an important place of ideals and principles and this place is very much important. Take the case of utilitarianism. Its great pro pounders proposed that the state authority must follow the principle of pleasure and pain or in general the policy of utility while making policy or taking decisions. The utilitarianism has not been strictly followed or it is ignored, but it still holds good as a policy of liberalism.

The supporters of the normative approach say that this hints at the efficiency of the state. Once the norms and ideals a
re declared the authority of the state should make arrangement for their implementation any discrepancy between promises and performance will call for a valuation of the activities. If the discrepancy stands at a minimum level that will be an indication of the efficiency of the state.

Some political scientists claim that an adequate and comprehensive political theory must duly take into account of the normative approach to the study of politics. Legal approach and empirical approach have importance no doubt. But normative approach has importance.

Historical Approach:

Meaning and Nature of Historical Approach:

The historical approach to the study of politics is one of the traditional approaches. History means the records of past incidents and facts. These took place at different periods. It also means what people have thought or imagined. “History as a record consists of documentary and other primary evidences” which occurred in the past. So far as historical approach is concerned we shall concentrate our attention on historical events recorded in documentary evidences.

The characteristic feature of historical approach is that history as a written or recorded subject focuses on the past events. From history we come to know how man was in the past and what he is now. History is the store-house of events. From the biographies, autobiographies, descriptions by authors and journalists we come to know what event took place in the past.

It is to be noted here that the events must have political baring or they must be politically significant. These events provide the best materials upon which theory and principles of political science are built. History tells us how government, political parties and many other institutions worked, their successes and failures and from these we receive lessons which guide us in determining the future course of action. Let us take an example.

The American President enjoys enormous powers. But all his powers are not derived from the Constitution. In order to find out a distinction between what powers he enjoyed past and powers now he is exercising, historical analysis is essential. Naturally, history helps us a lot in this regard. Without history we cannot collect any past incidents. The sources of British constitution are historical facts or incidents.

A very small part of British constitution is written. Powers and functions of Prime Minister, Monarchy and different organs of government are derived from history. To support or refute an argument or a conclusion one can cite facts recorded in the pages of history. The principles or conclusions of politics in many cases are based on historical incidents. Briefly stated the historical approach means to study politics with the help of facts derived from history.

History is not simply the record of past events and achievements but the interpretations, comments and explanations made by the historians. They also arrange the events chronologically. All these are regarded as suitable materials for political scientists. We can say the historians have made the task of the political scientists partially easy. The comparisons and conclusions of historians very often throw ample light on principles of politics.

Two great personalities of political philosophy depended upon history in a remarkable way. They are Marx and Hegel. In fact, Marx’s theory of class struggle and increasing impoverishment of the working class are buttressed by historical data. Hegel drew inspiration in formulating a philosophical theory of civilisation and its manifestation in national state from the study of history. Dyke says that Marx has reified and personified history.

Michael Oakshott unequivocally lays emphasis on the historical approach of the study of politics. He offers us the following observation: “Politics as the activity of attending to the general arrangements of a collection of people who ……. compose a single community.” Here his main emphasis is on the tradition and practice of political community.

He also distrusts rationalism. In his judgment, inhabitants of a state are “hereditary cooperative groups.” Oakshott’s final observation demands our special attention. He says “what we are learning to understand is a political tradition, a concrete manner of behaviour. And for this reason it is proper that at the academic level the study of politics should be an historical study.”

Not only Oakshott but many other modern political’ scientist have supported the historical approach to the study of political science. 

Evaluation of Historical Approach:

The historical approach to the study of politics has faced a few challenges from several quarters. One of the main fulcrums of the challenges is history has two faces— one is documentation of facts which is quite naive and the other is interpretation of facts and phenomena. Again, the accumulation of evidences is to be judged from a proper perspective.

The implication is adequate care should be taken while evaluating evidence and facts and it is not surprising that such a caution is not always strictly followed and, as a result the historical facts do not serve the proper purpose of those who use it. This is the main objection against the historical approach to the study of politics. We can in this connection remember the opinion of a critic.

He says: “History in the light of the best modern practice is to be sharply distinguished from the antiquarianism or the collection of facts for their own sake and should be defined rather as the study of problems or causes, the interpretation of phenomena”.

Of course, how much caution the historian will take cannot be said before-hand. It depends upon the person and the facts. Caution is, however, essential. The adoption of caution is mandatory because history records fabricated data. Facts and incidents are not always correctly recorded. This is not an imaginary allegation.

Alan Ball has drawn our attention to another dark side of the historical approach. He says “past evidence does leave^–alarming gaps, and political history is often simply a record of great men and great events, rather than a comprehensive account of total political activity.” Very few historians interpret historical events and evidences broadly and liberally.

Narrowness in outlook prevails upon them leading to the biased interpretation of facts. This cannot provide a better and reliable basis for political science. The historian must be sincere in collecting facts and impartial in interpreting them. Such an approach only can be helpful for the study of politics.

Sir Ivor Jenning’s is a great authority on British constitution and his analysis about various aspects of British Constitution is still regarded as authentic. His treatment of history is really unique. The depth of analysis, broadness of outlook and impartiality of treatment has elevated his research and students of politics still remember him. From the records of history Jennings has formulated a comprehensive account of the British Prime Minister, Parliament and other departments of Government.

Robert Mackenzie studied the party system and Mackintosh investigated the working of cabinet system of England. Their method is historical, but they have interpreted the documents liberally. The writings of these authors are encouraging and have created precedents. Many other thinkers have depended upon historical facts for the analysis of politics. Many of them have been successful, but not all.

Philosophical Approach:

Meaning and Nature of Philosophical Approach:

Philosophical approach is another traditional or classical approach of studying politics. There are many definitions of philosophy and one such definition is, philosophy “is the study or science of truths or principles underlying all knowledge and being.” It means that philosophy
or philosophical approach attempts to find the truth of political incidents or events. It explores the objective of political writings or the purpose of political writer.

The purpose of philosophical approach is to analyse the consequences of incidents in a logical and scientific manner. According to Van Dyke “philosophy denotes thought about thought. Somewhat more broadly it denotes general conceptions of ends and means, purposes and methods.” The purpose of philosophical approach is to clarify the words and terms used by the political philosophers. The enquiry started by the philosophical approach removes confusion about the assumptions.

The important plus point of philosophical approach is it enters into the depth of every aspect of political phenomena and scans them without any partiality Its interpretation of political activities evokes interest in the minds of students of politics Words and phrases used by philosophers throw light on the subject. Philosophical approach, it is claimed, enhances linguistic clarity. That is why it is said that this approach aims at thought about thought.

The method applied by philosophical approach is logical analysis. It uses reason to find out the truth. The truth which this approach establishes or finds out may be of various kinds-normative, descriptive or prescriptive. But the philosophical approach is indifferent to the nature or category of truth.

It also tries to establish standards of good, right and just. It has been observed by a critic that the objective of this approach is to determine what is in the interest of the public and he identifies interest more with ends that with means.

In the vast range of political science there are a number of great or remarkable books Philosophical approach wants to explore the meaning and central theme of these books as well as the exact purpose of the authors. In the contemporary Greek city-states of Plato morality, moral values and idealism degraded to such an extent that he received a great shock and seriously thought to revive these and this urge prompted him to write The Republic.

He wanted to establish that politics and morality are not antithetic concepts. Rather, an ideal and moral body politic can be made a real one through the selfless administration by a philosopher-king. John Locke wrote his Second Treatise to justify the interests and objectives of the new middle class and he struggle of people for liberty.

Machiavelli and Hobbes wrote to support royal absolutism. We may not agree with the views of these philosophers or the arguments of these books, but it must not be forgotten that the books were written at particular and critical moment of history.

Philosophical approach helps us to understand the contemporary history and the nature of politics suggested by philosophers. To put it in other words, the philosophical approach helps us to the acquainted with the political ideologies of past centuries. In this sense, the philosophical approach is highly important.

Criticism of the Philosophical Approach:

In spite of the immense importance of the philosophical approach to the study of politics critics have raised several questions about its worthiness. One of the central ideas of political philosophy is idealism and it is prominent in Plato’s The Republic Critics say that idealism itself is quite good but when its practical application arises it appears to be a myth.

Idealism was a favourite theory of Plato, but it had not practical importance and be fully realised that idealism would never be translated into reality. It is a subject of sheer imagination. Machiavelli and Hobbes wrote with the sole purpose of supporting the status quo. We cannot forgive Hobbes for his authoritarian view and anti-individualist stand.

The philosophical thinkers of the earlier epochs were impractical thinkers. They had no intention to propagate ideas which can change society. They were indifferent to people s liking and disliking, their love for liberty, their sorrows and sufferings and they failed to provide prophylactic devices. As an academic discipline philosophical approach is all right, but as, practical guide for action it has hardly any importance.

Evaluation:

Plato and Hegel were impractical philosophers no doubt. Their philosophy may impress us but does not guide us. There are other philosophers who do not fall in this category. For example philosophies of Marx, Engels, Lenin guide us and in the purpose was to change the society. These philosophers took a realistic view of society. They interpreted history from materialistic point of view. The idealism and philosophy of Marx, Engels and some others had a relation to material world.

The idealist philosophers of earlier periods had strongly advocated certain moral, ethical and ideal values. It is true that these values will never be realised in reality. But ideal is ideal, it guides us. The eternal value of Plato’s idealistic philosophy in politics is not divorced from morality and idealism.

The philosophical ideas of particular philosophers are to be judged in the background of contemporary social, economic and political situations. Machiavelli supported royal absolutism for the unification of Italy. Hobbes wanted to save England from disorder and anarchy which engulfed the British Society of his time.

All of them were great patriots. Ruosseau could not tolerate the alienation of man from society and the loss of liberty with the progress of civilisation, arts and literature. To him the state was a public moral person whose chief duty was to ensure liberty and morality as well as to reform the people. The philosophical approach to the study of politics throws light on these aspects of politics.

Degradation of moral values and rampant corruption are the distinguishing features of the society which is at the threshold of the 21st century. If we want to free politics from these, we must try to revive moral values and idealism about which Plato spoke long ago. We are not thinking about a philosopher-king, but we must think about an honest, able, moral and ideal ruler who may be a prime minister or president.

Plato’s main concern was justice and ideal state. Marx spoke of emancipation of the toiling mass. All these constitute the elements of idealism and we cannot treat them insignificant. In the Preamble of the Constitution of India there is a word ‘justice’.

The purpose of the welfare state is to ensure emancipation. Locke’s liberalism appears and reappears. His constitutionalism has an important place in British and Indian systems. In our analysis of the philosophical approach to the study of politics we must remember these points.

Other Approaches:

Economic Approach:

Economics and politics are two important disciplines of social science and in several respects they are intimately related. In the curriculum of universities of India and many other countries a few decades ago economics and political science constituted a single subject which implies the close relationship between the two. This denotes that in the study of politics the help of economics is essential.

The policy formulations -of economic nature and determination of the principles of planning which has recently become a part of the governmental activity are done by the government. In most of the countries of the world public issues are economic issues and here the main—, and sometimes the only—actors are the personnel of the government such as the prime minister, president and other ministers. This obvious relationship between the two subjects has placed the economic approach in a convenient position.

Fiscal policies of all types, industrial policy, agricultural policy, labour policy are all economic issues, but the chief actors are the members of the government. The executive branch takes the final decision. There are many specialists and advisers. Since the qu
estion of implementation is to be looked up by the government, the final say comes from the government side.

Policy regarding production and distribution, though within the jurisdiction of economics, is always taken up by the government. It is to be pointed out here that the impact of success and failure of the economic policies fall upon the government. So we cannot discuss politics without discussing economics.

The greatest attribution of the economic approach to the study of politics comes from the pen of Marx and Engels. The doctrine of class struggle, increasing impoverishment and capitalism’s exploitation are based on economic factors. Marx and Engels have emphasised the heterogeneity of interests between the classes. Classes are formed on the basis of economic interests. Capitalist’s profit making motive leads to exploitation of workers. To emancipate from exploitation the workers are forced to take the path of struggle.

The idea of emancipation is associated with economic terms. According to Marx, politics is controlled by the persons who own sources of production and manage the process of distribution. Outside economic influence, politics has no independent authority.

Marx’s theory of base and super­structure is a matter of relationship between economics and politics. Perhaps Marx is the only philosopher who has forcefully argued (of course with reason and data collected from history) the relationship between the two important subjects of social science.

The interest group approach to the study of politics is popular in some liberal democratic countries and this conception is associated with economic approach. Interest groups or pressure groups create pressure to achieve economic objectives. Hence, interest group politics and economic approach are mutually dependent.

Sociological Approach:

Political science and sociology both are social sciences and in several places they overlap. The areas of sociological studies are human behaviour including the political behaviour, group behaviour and attitude of group, culture, society. Needless to say that all these fall within the study area of political science. “Culture refers to the totality of what is learned by individuals as members of society, it is a way of life a mode of thinking, acting and feeling.” Culture in various ways influences the political behaviour of individuals which is again studied by political scientists.

Readers of politics are quite well-known with political culture which is composed of the attitudes beliefs emotions and values of society that relate to the political system and its political issues. We, therefore, find that so far as culture is concerned, it is the subject matter of both sociology and political science.

Society is another important topic of sociology and the sociologists devote a considerable part of their analysies to the exploration of various aspects of society Students of politics also treat society with considerable emphasis. Society is composed of human beings who form intimate relationship among themselves.

The relationship is characterised by both conflict and cooperation and these in turn give rise to politics Individuals form institutions which are also parts of society. These institutions play important role in moulding the character, attitudes and behaviour of individuals. Thus, both sociology and politics deal with society in its broadest perspective. Any sociological analysis of society without its political orientation is bound to be incomplete.

Human beings form not only society but also group based on a network of social relationships. There are numerous sociological studies about these social relationships. Politics also studies these relationships. Politics, of course, studies only the political aspects. There are various associations or groups within every society and they are normally formed on the basis of profession.

For example, teachers of political science have formed political sciences association. Similarly, there are doctors’ club, trade unions, student’s organisations, women’s forums. Not all these associations and groups are directly related to the political authority, but they are not outside the jurisdiction of state and an interaction between groups or associations and state is never a rare occasion.

The researchers of politics study the behavioour of various groups and how they discharge their functions in similar and different environment. Political scientists are concerned only with the impact of the behaviour and function upon politics.

On the other hand, sociologists analyse them in a broader perspective. The sociologist investigates the relationship between behaviour pattern and social conditions. The studies of sociologists and political scientists are interdependent. A recent analyst has observed:

“Political behaviour, political relationships and political institutions are within the realm of sociology along with other kinds of behaviour, relationships and institutions. Political science thus overlaps with sociology just as it overlaps with history and economics. Those who take a sociological approach to the study of politics give attention to the kinds of questions and the kinds of data….political movements of all sorts can be studied on the basis of a sociological approach to politics”.

Policy formulations and legislations to a large extent depend upon the sociological studies. Studies by sociologists on crime, divorce, juvenile delinquency, conditions of slum and urbanisation guide the government and legislators. Modern states are no doubt welfare states and the authorities of such states can neglect the sociological studies on the above issues only on their own peril.

Psychological Approach:

Politics and psychology have close relation. Psychologists normally study the political behaviour of individuals and factors leading to such behaviour. They also study why certain individuals behave in a certain way. Recently, a new subject has gained popularity—it is psychology.

This studies the behaviour, attitude etc. of the voter and the researchers after studying various aspects draw conclusions which very often serve the purpose of political leaders. It is not an exaggeration to hold that the foundation of behaviouralism is psychology of the individuals. Political scientists of today’s world are extremely curious to know how motives and emotions work in the field of political activity. Sometimes the psychologists focus their attention upon the group behaviour.

We can collect dozens of instances from the pages of the history of political thought as to how psychology and politics are related. According to Aristotle, man is by nature a social animal and his sociability is the prime reason of the emergence of political organisation which is called state. Psychology of man is that man wants to live with others.

Hobbes has said that every individuals wants security and for that he desires to accumulate power. Because he thinks that power only can provide security. Hobbes’ political philosophy is based, to a considerable extent, upon psychological factors. He has depicted the nature of men who lived in the state of nature. Men of the state of nature were power hungry, quarrelsome and envied each other.

Only death could draw a curtain upon this ceaseless struggle. Locke’s people strongly desired to have freedom and right and to that end they build up a civil society. Utilitarian philosopher Bentham studied well the psychology of the middle class people who sought to maximise their happiness. Bentham projected their psychology through the tendency of avoiding pain and welcoming pleasure. Marx’s theory of class struggle is also based on psychology.

The proletarians desire to end the exploitation let loose by the capitalists. Individuals in any society pursue conflicting desires and this is the path-finder of politics. There are motives, likes and dislikes behind every type of political activity. So politics cannot be a
lienated from psychology.

Even in international politics the influence of psychology is discernible. The big or super-powers are involved in power politics to establish their domination and enhance their image in international society. This is absolutely a psychological issue.

The idea to launch a war emanates from the mind and for that reason it has been suggested that attempts are to be made to remove that pernicious idea from the mind. Statesmen of international repute are of opinion that for peace and security it is essential that all sorts of fear are to be removed from the mind.

Institutional Approach:

Institutional approach to the study of politics is very common today and according to Wasby it is important. Readers, scholars, researchers and even ordinary people are accustomed to view politics in term of the institutions. The institutional approach is also called structural approach. According to Maclver institutions are established forms of procedure.

Institution relates the structure and machinery through which human society organises, directs and executes multifarious activates required to satisfy human needs. According to this definition family, government and state and all types of organisations which have flourished within the states are institutions. Institutions are, therefore, created to meet human requirements. Political parties, pressure and interest groups, legislature all are institutions.

The traditional political thinkers were primarily concerned with the activities and role of the different types of institutions and they viewed politics in terms of the institutions. Dyke’s cogent remark is-the study of politics is the study of the state or of government and related institutions.

This is also the definition of politics. Politics thus, cannot be separated from state or government i.e. institutions. Wasby’s definition is little bit elaborate. He says, “The emphasis of the institutional or structural approach is almost exclusively on the formal aspects of government and politics. Since various institutions constitute the structure of society it is also called structural approach”.

The emphasis of institutional or structural approach is that the institutions their rules and procedures are important for the analysis of political phenomena and not the individuals constituting the institutions. The advocates of institutional approach do not even consider the impact of institutions or rules upon the individuals. They are inclined to say that the institutions in political analysis are of prime importance.

Political science, for long periods of time, was studied in the light or perspective of the function and behaviour of institutions. The British and American political scientists up to the Second World War concentrated their attention on legislature, party system and pressure group activities. They did not think it proper to throw light on the other factors of politics. In a word, politics to a group of thinkers was institution- concept and nothing else.

The institutional approach has been vehemently criticised. Chief objection against this approach is institutions are, no doubt, important for politics, but they cannot form the entire structure of politics. The institutionalists have been charged of being biased, because they have neglected the individuals who form the institutions.

Without individuals the institutions have no practical importance and it is unfortunate they have not paid proper attention to them. The supporters of this approach have interpreted politics narrowly.

Criticisms of the Traditional Approach:

The traditional approach to the study of politics has been under attack from several corners and the main points of attack are noted below:

The traditional approaches have dismally failed to recognise the role of the individuals who play very important roles in moulding and remoulding the shape and nature of politics. In fact, individuals are important actors of both national and international politics. The focus is directed to the institutions.

It is surprising that behind all the institutions there are individuals who control the structure, functions and other aspects. Singling out institutions and neglecting individuals cannot be pronounced as proper methods of studying politics. The definition politics as the study of institution’ is nothing but an exaggeration or it may be called a travesty of truth.

Traditional approach is mainly descriptive. Politics does not rule out description, but it is also analytical. Mere description of facts does not necessarily constitute the subject matter of political science. Its purpose is to go to the depth of every incident. Researchers want to know not only what is happening, but also why a particular incident occurs at a particular time.

The view-point of the traditionalists is, limited within the institutions. Political scientists of today’s world are not inclined to limit their analysis of politics within the four walls of institutions. They have investigated the role of environment into which is included international politics multinational corporations, non-governmental organi­sations or trans-national bodies.

The decision-making process of the nation state is influenced by international events and the political activity of other nation states. When the traditionalists were writing the nature of politics, the interdependence of national and international politics was not unknown to them and it is their failure not to recognise if. Viewed in this light we can say that traditional approach is biased and incomplete. It has not the ability to meet the needs which are rising in the present age.

Attention is to be paid to another shortcoming. The traditional approach as a method of analysing politics is deficient for the analysis of political institutions of the Third World countries, particularly the countries which do not follow the Western political system in to. In these countries, if we try to find out Western system or institutions that will be an utter failure.

It is, therefore, alleged that traditional analysis is unsuitable for all types of political systems—both Western and non-Western. To compensate this deficiency the political scientists of the post-Second World War period have devised a general system approach which is quite comprehensive.

Before drawing a curtain upon this part of analysis we like to quote liberally the observation of Stephen Wasby. He says, “Just as a dissatisfaction with an over-concentration on the philosophical approach to the study of politics had brought a shift towards the study of institutions and formal structures, with an accompanying move from normative to empirical outlooks, so there was increasing realisation that institutional approach did not encompass all the world of politics.

Scholars began to recognise problems in the use of the “State” concept. Other basic emphases were also questioned. Because not all rules and structures have been reduced to law, the legal approach to politics and the institutional approach had never completely coalesced. Political scientists of an institutional bent, freed from the European location of political science within faculties of law, recognised that there is much material within political science not subject to legal examinations.”

Students and researchers of politics began to extend their outlook and interest to the other areas and these required new approaches. The scholars also devoted their energy to the comparative analysis of various political systems. We shall now turn our attention to other approaches such as comparative approach, power approach and interest group approach.

Comparative Approach:

What is Comparative Approach?

The comparative approach to the study of politics has
been termed by Alan Ball a “link between the traditional approaches to political science and the more recent developments in the discipline.” We have already noted that the traditional approaches were mainly concerned with the institutions such as legislatures, parties and pressure groups. Comparative approach takes the cognizance of the fact that all the institutions or structures are vital to politics and its analysis. But here the matter does not end.

These institutions are to be compared, which means that the institutions of one political system are to be compared with those of another system and in doing this we can expect to have the best results. A proper and methodical comparison will reveal the exact nature of different political system and this helps the student to acquire ideas.

What are to be Compared?

Wasby’s suggestion is “one only compares those things which one conceives to be comparable”. Un-comparable elements or features can never be compared. For a proper and effective comparison it has been suggested that the similarities and the dissimilarities are to be put in different groups.

This is the most suitable way of comparison. Comparison may be macro or micro. When only selected or particular aspects of various political systems are compared we call it micro-comparison. But when entire systems are compared it comes to be called macro. In the comparative analysis both methods are adopted.

Central Idea of Comparative Approach:

Originally the comparative approach to study politics was confined to the developed and matured political systems. But today the horizons of comparison have expanded to the boundaries of the less developed countries and tribal areas of the various countries of the globe. The almost universalisation of the comparative approach has radically changed the traditional outlook about it.

New terms and conceptions have been introduced into it, because the old comparative approach was insufficient “to cover the phenomena of Western European politics in the course of the last fifty years” (Politics of the Developing Areas—Almond and Coleman). As a result of the expansion of the periphery of the comparative approach the political institutions, structures, cultures and other facts have been included into the comparative study.

The analysts and the researchers of the present epoch are investigating the functions of different institutions of Western political system and those of the less- developed countries and are also making comparisons. The Westminster type of parliamentary system has been imposed on many ex-colonies. The students of political science are studying and comparing. This is a useful way of arriving at conclusions. The success and failure of Western institutions, when introduced in other countries, can easily be conceived.

A comparative approach needs to be as broad as possible. The advocates of comparative approach suggest that for better results and unambiguous conclusions it is necessary that whole systems of two or more countries shall be compared. Extracting one particular institution and comparing it with that of another state will lead to almost nothing or a cumbersome conclusion and such attempt should be eschewed.

Every institution of a political system is organically connected with the rest of the system. Naturally, comparison on selective basis will be misleading. In spite of this problem we generally insist upon comparison selecting particular institutions of various political systems.

While comparing the different political systems the researchers or students making comparison must be well versed with the several aspects of the political system. Without this the comparison will be incomplete.

It is not always true that the institutions are compared. Sometimes, by what processes the values are authoritatively allocated in different systems, are compared. For example, how American and Chinese systems authoritatively allocate values. Again, the decision making processes of the two countries are compared. We also compare the accountability processes of different countries.

The federal system provides a fertile field of comparative approach. In federal system there are number of units in it and all of them enjoy certain amount of autonomy. Each unit of federation pursues its policies to some extent independently. This makes the scope of comparison wide. The Panchayati Raj of West Bengal may be compared with that of Tamil Nadu or Karnataka.

The judicial systems of American states may also be compared. In the USA, the constituent states enjoy large amount of autonomy and because of this they have independent approaches to political issues and matters. This is a fit case for better comparison. In India the states do not enjoy such sort of autonomy and in spite of this comparative method is suitable.

Assessment of Comparative Approach:

The comparative approach to the study of politics is very interesting, informative and also acts as a guidance. The success of a particular process or institution emulates others to follow or adopt it. The Panchayat system and Land Reform of West Bengal have been highly praised by several Indian states and they have expressed their desire to take lessons.

The functioning of opposition in British House of Commons is unique and it is regarded as ideal. In the opinion of Ball the comparative method is not a disinterested subject, its results are rewarding. Many useful information’s are furnished by the comparison.

The comparison induces an authority to accept or reject a particular policy or decision. In a democratic system a comparative approach has special importance on the eve of election. Every party announces its own policy or programme and generally this based on the success or failure of a policy or programme derived from comparison.

Power Approach:

Central Idea of Power Approach:

Earlier, while defining politics we noted power and its relation to politics. Now we shall see how politics is analysed and political incidents are investigated in terms of power. The concept of power in politics has a past. Both Machiavelli and Hobbes viewed politics in the light of power. Even the students of the history of political thought call Machiavelli the father of power politics.

But the widespread influence of power over politics is comparatively modern. To all modern students of politics power is an important characteristic of politics and political activity. Some even go further when they say that power is the chief motivating force of political activity. To view politics or political phenomena or political activity exclusively in terms of power might appear as an exaggeration. The basic fact, in spite of this, is that power approach to the study of politics is, today, universally recognised.

While analysing the relationship between power and politics Frederick Watkings writes, “The proper scope of political science is not the study of the state or of any other specific institutional complex, but the investigation of all associations in so far as they can be shown to exemplify the problem of power.”

William Robson, another political thinker observes: “It is with power in society that political science is primarily concerned—its nature, basis, processes, scope and results…… The focus of interest of the political scientist is clear and unambiguous; it centres on the struggle to gain or retain power, to exercise power or influence over others or to resist that exercise”.

So far as various political concepts are concerned there are innumerable differences between Marxist and liberal thinkers. But both groups agree that politics and power are inseparable concepts. The Marxists have
held that in any bourgeois society there are mainly two classes and they are involved in continuous struggle to capture power. The struggle ends in the capture of power by the proletarians.

The liberals are of opinion that in every society (of course pluralist society) there are several centres of power and the holders or directors of these centres fight against each other The liberal thinkers assure us that the purpose of this struggle is not to seize state power or administration, but to exert influence upon the administration. The liberals call it conflict and it is reconcilable. Whatever may be the differences, both have viewed politics in the background of power and power is in the centre of politics.

The type of power which is treated as an approach to the study of politics is political power.

Ball’s definition of this kind runs as follows:

“Political power may be broadly defined as the capacity to affect another’s behaviour by some form of sanction. Sanctions may take the form of coercion or inducement: power may be backed by carrot or the stick and it may be exercised in a positive or negative fashion”.

There are several methods or techniques at the disposal of the holders of political power and they use it sometimes with caution, sometimes indiscriminately, to acquire obligation or compliance. They promise to give wealth, honour and position or they threaten to punish. What exact method is to be applied depends upon the situation and the attitude of the persons exercising power.

In national politics, political power is a very common phenomenon. The elites or interest groups are the chief actors in this field. Economically dominant class political party and even bureaucracy and military are actors and they exercise power which is at their disposal.

There are many interest groups or groups of elites who are engaged in the management of political affairs. Insufficiency of resources and inequality of power between different groups lead them to the point of dissatisfaction and this creates a situation of conflict. There are political parties who are striving to be at the helm of power or administration.

The multiplicity of parties is the root cause of power politics. Even the two party system is not free from power politics. It is an obvious wrong assumption that only the liberal political system is cursed or characterised by power politics. In socialist system there is also a struggle for power. The struggle for power among the top party leaders of U.S.S.R after the death of Lenin may be cited as an example.

The concept of power is also more prominent in international politics. One German writer wrote several years ago “Power, military power, is as important in world history as it has ever been, and it has not been and it will not be abolished by pious of opinions, by sermons and resolutions”.

In international society power normally assumes military character, but not always. When the states are the direct participants in power struggle they employ various techniques according to their own convenience. Display or use of military power is a very common characteristic of international politics, but not the only feature. “International society is a society without a central authority to perceive law and order and without an official agency to protect its members in the enjoyment of their rights. The result is that the individual states must make the preservation and improvement of their power position a primary objective of their foreign policy”. (Nicholas Spykman quoted by Catlin in The Nature of Political Thought).

Morgenthau, an eminent scholar of international politics, has said “International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim”. Morgenthau has further observed that it will be a futile effort to try to eliminate the power politics from social life, because it is beyond the ability of any authority. It is better to check the destructiveness of power politics.

Criticism:

According to Van Dyke:

“The principal weakness of the power approach is its lack of precision.” On earlier occasions we have defined power. But one drawback of this definition is it does not contain all the meanings of the term ‘power’. Different authors have defined it in their own ways. The manifestations of power are many. Different holders use it for various purposes and the techniques are not uniform. It is very difficult to measure power as well as its impact. If power cannot be quantitatively measured how can we make estimate about its impact?

The political actors do not always struggle for power alone, they pursue their interests. The states, main actors of power politics, try to enhance their image. There is also ideological struggle. The advocates of the power approach fail to convince us about the exact amount of power a state requires and this drawback has blunted the sharpness of the power approach.

There is no end of power, but there is an end of struggle. Power approach to the study of politics is biased. Various actors struggle for power, but they also cooperate among themselves to reach an amicable settlement.

Power approach is also an incomplete notion. We are talking about political power. In liberal system, corporate bodies or business organisations are engaged in power struggle and that very often influences political authority. But it is beyond the consideration of power approach.

Interest Group Approach:

Introduction:

At the beginning of twentieth century it was felt in America, the most mature and powerful capitalist system, of the world that certain reforms, mainly political in nature, need to be introduced in order to save the system from recurrent crises. The academics of political science thought that they had some responsibility in the determination of reforms and in offering guidelines in their implementation.

But before doing that the subject is to be lifted from the present obscure and unattended position and a fresh dose of blood is to be injected. In other words, attempts should be made in conceptualising it in the light of practical political activity. The efforts to pragmatise politics started at the beginning of the twentieth century.

One critic observes, “American political scientists and scholars of the state increasingly began to turn to scientific disciplines studying real social structures and processes.” The political scientists of America took a leading part to make the subject a real or pragmatic science and since then scholars of other continents have followed them. James Bryce, Walter Bagehot and George Wallace—all of British origin—adopted serious attitude to the subject.

Arthour Bentley (1870-1957) and David Truman are still treated as pioneers in this field. Both of them have viewed politics in the light of interest group activity. In USA, interest groups are so active and powerful that any realistic analysis without them is impossible.

Interest Group Defined and Its Role Explained:

The interest group has been defined by Bentley in his The Process of Government in the following words:

“It means a certain portion of men of a society, taken, however, not as a physical mass cut off from other masses of men, but as a mass activity, which does not preclude the men who participate in if from participating likewise in many other group activities.” Group activity is the vital point of any political society. Political affairs of a society will come to a halt if there are no groups.

Bentley’s emphasis is that people’s approach to the state administration is always preconditioned by their ardent desire to secure those interests through manipulation and exerting pressure upon th
e authority. But Bentley says that outside the group, or without the existence of group, individuals have hardly any importance.

Their convictions, ideas and ideology, personality and behaviour everything has a meaning only in the context of a group to which an individual belongs. To put it in other words, groups mould the behaviour, ideas and attitudes. Needless to say that all these have their meaningful reference in politics.

Politics of every society is conditioned and determined by the group activity. Individuals alone cannot change the nature and movement of politics without group interference. Analysis of group activity reveals that groups generally do not always act without having an idea about the fulfillment of interests. This nature of groups actively associates them with the political matters of the state and this heralds group approach to politics.

Bentley does not believe in groups without their interests. Hence interest, group activity and politics are inextricably related with each other and they constituted the vital aspects of politics. The existence and popularity of any interest group depend upon its alertness and activity in realisation of objectives.

The rhetoric and programmes are not sufficient for any interest group. In his own words: “All phenomena of government are phenomena of groups pressing one another, forming one another, and pushing out new groups and group representatives to mediate the adjustment. It is only as we isolate these group activities, determine their representative values, and get the whole process stated in terms of them, that we approach to a satisfactory knowledge of government”.

Not only government, most of the institutions and institutional activities within the state are moulded by the group activities to a large extent. The outlook, ideas and attitude of the groups are reflected upon the institutions. Bentley has further maintained that even the constitution, the congress, the president and the judiciary represent the official interest groups.

We say that the powerful interest groups, through their widely ramified agencies, control even the election of the presidents and appointment of judges. To sum up, all the interest groups and pressure groups of liberal political system are its integral parts and they influence the activities, of the political system.

David Truman is another great personality who strongly advocated the group approach to politics in the post-war period. Truman’s The Government Process was published in 1951, 43 years after Bentley’s book was published.

He focuses attention upon the interest group attitude to politics. In defining interest group Truman says it is a collection of individuals which “on the basis of one or more shared attitudes, makes certain claims upon other groups in the society for the establishment maintenance and enhancement of forms of behaviour that are implied in the shared attitudes. The shared attitudes constitute the interests.”

Truman underlines the important part played by the various interest groups in the formulation and implementation of various policies of the state. The policies are initiated by the government and are implemented by various agencies. The approach of the group is so decisive that it is impossible for any branch of government to ignore. It is the group which is responsible for the stability of American political system.

The groups always maintain the equilibrium among themselves, and also check the disruptive forces. The interest groups always activate the governmental functions and also compel the government to change its politics which are detrimental to the objectives of the interest groups. According to Truman, groups lie at the heart of the governmental process.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Andrew Heywood divides the ideological manifestation of socialism into five parts or categories. These are community, cooperation, equality, social class and common ownership.

We can say socialism is generally divided into these five parts which are discussed below:

The individuals are not only closely connected but they are also interdependent. Though they pursue their own respective interests and objectives in their own way they also know that their actions create impact upon others and their condition makes them alert about their own action. From this attitude emanates the idea of collective thought and action and the socialists diligently propagate it. The socialists, therefore, treat all persons as brothers and in the specific language of socialists individuals call themselves as “comrades”.

This attitude of the socialists calls for a new approach to society and its various functions. It implies that all social actions should be done in a collective way. Socialism for this reason is called collectivism. The collectivist interpretation of socialism is collec­tivism or state socialism. Joad interprets socialism in this light. To sum up, both political and economic actions are to be done in a collective way and in such a situation there is practically no scope of individual action in both economic and political areas. Thus collectivism, socialism and state socialism are used by many interchangeably.

2. Cooperation:

Another way of looking at socialism is cooperation. Aristotle said man is by nature a social animal and the sociability of men induces them to cooperate amongst themselves. Socialists believe that the individuals are quite aware of the fact that all are dependent on each other and keeping this basic concept in mind they always cooperate with each other. Here lies the fundamental difference between socialism and liberalism or conservatism.

Liberalism’s basic tenet is that competition among men is the most important aspect of society and it is the powerful factor of social progress. According to socialism individual’s cooperation makes social progress and economic development a reality. Thus socialism and liberalism are the concepts of opposite poles and this position is due to the objectives and methods suggested by each.

It has been pointed out by socialists that the cooperation among men and mutual aid towards each other are both spontaneous. Behind this spontaneity there are moral grounds. Individuals think that if they do not cooperate with each other and if they select the method of competition the whole society will ultimately become a battle ground. This will lead to disastrous consequences.

But the socialists do not completely rule out the scope of competition. The competition takes place in healthy atmosphere. It is a competition for moral and academic development and not for pecuniary benefits. Thus the basic concept of socialism is different from that of liberalism. Again, cooperation provides inspiration to the collective thought and philosophy.

3. Equality:

Equality is another idea or principle of socialism and in this respect socialism puts itself against conservatism and liberalism, particularly the former. Socialism declares equality as its avowed principle and it will strive continuously for its attainment.

It is the belief of the socialists that only through equality specifically social equality can there be justice or in John Rawls’ term fairness. If there are gross inequalities among different sections of people and if this is economic inequality, in such a society justice cannot exist.

The socialists stress on the equality of status and of opportunity but maintain studied silence on differences in talents and capacities. They do not utter anything about the consequences of inequality in talents and capacities. We have already noted that socialism believes in cooperation and brotherhood among all men. Now if this is a principle this can be realised in an atmosphere where equality in­habits.

When all the citizens think that they are equal a feeling of cooperation will automatically be a real principle. Without cooperation and brotherhood socialism will be an academic doctrine, its real existence will be a subject of dream-world. Liberals and conservatives, however, do not agree with the socialists.

They are of opinion that if the inequalities in talents and capacities are admitted there cannot be equality whatever may its manifestation be. The inequality in talents will lead to inequality in income, wealth and status. Hence socialists’ concept of inequality is wrong.

4. Social Class:

Another principle or ideal of socialism as an ideology is the formation of social class. It is generally thought that socialist society without social class is hardly to be stable. The counter-revolutionaries and the remnants of the bourgeois will remain active even after the setting up of a socialist society and they will conspire to dislodge the socialists from power through counter-revolution.

In order to stop this possibility the socialists plan to form a cohesive and integrated class comprising social groups who share almost similar political, economic and other views. If such a class is at all formed the administration of socialist society will be an easy task. Even after setting up of socialism manifold tasks remain to be performed and in such a situation the social class/classes help the socialist authority in transacting the business of socialist society. In this way a social class becomes an integral part of a socialist society.

A social class also helps the socialist society in other ways. A socialist society is not a communist or classless society. Naturally such a society is to be freed from many elements which are opposed to socialism and in this task both the society class and the socialist state will work in tandem.

But the concept of social class is incongruous with Marxist concept of state or society. Marx and Engels thought of class based on economic interests. But the idea of social class does not fall within the purview of Marxist concept. Moreover, it is hardly related with the two class models of Marx. However, the social class idea has got special meaning in socialist society.

5. Common Ownership:

The socialists and even some non-socialists have traced the origin of exploitations, growing impoverishment and inequality in income and wealth to the institution of private property in general and private ownership in the means of production. They have concluded that in order to bring about an end of inequality, poverty and exploitation the common ownership over the means of production must be established and the system of private property should be done away with. In other words, the whole 50Ciety shall be the owner of property.

The system of private property means gross injustice because any type of property can never be the product of any single person and if so a particular individual cannot claim a property. In other words, the property is the joint product and it must be under the joint ownership. Again there is another reason.

Private property means to create source of conflict. How? When there is private property many will be without any property and in this situation conflict is inevitable between the owners of property and non-owners. The socialists, in consideration of all these, suggest that the best way is to abolish the system of private property.

But the system of private property subsequently has created a lot of heat among the political scientists, socialists and intellectuals of all countries. Particularly the socialists and the liberals and conservatives are at loggerheads on the issue of private property. The fact is that the controversy between to have propert
y and not to have it still persists.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Introductory:

It is difficult to confine Gandhi’s political ideas within certain articulated principles and this is chiefly due to the fact that he was not, in formal sense, a political theorist. So far as his theory of state is concerned it can be assertively said that he was against concentration of power, violence, traditional theory of sovereignty etc.

His inordinate love for freedom and weakness for excessive individualism have prompted many to bracket him with great anarchist thinkers of the Western world. Before going into the details of the subject we intend to throw light on the definition of anarchism.

Wood Cock (Anarchism) a noted interpreter of anarchism, defines it in the following words:

“Historically anarchism is a doctrine which poses a criticism of existing society, a view of desirable future society and a means of passing from one to another”. It wants to emphasise that society can be and should be organised without a coercive state. According to anarchism the primitive societies were organised without state and this means that in the tribal social system there was no trace of state or its supreme coercive power.

In sum, anarchist political philosophy is based on egalitarianism. In the modern state system there is a clear distinction between ruler and the ruled. The former imposes its will and decision upon the latter without giving any cognizance of the fact that the latter might have an opinion different from that of the former.

Elements of Anarchism in Gandhi’s Thought:

Gandhi is viewed by many as an anarchist thinker. This observation is not without any reason. But this estimate is not final. On the contrary, many critics of Gandhi’s political ideas believe that though there are some elements of anarchism in his ideas of state he is not fully an anarchist. We shall make a balanced analysis and in order to do that we first deal with why he is called an anarchist!

And then we shall throw light on the opposite view:

1. Gandhi did not at all take western system of state along with sovereignty on the ground that both state and sovereignty are closely linked with violence and coercion. He was also under the impression that Western state system is so structured that violence cannot be divorced from it and if forcibly done the whole structure will crumble. Again, violence/coercion is against individual’s liberty and exercise of right.

Because of these reasons he did not accept the state system of the Western world. This view of Gandhi about state has been interpreted by many as an expression of anarchism.

2. Gandhi was extremely apprehensive about the power of the state, because more power of the state means less freedom of the individuals. He once said: “I look upon an increase in the power of the state with great fear because although apparently doing good by minimising exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality which lies at the root of all progress. State represents violence in a concentrated and organised form”.

It can be said that there were two alternatives before Gandhi—the Western form of power exercised through state and liberty of the individuals. He gave his verdict in favour of the second because it was, in all respect, more important than the power of the state.

3. To Gandhi state was a soulless machine. This is Gandhi’s evaluation about state. If so a soulless machine cannot have the power to dominate an individual which has soul. A soulless machine cannot recognise the importance and individuality of persons.

Such a state which is also called political organisation should not be entrusted with the task of protecting the freedom and enhancing the welfare of individuals. It is better to leave these two “affairs” to the individuals. Acceptance of Gandhi’s reason will lead to the emasculation of state authority.

4. His Ram Raj has been treated by many as a clear manifestation of anarchy. Ram Raj is pure anarchy. Gandhi depicted Ram Raj as the abode of freedom, justice, realisation of rights, equality and non-violence. It is viewed that such an environment can be found only in a society which is out of the control of state authority.

Ram Raj and perfect social order, in the opinion of Gandhi, are equivalent terms and both indicate coercion-free and exploitation-free society. Gandhi admitted that the state minimises exploitation, but still there is exploitation (though in minimum form). Only the establishment of Ram Raj can augur exploitation free and violence free society. Gandhi’s assertion may be questioned, but he thought in these terms.

5. Once Gandhi said, “The ideal non-violent state will be an ordered anarchy” (emphasis added). Gandhi was quite aware that the relationship between violence and state is so deep that one cannot be separated from the other. That is why he imagined of a society where there could be no trace of violence and that society would be an anarchy. To Gandhi the ideal and well ordered society based on non-violence and anarchy would be one and same.

6. Dr. Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, a noted interpreter of Gandhi’s political and social philosophy, called him philosophical anarchist. “His advocacy of decentralized political power has led a number of commentators to suggest that the core of his political thought is philosophical anarchism”.

We have already mentioned that his political thought is an integral part of his entire philosophy and naturally his conception about state is not an exception. His inordinate love for people’s freedom and strong advocacy for- the establishment of justice led him to argue for a stateless society whose main characteristic would be popular or people’s sovereignty. He also thought of a stateless democracy. All these combinedly establish that he supported anarchical system of politics.

7. He advised people to oppose a law which violates morality, ethics and other universal values. Like the people and rulers of the Middle Ages Gandhi also believed in the existence of the law of God. If any man-made law violates the law of God men shall have the right to defy such a law.

But people’s opposition to everything must be non-violent and peaceful. In this way Gandhi reduced the importance of state to a minimum level. His call-to individuals to violate law opposing morality, ethics and law of God—is a manifestation of his anarchism because morality ethics etc. are not definable terms and naturally many will be prone to violate order or law on a flimsy ground of ethics and morality.

The Opposite View:

Though Gandhi has been depicted as an anarchist, it is not the final judgment. There are large number of scholars and Gandhians who still believe that he cannot be branded as anarchist in the traditional sense or even in strictest sense he was not an anarchist.

Some arguments, in support of this view, can be placed here:

1. The anarchist, we know, wanted to destroy the state because in all ways the state stood on the way of mental, intellectual and other types of development of the individuals. But Gandhi, on the other hand, though realised the negative role of the state did not seek its complete destruction.

He admitted, in various places, the importance of state. What he did not like was the coercive measures of the state for getting allegiance from the citizens. He wanted the restructuring of the state and not its destruction. Here lies the fundamental difference between Gandhi and anarchists.

2. Gandhi strongly condemned the use of violence or coercive measures. His disapproval of state structures practically is based on this argument. So he imagined of a state which could refrain itself from using coercive measures. Its implication is that he wanted state with minimum power so that it can
not get any opportunity to use unlimited coercive measures.

His plan of state can be stated in the following words: He conceived of a state with a minimum amount of power required for the maintenance of law and order and to resist external aggression. For the fulfilment of this objective unlimited power is unnecessary. Limited power will encourage freedom.

This scheme of Gandhi’s state is definitely not anarchical state. It is a state where popular sovereignty will be the supreme feature. We do not call Rousseau an anarchist who wanted to deliver full authority to the hands of the people. Rousseau planned of an open general assembly where people will participate for the purpose of making law and taking decisions.

3. The approach to the state of Western anarchists is primarily political because they viewed state as a political organisation and the anarchist theory is part of political science. But to Gandhi state earned a different dimension. He thought that the state should never be an end but a means to an end and this end is moral, ethical and idealistic development of the individuals.

The anarchist view of state does not find full relevance in Gandhian thought system. We can compare his state with the ideal states of Plato, Aristotle and Rousseau. Though Rousseau did not directly think about an ideal state but his body politic was a moral person which is termed as ideal state.

4. The so-called anarchism of Gandhi can be traced to his days in South Africa. There he had gathered very bitter experience about the functioning of modern state and sovereign power. The South African government (representing the modern sovereign state) released a reign of terror in almost all spheres of social and political life. He has cited some examples in his Autobiography.

During those days in South Africa Gandhi practically formed the anti-state and anti-sovereignty views. He was also profoundly impressed by Godwin (1756-1836) and Tolstoy (1828-1910). Both denounced the activities of state. When Gandhi came back to India in 1915 he was confirmed that there was practically no difference between South African government and the British Government of India.

He concluded that the oppressive activities of modern state are almost identical everywhere. He, therefore, denounced the oppression of state. But if a state could justify that it had not resorted to any violence or coercion then that must be allowed to discharge its functions. The anarchists did not travel along this line. Their first objective was to destroy the prevailing state structure.

We conclude that though Gandhi was not an anarchist in the strictest sense of the term it cannot be denied that there are enough seeds of anarchism in his concept of state. He thought of people’s participation and decentralisation of political power and many other schemes. But there is still a very important point.

Who will be the final arbiter of disputes that will arise among the people? Gandhi’s scheme of state fails to provide any satisfactory answer. At least for this purpose there is the immense necessity of state. Only the anarchists say that there is no utility of state but we do not accept this view. There shall be state and we do not want stateless anarchy.

Assessment:

Gandhi’s theory of state suffers from certain shortcomings.

Some of them are:

1. There is a clear contradiction in his theory of state. In his opinion the state is the embodiment of violence, injustice and coercion. It destroys individuals, freedom and morality. So he wanted a state structure which would be free from violence. But here our humble submission is in reality a state cannot exist without coercive measurers.

It must settle disputes, must take steps to curb unsocial and violent activities by the anti-social elements. Coercive measures are also used for many other purposes which aim at ensuring general welfare. It is, again, the primary duty of any state to maintain law and order and for that function the application of coercion may be necessary. So, force or coercion cannot be absolutely separated from the domain of state structure.

2. Gandhian concept of state is Utopian. In place of state he wanted to set up an egalitarian society. It is easy to imagine of an egalitarian society based on the principles of liberty, equality and justice in their maximum manifestation. But in reality we cannot think that such a society is feasible. We can say Gandhi, like Marx, was the victim of utopianism.

Marx also thought of a classless society after the demolition of capitalism. Marx thought of a stateless society and Gandhi of an emasculated state. Both are Utopian in character.

3. There are inconsistencies in his concept of state. Once he denounced the British parliament and compared it with a sterile woman. Elsewhere he admitted the utility of legislatures. If so we should say that this creates a lot of confusion. It is true that in recent years the importance of legislatures has declined everywhere.

But in no sense it is useless or it can be compared with a sterile woman. Legislature is still the most vital method of communication between the ruler and the ruled. Through legislature people convey their grievances to the government.

4. Gandhian theory of state is incomplete. We may not agree with the theories of state propounded by Plato, Hegel, and Marx etc. But we must agree that they have developed theories. The students of Western political thought still read the ideal state of Plato because it is rich in ideas which kindle our thoughts and imagination. The concept of justice or scheme of education stated in the theory of Plato’s ideal state still hold good. On the other hand, Gandhi’s theory of state disheartens us.

5. Gandhian theory of state does belong to any particular category. It is not an anarchy though there are several elements in his theory. It is not an idealist theory of state nor a liberal theory of state. Even it is not a class by itself. Certain stray comments made by Gandhi have been collected by the interpreters of Gandhian thought and these have been used for the purpose of building up a theory of state. In political science, it is not an accepted way.

6. The concept of state propounded by Gandhi may suffer from a member of inconsistencies but it must be admitted that it is an integral part of his whole philosophy. The chief elements of his philosophy are: peace, non-violence, decen­tralisation of political power, freedom, rights, equality, justice, morality, and demo­cracy.

In the context of these ideas he developed a concept of a political organisation which we call state. He makes these elements as part of the theory of state and because of this his theory of state has been a different one from the Western concept.

Upload and Share Your Article:

1. Citizenship:

Aristotle’s Book III of Politics is regarded by many as Aristotle’s best work on politics. The major part of this book is devoted to the analysis of constitutions and citizenship. These two discussions constitute the kernel of Greek political thought.

It begins with the observation of polis or state. He asks what is state? Polis or citizen and politeia or constitutions are the two constituent parts of state.

As regards the definition of state he observes that there is no unanimity of definition. Many people define it in their own way. The state, we have already pointed out, is a composite whole. Therefore, it has many parts and the citizen is one such part. Let us see how Aristotle has defined citizenship.

He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state; and, speaking generally, a state is a body of citizens sufficing for the purposes of life. Mere participation in the offices of the state is not a criterion of citizenship.

The constitutions of the states differ and also their nature and functions. Naturally, the citizenship is also bound to differ. According to Aristotle, the polis or state is not a mere assembly of persons at a certain place.

The state is a self-sufficient unit and this self-sufficiency is not for the purposes of life alone, but for good and noble life. Noble and good life is happy life.

Any analysis of Aristotle’s conception of citizenship reveals that the definition of citizenship centres around the exercise of political rights. That is, the citizens are a group of persons exercising the political rights.

No part of the community not possessing such rights comes within the purview of politics proper. But he raises a further question: Who ought to be citizens? Especially mechanics or labourers? His answer is negative.

The prime qualification for citizenship is the capacity both to rule and to be ruled and the cultivation of this two-fold capacity is indispensable. Freedom from concern about the necessities of life is indispensable to the proper performances of political duties.

The working classes are, indeed, essential to the state’s existence, but this does not constitute them as citizens.

In his discussion of citizenship, Aristotle has drawn a distinction between good man and good citizen. The excellence of a citizen is relative to the constitution. That is, the excellence must be judged in the background of a constitution. So, if there are several kinds of constitution, there can be several kinds of good citizen.

It means one excellence may not be found in every constitution. But in every constitution there is an absolute standard of goodness and when a man possesses it he will be regarded as a good man. It is thus clear that it is possible to be a good citizen without possessing the excellence which is the quality of a good man.

Aristotle’s theory of citizenship is not free from certain limitations. Working class, labourers and other ordinary people do not fall within the category of citizenship. This is unjust. It is a fact that the ability to take part in the deliberative, judicial and administrative affairs will qualify a man to be citizen.

But we fail to understand why the working class will not have that ability. Today we do not relate citizenship to the constitution. In modern times, there are various types of consti­tution. But analysis of citizenship does not consider it.

The modern criterion is allegiance to the constitution. That is, mere contribution to state affairs is not enough; he must show allegiance to the state or constitution.

2. Definition and Nature of Constitution:

Aristotle’s analysis of citizenship is directly related to the concept of the constitu­tion. Constitution is the only factor which will adequately account for the identity of a state. Citizens share in the political functions-of citizenship and these functions are determined by the constitution.

Hence it is the constitution which determines the identity of a state, and when the constitution changes, the state also changes. We, therefore, see that in Aristotle’s view polis, citizenship and constitution are closely connected with each other.

The state is the supreme association and has certain purpose. He has defined constitution in the following words:

By the constitution we mean the organization of the various authorities and in particular the sovereign authority that is above all the others.

To put it in other words, according to Aristotle the constitution is nothing but the organisation of the sovereign authority. In democracy the demos, that is people, is sovereign.

In oligarchy the sovereign power is vested in the hands of a few. Therefore, constitutions of different states are not supposed to be identical.

In Book IV Chapter One Aristotle has given an elaborate definition of constitution. Consti­tution is the arrangement which states adopt for the distribution of offices of power, and for the determination of sovereignty and of the end which the whole social complex in each case aims at realizing.

He has distinguished laws from constitution. Laws prescribe the rules by which the rulers shall rule and shall restrain those that transgress the laws. Constitution is original and prime law for the distribution of offices and determination of sovereignty. Whereas laws regulate the day-to-day affairs of the administrators.

Aristotle has analyzed the constitution in the background of ethics. But, at the same time, he has not made any attempt to bypass the descriptive aspect. Every community has its own values, ideals objective and, in the light of these, a constitution is framed.

Therefore, the aims and values of particular constitution are not to be judged in any absolute sense but in the background of the membership of the constitution.

If the constitutions of different polities differ then it is a fact that the values and goodness will also differ. Again the goodness and values which the citizens uphold will also be of different kind. In this way, Aristotle has described the nature of a constitution.

3. Classification of Constitution:

Aristotle has classified the constitutions into two broad categories—right or ideal constitution or government, and wrong or perverted form of government. The constitutions which aim at the common interest or good are called the ideal or right constitutions. But there are many constitutions in which the holders of power give priority to private interests and want to hold office continuously.

These constitutions are called perverted or wrong constitutions. The purpose of classifying the consti­tution in this way is that the principle of political rule is the maximization of the benefit of the ruled—the people.

A man should not desire to hold power with an eye to his personal gain. This was the view not of Aristotle alone but of all leading Greek philosophers.

In Book III Chapter 7 Aristotle has further subdivided each category of consti­tution into three forms. Thus the normal or right or ideal form of government or constitution has three subdivisions. When a single man is at the helm of the government and looks to the common interest of the society, it is called kingship.

If few persons run the government with the same objective it is to be called aristocracy. Sometimes it is found that people at large govern the state and the purpose is common interest—it comes to be called polity.

When the administration is conducted for the sole benefit of the ruler the government is perverted. The corresponding forms are one-man rule—tyranny, rule of few—oligarchy, and the rule of many is democracy.

The basis of classification is not simply the c
ommon good criterion. There is another criterion which is called number. If a single man rules it may be tyranny or kingship and here there is no confusion. But what about the exact meaning of few and many?

How many persons will constitute the few? The term ‘many’ lacks exactness. These are relative terms and, unfortunately, Politics does not throw light on it.

In a developed or well-to-do society few will be rich. This contention is unacceptable. A large number of persons may be rich. There is another difficulty. How shall we define common good or interest? Some critics think that Aristotle has identified common interest with absolute justice which means complete social virtue. But the problem remains that how can the common interest of the many in polity or democracy be distinguished from that of the people at large?

The concept of common interest is full of ambiguities and its interpretation differs from person to person and changes from time to time. If a dispute arises regarding the interpretation of common interest who will settle it? Aristotle is silent on this matter.

4. Kingship and Tyranny:

According to Aristotle, both kingship and tyranny are rule of one and in spite of this basic similarity there is difference between the two.

The oft-repeated difference is: a king looks after the interest of his subjects and the tyrant considers his personal gain. But other differences are: a tyrant captures power by force, but the power of the king is based on law.

Tyrant’s power is exercised over the unwilling subjects. But people of the king are willing subjects. Even absolute power may be acquired either by heredity or by election.

In Book 3 Chapter 14 Aristotle has distinguished five different types of kingships. The first variety is Spartan kingship. This is not absolute monarchy. King’s power is limited. They are vested with the power to command in war. They have the right of dealing with matters of religious observance. They can be called constitutional kings with limited sovereignty.

The second type of kingship is common among the barbarians and is a mixture of kingship and tyranny. The kings have complete power equal to that of tyrannies but they are legally established and hereditary. The relationship between the ruler and the ruled is that of master and slave. The non-Greek kingships derive their stability from hereditary succession.

The third type is elected tyrant. It used to exist among the ancient Greeks and goes by the name of dictatorship (or aesymnetes). This is an elective form of tyranny. It differs from barbarian kingship. The rulers held office sometimes for life, some­times for a fixed period. They had to discharge fixed duty.

The fourth type of kingship existed in heroic ages. It was both hereditary and legal and willingly accepted by subjects. These kings started their rule by launching welfare programmes and also making discoveries in arts and peace. These activities made the king popular among his subjects. Originally these kings enjoyed unlimited power but gradually their power eroded and ultimately their power was confined in discharging certain religious functions.

Aristotle speaks of a fifth type of monarchy and, in his opinion; it is different from other forms. The king is absolute and controls everything. Aristotle compares his rule to that of the head of a household.

He wants to mean that the absolute king has total and unfettered control over his community in the same way as the head of the household is the complete master of all the members. The absolute king claims to be superior to law.

5. Aristocracy:

Aristocracy as defined by Aristotle is the rule of the few best men. These few best men rule for the common interest of the people. They are generally virtuous and the virtues of good men and good citizens are identical. In Book 4, Chapter 7 Aristotle has described three forms of aristocracy on the basis of practical experi­ence.

The first species combines both wealth and numbers. The second species is of Spartan type. It is the combination of virtue and democratic principle of freedom. The third includes those varieties of polity which incline more to oligarchy.

Some species combine oligarchic principle and democratic principle of wealth and freedom. But ultimately it gives weight to wealth.

His description of aristocracy suffers from certain problems. The ideal aristocracy and ideal kingship may be indistinguishable. Because, in both cases, virtue is the supreme quality. The only difference will be in number. But if in aristocracy one man takes the leading part and in kingship the king is advised by few virtuous persons, then what is aristocracy and what is kingship will be a problem. He is not clear about the true nature of ideal aristocracy. In several places he has discussed aristocracy. What is the ideal form we do not know.

6. Oligarchy:

Oligarchy is one of the perverted forms of government. The rulers of oligarchy always give priority to private interest and, as a result of it, common good is neglected. Another feature of oligarchy stated by him is that only the wealthy persons dominate the politics as well as administration of the state. Sometimes noble birth and education are regarded as features of oligarchy. But it is on rare occasions.

In Book 4 Chapter 5 Aristotle has described four different types of oligarchy. The first type of oligarchy is based on property qualification. But this is not restrictive. Participation in the affairs of the government is open to persons who acquire property. This property qualification is not very high.

The first type of oligarchy is nearer to polity. For second type of oligarchy a high property qualification has been recommended. In a sense, the rulers of the second form of oligarchy are richer and, naturally, fewer. When persons of high property qualification are not available, the deficiency is met by the process of co-option. The third type is narrower still and includes the further restriction that membership of the governing class is hereditary.

Finally, officials and not law exercise the sovereign power. An oligarchy of this type is sometimes called a “power group.”

7. Democracy:

In the perverted form of government there are three types and democracy is one of them. Both Plato and Aristotle did not see this form of government with favour. Both of them saw the degrading and pernicious features of this form of constitution.

However, democracy prevailed in Athens for over a century and Aristotle got the opportunity to see this form of government from a very close distance. So his observation of democracy is based on practical experience.

According to Aristotle, the foundation of democratic constitution is liberty. Everyone will have the freedom to rule and is legally entitled to all privileges. There is another principle. Democratic principle is based on numerical justice.

That is, the decision of the majority is final and to accept it is justice and its denial is injustice. To put it in other words, in democracy, people are sovereign.

Aristotle’s analysis reveals certain features and some are stated below:

(1) All citizens are eligible for all offices.

(2) Property shall not be a qualification for holding office.

(3) One person shall not be allowed to hold office very frequently.

(4) Tenure of the offices shall be very short so that all or large number of men can get opportunity to hold office.

(5) Jury courts shall be introduced.

(6) Assembly, whose members are elected by the people, shall be the sovereign authority.

(7) Birth, culture and wealth are not to be counted as qualification.

He also discusses four different types of democracy.

The first is moderate democracy which will involve certain amount of proper
ty qualification…

Secondly, all citizens, if not disqualified by birth, are eligible to hold office. Here, no property qualification is recommended.

Third form of democracy is, all citizens are eligible. But law is supreme. Finally, we find an extreme form of democracy. Here no restriction has been suggested. Law is not sovereign, but people will exercise sovereign authority.

If we look at Aristotle’s classification we shall find that one type of government is not clearly different from another. Dunning says, “Clearly the Politics, as we have it, is very far from clear in distinguishing each from all the rest. Polity and mixed aristocracy are difficult to disentangle.” Different forms of democracy and kingship are no doubt perplexing.

In spite of this defect it is to be admitted that in classifying the government, he has actively considered the economic, social, historical and cultural influences. In the classification he has also remembered the three elements of government—the deliberative organ, the system of magistracies, and judicial department. Today what we call the separation of powers, Aristotle is the harbinger of that doctrine.

8. Polity: The Best Practicable State:

Aristotle has analyzed in detail the different aspects of oligarchy and democracy and this has enabled him to construct a state which would be both ideal and practicable. This type of state is free from the extremes of oligarchy and democracy, because experience has shown that extreme form of government always breeds chaos and dangers. In Book 3 Aristotle mentions the possibility of such a form of government. This is polity.

In Book 4 Chapter 8 Aristotle has described the nature of polity. It is a mixture of oligarchy and democracy. In common usage the name is confined to those mixtures which incline to democracy, and those which incline to oligarchy are called aristocracy. When the polity is a combination of oligarchy and democracy it has certain advantages.

The main advantage is that both common interest and virtue get priority. Because of this characteristic Aristotle has called it an ideal or right type of constitution. In his opinion every polity will have a popular assembly, but its powers will be limited.

The appointment of officers will be based on both oligarchic and democratic methods; judicial functions are to be performed by juries.

Polity is also identified with the middle class. Chapter 11 of Book 4 throws ample light on this aspect of polity. Polity as a form of government has both ethical and social foundations. Virtue is a mean, the middle of the two extremes. Happiness of life is possible only if the mean is achieved. Best life must always be the middle way.

The same principle is also applicable to practical or political life. The social foundation of polity is the existence of a large number of people constituting the middle class. These men are neither poor nor rich. The city or polis possessing the largest number of middle class people is the best administered polis.

The glaring ‘disparity between the rich and the poor is the root cause of dissension among classes. Both these classes resort to violence as the most effective weapon to gratify personal desires and to achieve material gain.

Poor people want to capture power of office to become financially solvent like the rich, and the rich people’s greediness and inordinate love for wealth lead them to come into conflict with the poor people.

The state is thus converted into a perennial battle-ground. As far as practicable a state should consist of like and equal men who constitute the middle class. The best government is certainly to be found in a polis which is dominated by the middle class.

Euripides had said years before that only the middle class could save states. The Middle class is not poor enough to be degraded or rich enough to be factions.

Interpreting Aristotle’s views on importance of middle class as a stability factor of administration, Sabine¹ makes the following observation—the principle of middle class state is a balance between two factors—quality and quantity. The first includes the political influences which arise from the prestige of wealth, birth, position and education; the second is the sheer weight of number.

If the first predominates, the government becomes an oligarchy; if the second—a democracy. A combination of two factors is the only guarantee of stability. Only a polity can effectuate a balance and, hence, stability. A state ruled by the middle class can be most secure and can be the most law-abiding of practicable constitutions.

He thinks that for the stability of a state both quality and quantity count very much. Aristotle believes in the collective wisdom of a sober public opinion and there is less possibility of being corrupted. At the same time men of position, experience and education are required for good administration.

A state that can combine these two factors can solve the chief problems of stable and orderly government. But it is not to be understood that the polity is necessarily the best for every people and under every set of conditions. Circumstances may make a government the best.

Upload and Share Your Article:

In this article we will discuss about:- 1. Appointment of Governor 2. Qualifications for Appointment 3. Powers of the Governor 4. Governor and Dismissal of Ministry 5. Governor and the Legislators 6. Governor and Criticism of Ministry 7. Governor and Governor’s Address 8. Governor’s Address and Affrontation 9. Governor’s Committee 10. Suggestions for the Future.

Contents:

1. Appointment of Governor
2. Qualifications for Appointment
3. Powers of the Governor
4. Governor and Dismissal of Ministry
5. Governor and the Legislators
6. Governor and Criticism of Ministry
7. Governor and Governor’s Address
8. Governor’s Address and Affrontation
9. Governor’s Committee
10. Suggestions for the Future

---

1. Appointment of Governor:

Executive authority in an Indian State is vested in the Governor. According to the constitution this power shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinates to him. In the Constituent Assembly there was a proposal that the Governor should be elected by the people, instead of his being nominated or indirectly elected by the President.

But the proposal was turned down by the Assembly on two important grounds. Firstly, that it will be difficult to have any workable division of powers between the Governor and the Chief Minister, when both have been elected by the people and enjoy people’s verdict.

Then another argument advanced was that in the country for quite some time atmosphere was likely to prevail in the states in which disintegrating forces were likely to play their role. In order to check these it was essential that the Governors should be powerful persons free from the mud slugging of elections and above appeasement policy of the electorates.

The Assembly, therefore, decided that the Governor should be appointed by the President. Accordingly now Governor is appointed by the President under his warrant and seal.

Though the President is free to appoint any person as the Governor of a state to whom he likes yet with the passage of time a convention has been developed that a person who is being appointed as Governor shall not be posted in the state to which he belongs. Barrings very few exceptions, like those of H.C. Mukherjee and Miss Padmaja Naidu, this convention is being maintained so far.

Then comes the problem of the consultation with the Chief Ministers in the appointment of Governors. As long as there was monolithic party system in the country in which Congress party was in power both at the centre and in the states, there was no problem.

Even if a Chief Minister did not feel happy about the appointment of an individual as Governor and his being posted to the state, there was no confrontation between the Centre and the states.

Moreover, Pt. Nehru’s towering personality was such that both inside and outside the House none dared challenge his decision in matters of appointment of a Governor. It is also said then only those persons were nominated as Governors, who by and large deserved the position and as such none even challenged the appointment on even personal grounds.

But after his death the situation changed and as a result of Fourth General Elections in the country non-Congress governments assumed power in some states. The Chief Ministers of .these states wanted that (a) they should be consulted in the appointment of Governors and (b) no defeated politician be posted to a state, as a reward for his past services to the Congress party.

They also wanted that Chief Minister of a state should invariably be consulted before a name was finalised for appointment as Governor. The Chief Minister of Bengal in 1967 gave a list of 3 names, namely, those of V.K. Krishna Menon, Prof. Aleem and Mrs. Aruna Asaf Ali and wanted the Centre to appoint one of them as the Governor of the state.

Similarly when Kanungo was appointed as the Governor of Bihar, the then Chief Minister protested against this appointment as that had been made without consulting him or approval of state cabinet. There was so much resentment that state cabinet decided not to make any arrangements for the reception of the new Governor.

But the then Home Minister Y.B. Chavan made it amply clear that it was not at all obligatory on the part of the Centre to get the consent of the state in matters of appointment of Governors.

In other words a state could not veto the decision of the Centre in such matters. This stand continues even today. When C.P.N. Singh was appointed as Governor of U.P. or C.M. Pooncha was transferred from MP the Chief Ministers concerned protested against the action of the Centre and said that the Centre had acted arbitrarily and the state concerned should have been consulted. But central government did not agree to this view point.

But one effect of 1967 general elections to the Lok Sabha was that some senior retired civil servants were appointed as Governors in some states and thus the tide of posting of defeated Congress candidates as state Governors was checked.

Some other traditions too would have developed but in 1971 when elections were held in the country, both at the Centre and in the states, Congress party again came to power and the resistance of states to the appointment of Governors by the Centre without the approval of state government, obviously weakened.

Whereas the opposition dominated states have been resenting discretion in appointments of the Governors, so far the central government has not laid down any norms about the appointment of executive heads of the state.

The Centre has been posting on the one hand mature statesmen like C. Rajagopslachari, Kailash Nath Katju, Mrs. Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, K.M. Munshi and Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, and seasoned bureaucrats like L.P. Singh, Bhagwan Sahay, V.P. Menon, B.K. Nehru, B.N. Chakravarti, Dharam Vira and many others on the other.

Similarly on the one hand have been posted to the state Governors such persons who were to be politically rewarded for their services to the ruling party in the past and had now been not in the active politics, like Bhim Sen Sachar and Hafiz Muhammad Ibrahim and so on, whereas on the other persons of great eminence but never in active politics have been sent as Governors.

These include Gen. Srinagesh, Dr. A.N. Khosla, G.N. Singh and D.C. Pavate. All that need be noted is that even informally no guide lines or conventions have been developed about the appointment of Governors.

The opposition parties have all along protested that when a defeated politician is appointed as a Governor he never tries to behave as a constitutional head of the state. He usually tries to inject politics in the state and usually becomes a convenient tool in the hands of ruling party.

He is always willing to oblige the central government in the manner it likes. Though opposition parties prefer bureaucrats over such defeated politicians, yet many in the country do not favour the idea of putting them in Raj Bhavans.

According to them these people who have all along led an active life with vast powers at decision making level and processes, usually find it difficult to adjust themselves as nominal head of the state, where there is no active life and little decision making work.

It is also said that these people have spent their active life career in an atmosphere where there is no care for feelings and sentiments of the people. They are little concerned about the aspirations of the people and as such hey are not likely to be a success when face to face altogether in a different situation.

Recall of Governors:

Closely linked with appointment of a Governor is the problem of recall. All appointments of Governors are made by the President, which in effect means tire Prime Minister. Each Governor is a
ppointed for a period of 5 years, but he can leave his job earlier if he so likes by tendering his resignation.

But in 1969, the then Chief Minister of Bengal Ajoy Mukerjee demanded that state Governor Dharma Vira should be recalled from the state. All this happened over the address of Governor to the state legislature.

As usual the Address was prepared by the Chief Minister with the approval of the Cabinet, in which there were some unfavourable references about the action of the central government about the dissolution of Communist ruled state Assembly.

The Governor decided to omit two paragraphs of his Address. The result was that a controversy arose. The Chief Minister pleaded that as constitutional head of the state he was duty bound to read the address in its entirety, which had been prepared and approved by the state cabinet.

The Chief Minister demanded the withdrawal of the Governor. The Home Minister, however, did not agree with the demand on the plea that it will set a bad precedent and similar demands could pour in from many other states as well. He very firmly maintained that it was the prerogative of the President to post, transfer or recall a Governor and that state had nothing to do in such matters.

Of course, after some time the Governor was withdrawn from the state and S.S. Dhawan was posted in his place, but not on the demand of state government.

This one incident alone shows that in case persons of the type who are not suited to this type of job to which they are appointed as Governor, centre-state relations are likely to come under heavy strains.

In the words of Dr. Rao, “So in the end we are left with a moral command that the President should be a statesman of high impartiality and so also the Governors chosen by him, be active, sympathetic public men of a high moral structure, immensely interested in social service etc.”

A little laxity can cause many ripples in centre-state relations. Governor Ramlal, by his untactful handling of situation in Andhra Pradesh, created a difficult situation even for the ruling party at the centre. Governor Nurul Hassan had no smooth time in Orissa, when he was there in that state.

Similarly Kumud Behn Joshi too had difficult time as Governor and State Government requested the centre to withdraw her from the state. Present Tamil Nadu Governor has no cordial relations with Chief Minister Jayalalitha.

Calling of Resignations of Governors:

In January 1990, National Front Government at the centre advised President R. Vankataraman to call for the resignation of all Governors, as in its opinion during Congress (I) regime some Governors had been appointed purely on party considerations.

This step was criticised by Congress (I) which felt that the office of the Governor was being politicised and that it was an unhealthy trend. The Governors should be kept above all political upheavals. The National Front Government, however, felt that the process of politicisation of the institution of Governors had been started by Congress (I) and it needed setting the trend right.

Dismissal of Governor:

The President also has power to dismiss a Governor, once appointed by him, though so far no such dismissal has taken place. But a situation developed in 1980. After central elections in 1977 when Janata Government came to power at the Centre, it appointed some Governors to the states.

But in 1980 it was voted out of power and Congress (I) came to power at the Centre. The new government hinted that the Governors appointed by the Janata government should better resign. But none of the tendered resignation.

The central government was of the view that whereas some of these could be tolerated, some others must quit. Some Governors, saw writings on the walls and resigned. But the then Tamil Nadu Governor Prabhu Das Patwari had to be removed by the President, as he did not resign on his own. In 1992, President removed Governor of Nagaland M.M. Jacob.

After coming to power Narsimha government changed about 14 Governors who had been appointed by V.P. Singh and Chandra Sekhar governments which was considered a step towards the politicisation of the institution of governorship.

---

2. Qualifications for Appointment:

Governor is the executive head of the state and the President is empowered to appoint any person as Governor, provided he is an Indian citizen and is not below the age of 35 years. He should not hold any office of profit either in the central or in the state government.

Similarly he should also not be member of any House of state legislature or Parliament. In case he is so, he should vacate that before joining as Governor. He should not be insolvent on his appointment.

After his appointment he gets a monthly salary of Rs.11,000/- and such other allowances as are decided by the Parliament from time to time. He is also entitled to free furnished official residence. It is provided that during the term of his office his emoluments shall not be changed to his disadvantage.

Before entering upon his office he is required to take an oath before the Chief Justice of the High Court of the state to which he is appointed.

Ordinarily a person shall be appointed as Governor to one state only, but the President in his discretion can appoint a person as Governor to more than one state as well. L.P. Singh e.g., was Governor of Assam as well as North Eastern Hill States.

For some time Punjab and Haryana used to have one Governor. It is not quite common to have a Governor for more than one state. When a person is Governor to more than one State, his salary and allowances are charged from the states concerned proportionately.

Privileges of Governor:

During the term of his office a Governor is protected against all legal proceedings in courts of law and is not to be called to account anywhere for the exercise and performance of powers and duties of his office or any action done by him in the performance of his duties. No criminal proceedings can be instituted against him and no process for arrest issued against a Governor while in office.

---

3. Powers of the Governor:

In the constitution Governor has been given quite vast powers, which he is to enjoy as executive head of the state. But before discussing these powers, it may be remembered that in actual practice before the death of Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, the Governors acted as nominal heads of the state.

It was due to several reasons. Firstly, at time of appointment the Prime Minister used to take care that only such persons were appointed as Governors, who by nature were not aggressive and could fully well adjust themselves to the frame work of being a nominal head of the state.

Then another reason was that at that time there used to be Congress party in power both at the centre and in the states. The state cabinet had full backing and support of the central government. Thus, whenever, a Governor made a complaint against Chief Minister that was not entertained and the former was clearly told that as nominal head of the state he had-no right to complain.

But when a state Chief Minister made a complaint against the Governor that was promptly attended. Still, another reason was that the Governors at that time used to be usually old Congress men and as such they knew the programmes and policies of the party in power and had not much to differ from the Chief Ministers.

Moreover, they knew that they have been rewarded for their equation with the central government or past services to the party and as such they should quietly pass their time. Still another reason was that at that time nation
had a towering personality in Pt. Nehru, who could satisfy as well guide any Governor.

In fact, in his presence no Governor could raise his voice. Lastly, the Governors followed the traditions set by the Presidents, their appointing bosses. Since Presidents in those days acted as nominal heads, the Governors in the states could not exert themselves to become real heads or use the powers which the constitution vested in them.

But after Fourth General Elections, situation Changed, Pt. Nehru had died by that time and there was split in the Congress party resulting in the exit of many old stalwarts. The Congress had lost heavily at the polls and in some states non-Congress governments had come to power.

In 1971, the situation, however, again changed because Congress party was returned to the Lok Sabha and thereafter in the states, with massive majority. Monolithic political party system almost again came back in the country. The Governors, therefore, again had to adjust themselves to the new situation.

In 1977, elections were again held in the country and in that newly formed Janata Party swept polls in North and Central India but its impact on the Southern states was not felt, where non-Janata Party Ministries remained in power. The result was that these state governments could create some problems. But their rule proved short lived and no serious problem about appointment of Governors, etc., arose.

As a result of elections held in 1980, Congress (I) government at the centre came to power. The party had massive mandate. State Assembly elections which were held in May 1980, also returned Congress (I) to power. Thus, again monolithic party system emerged which lessened the role of Governor in state politics.

Almost same position continued alter 1984 elections when Congress (1) was again given mass mandate after the general elections held in that year. The situation has, however, changed now. After 1989 general elections Congress (I) suffered defeat at the Centre and National Front government came to power.

The Congress (I), however, came to power in some southern States and thus a situation of confrontation could arise but that situation did not arise because that government had to leave office just after one year.

In 1991, elections were again held for the Lok Sabha and Congress (I) came to power at the centre. But when elections were subsequently held for some states, it lost power in several states. This would have created a situation of confrontation but fortunately that did not arise.

The states have practically dropped their demand that Chief Minister should be consulted by the Centre before any person is posted as Governor in his State.

Executive Powers:

Article 154 of the constitution has provided that all executive powers of the state shall be vested in Governor and all executive actions in the state will be taken in his name. He is to decide in his discretion who is to be invited as the Chief Minister of the state.

Other Ministers of the Council of Ministers will, of course, be appointed by him on the recommendations of the Chief Minister. Chairman as well as members of State Public Service Commission and Advocate General of the state are to be appointed by him.

The President of India consults him at the time of appointment of the judges of the High Court. Theoretically all Ministers of Council of Ministers hold office during his pleasure. He allocates business among the Ministers and calls for any information on any matter relating to state administration.

He has also right to be kept informed about state politics and happenings and any legislation that is proposed to be brought for approval before the House.

It is the responsibility of the Governor to send fortnightly report to the Centre about situation in the state. In case he reports that situation in the state is such that it is difficult to run state administration in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, a proclamation of emergency is made by the President, by which administration of the state is taken over by the President.

He makes appointments of all high positions in the state-like those of the Advocate General. He can call for any information from the Chief Minister. He also acts as a Chancellor all the universities located in the state.

Governor is supposed to be nominal head of the state, but he begins to play some important role in the executive field when there is no single political party with clear majority in the Assembly.

This is what happened during 1967 to 1972 when in some of the states there were coalition governments and defection politics was playing big role. It was in this situation that the Governor used his discretion as to who should be invited to form government.

In Rajasthan, Congress party leader Mohal Lal Sukhadia and Maharwal Laxman Singh, leader of some combined parties claimed their majority in the House and wanted to be invited to form government. At that time Dr. Sampurana Nand was Governor of the state. He invited Mohal Lal Sukhadia to form the Government as in his opinion, Singh could not give stable Government to the state.

Similarly Governor Hukum Singh also invited Mohal Lal Sukhadia and not Maharwal Laxman Singh to form the government when again both the leaders staked their claim to form government.

Similarly in 1970 both Gurnam Singh and Prakash Singh Badai staked their claims as leaders of the legislature party in Punjab Assembly and wanted to be invited to form government. Governor D.C. Pavate accepted the claim of Prakash Singh Badal and invited him to form the government.

Then came U.P. In that state some political parties combined together elected Girdhari Lal as their leader. He approached the Governor to be invited to form the government. Against him was the claim of B.K.D leader, Charan Singh. The Governor decided to invite the latter as in his opinion he alone could give stable government to the state.

In Bihar also a similar situation developed in December, 1970, when Daroga Rai Ministry went out of power.

At that time both Karpoori Thakur and Bhola Paswan Shastri staked their claims and each one wanted to be invited to form the government Each asserted that he had the support of majority of MLAs in the state. But Governor did not accept the claim of Bhola Paswan Shastri and invited Karpoori Thakur to form government in the state.

The decision of the Governor in regard to inviting a person to form the government is final and cannot be challenged in any court of law. In 1967 West Bengal Governor decided to invite Dr. P.C Ghosh to form government, after he had dismissed Chief Minister Ajoy Mukherjee. The latter challenged the decision of the Governor in the High Court.

But the court did not agree with the petitioners and set aside the petition. Similarly in 1970 Allahabad High Court and subsequently Supreme Court did not accept a writ petition challenging the decision of U.P. Governor inviting T.N. Singh to form government, as he was an outsider. The Court held that Governor was the best judge to decide as to who should be invited to form government.

Legislative Powers:

Governor of a state is an integral part of state legislature, though not a member of either House. He summons and prorogues the legislature and dissolves state legislative Assembly.

He addresses state legislature at the commencement of the new session after each general election as well as budget session every year. In his address he outlines policies and programmes which the state government proposes to follow in the ensuing year for the betterment of the people.

He is fully empowered to send messages to the state legislature on a matter pending before it or otherwise. In a state where there is Legislative Council he nominates 1/6 of the members from among the persons who have excelled in any field of art, literature, social service, etc.

He also nominates some members o
f Anglo-Indian community in the state Assembly, if he is satisfied that that community has not been properly represented. All bills approved by the state legislature must receive his assent before these can go to the statute book.

The Governor is fully empowered to withhold his assent except, of course, in the case of money bills and return the same to the legislature for its reconsideration. If, of course, the Assembly on reconsideration passes the Bill in the form in which it was originally passed, the Governor must give his consent to that.

There are certain types of Bills which the Governor can withhold for the assent of the President. These include bills dealing with the acquisition of the private property, etc. Whether a person has disqualified himself to become a member of the Assembly or not, final decision is to be taken by the Governor, of course, in consultation with the Election Commission.

When the office of Speaker and Deputy Speaker and similarly that of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman falls vacant simultaneously, he appoints a member of the House concerned to preside over its meetings for a transitory period, till proper and regular arrangements are made.

But one important power which the Governor enjoys is when the state legislature is not in session. The Governor has the power at that time to issue ordinances. These have same force as any law passed by the state legislature, during the period of its operation.

These remain in force for a period of 6 months even after the re-assembly of state legislature. There are several regular commissions like the State Public Service Commissions and from time to time several commissions are appointed by the state government, reports of all these commissions are sent to him and he causes them to be laid .on the Table of the House.

It is, of course, within the discretionary powers of the Governor to call or not to call the Assembly to session. No difficulty is posed when Chief Minister enjoys absolute majority in the lower House and is prepared to summon an Assembly session as and when asked to do so.

But this becomes important when the Chief Minister has doubt about his position and wants to gain time to win over more M.L.As. who could support him, so that he could save his position.

In the states, Governors have several times used their discretion in summoning and proroguing the Assembly or adjourning it sine die. In other words this discretionary power of the Governor assumes great significance when there is political instability in the state.

As and when the Governor is in doubt about Chief Minister’s majority, he can ask him to summon an Assembly session by a fixed date. In case there is any delay that can mean that Chief Minister is using delaying tactics and is either not in majority or has lost majority support or is in doubt about his majority.

In the words of Singhvi, “Notwithstanding any difference of opinion with the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers the Governor is entitled to summon the House to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit and he can justifiably treat this as a matter in which he is required to act in his discretion under the constitution.”

In 1967, West Bengal Governor Dharam Vira, asked Chief Minister Ajoy Mukerjee to convene the Assembly by 23rd November, 1967, to prove his majority. When Mukerjee showed his reluctance, the Governor dismissed the Ministry and invited Dr. P.C. Ghosh to form ministry.

Similarly the Governor of Orissa asked Chief Minister R.N. Singh Deo in December 1970 to prove his strength on the floor of the House after he had been informed that Hare Krishna Mehtab had withdrawn his support. He fixed the date of session on January 15, 1971.

In 1995, Ms. Mayavati wanted some more time to prove her majority in the House but Governor Motilal Vora did not agree to that. In this connection it may be pointed out that though normally convening date for Assembly sessions is suggested by the Chief Ministers, yet in such circumstances when political situation is fluid and MLAs are changing their loyalties, the Governor uses his discretion.

In some cases when there was a demand and also clear indication that a Chief Minister had lost confidence of the House and Assembly session should be called, the Governors declined to summon Assembly session.

In Haryana, Governor B.N. Chakravarty did not ask Chief Minister Rao Birendra Singh to summon Assembly and face that for trial of strength, though his majority was in doubt. In 1970, Chief Minister Bansilal lost the majority of the House, due to large scale defections, but Governor B.N. Chakravarty did not summon the Assembly.

In September, 1970, U.P. Governor, B. Gopala Reddy felt that Chief Minister, Charan Singh, had lost confidence of the Assembly. He dismissed the Ministry without calling Assembly, though the Chief Minister was very much prepared to face the House.

In 1995, after the removal of Mayawati government in U.P. the Assembly was kept in a state of animation during which period B.J.P. and other political parties informed Governor Moti Lal Vora that these were in a position to form the government. But he felt that no party could provide stable government. He, therefore, invited no party to formed the government and recommended its dissolution.

Similarly the Governor has the power to prorogue the Assembly. Though again normally this is done in consultation with and on the advice of the Chief Minister, yet in peculiar circumstances proroguing can help him, particularly at time when he seems to be losing the confidence of the House.

In Madhya Pradesh Governor. K.C. Reddy, on the advice of Chief Minister D.P. Mishra suddenly prorogued the House, to save the Congress Ministry. At that time some Congress legislators had left the party, reducing the government to minority.

But one very important power with the Governor is that of making recommendation to the President that it is not possible to run state administration in accordance with the constitution. This has received wide criticism.

It is alleged by many Chief Minister that in this regard discretionary powers vested in the Governor have not been properly used. The Governors, in very many cases, report in the manner, in which the central authorities wish them to report.

The Governors in several states have dissolved state Assemblies in their discretion, because so far no guidelines have been evolved about the dissolution of Assemblies. Normally, however, it is expected that the Assembly should be dissolved on the recommendations of the Chief Minister.

But Governor uses his discretion when the Chief Minister has lost the confidence of the House and there is no possibility of a stable government or when serious law and order situation has arisen in the state and the state government has failed to tackle that or when the Governor is of the view that rights and interests of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes are not being fully protected.

In 1971, Madras Legislative Assembly was dissolved on the advice of Chief Minister Karunanidhi and that of Punjab on the advice of Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal. In 1973, Orissa Governor dissolved state Assembly on the advice of Chief Minister Mrs. Nandini Satpathy, without providing an opportunity to opposition leaders to prove their strength and this was resented by the High Court.

In 1968, Governor Dharam Vira recommended President’s rule in West Bengal when he was satisfied that no stable government could be formed in the state and so happened in Rajasthan, when leader of the Congress party Mohan Lai Sukhadia declined to form government after Fourth General Elections.

In 1967, Governor Private recommended President rule when he found that neither of the party leaders was in a position to form a government.

In 1968, when U.P. Governor found that neither C. B. Gupta nor Harish Chandra, two leaders staking their claims for the formation of government, could give stable government to
the state, he recommended dissolution of the House.

In March 1973, Governor B. K. Nehni suggested imposition of President’s rule in Manipur. But in 1974 Governor of Gujarat did not send his report to the President for the dissolution of State Assembly, though the situation in the state had been so much worsened that army had been called to assist the civil authorities for the maintenance of law and order.

Though it is discretionary power of the Governor to recommend to the President about the imposition of President’s rule in the state yet he is to take some factors into consideration.

These are:

(1) The Governor should accept the advice of only the Chief Minister, who en joys the confidence of the House and not of the one who has lost confidence of the House.

(2) That other leader or leaders have been provided an opportunity to prove their strength on the floor of the House thus ensuring that they cannot provide stable government.

(3) That the action of the Governor does not appear to be partial, meaning thereby that he is in no way making an attempt to save one political party or the other.

(4) That there is equally no undue delay in the formation of a stable Ministry so that progress of the state does not suffer due to lack of decision making process at the political level.

Financial Powers:

As executive head of the State, Governor has certain financial powers. It is duty and constitutional obligation of the Governor to cause the statement of income and expenditure for the year to be laid on the Table of the House.

Every demand for grant must be made with the recommendation of the Governor. In the State budget there is a provision for unforeseen expenses. The Governor is authorised to spend these at his direction.

The salaries and allowances of judges of the High Court and the Chairman and members of the State Public Service Commission are also non- votable. These are placed at the disposal of the Governor. In financial matters, however, power of the Governor is somewhat restricted in one sense. He cannot return a financial bill for the reconsideration of the House. Every financial bill presented to him must be consented.

Judicial Powers:

In judicial matters Governor has some powers. He decides about postings, transfers and promotions of the district judges and other officers belonging to judicial service of the state. In the State High Court when a judge is going to be appointed, President consults the Governor of the state and in this way Governor has a hand in the appointment of judges of the High Courts.

Being the head of the Judiciary, Governor cannot be called to appear before any court for his actions, as long as he holds that office. He can pardon and reprieve or reduce the punishment of a person who has been adjudged guilty by any court in the state. He, however, cannot increase any such punishment.

He cannot grant pardon in cases involving death sentence or sentence pronounced by Court Martial. In the case of K.M. Nanavati Vs. State of Bombay the Supreme Court has held that Governor’s power to suspend sentence was subject to rules made by that court.

The Court ruled that, “The Governor cannot exercise his power of suspension of the sentence of the period when the Supreme Court is seized of the case …. After the filing of the petition and till the judicial process is over, the power of the Governor cannot be exercised.”

Miscellaneous and Discretionary Powers:

Governor is to ensure that accounts of the state are being maintained properly and the money is being spent for the purpose for which it has been allocated. For this purpose he receives and causes the Report of the Accountant General of the State placed on the Table of the House.

State Public Service Commission is an autonomous body. He receives report on the work of the Public Service Commission and sends the same to the State Council of Ministers for report and gets that placed before the Assembly for its approval.

In several matters he acts in his discretion such as selection of Chief Minister, dismissal of Ministry, dissolution of Legislative Assembly, assent to non-money bills; reserving a bill passed by the Legislative Assembly for the assent of the President and informing the President about failure of constitutional machinery in the state.

The Governor of Assam has discretionary powers in the administration of tribal areas of his state, whereas Governor of Nagaland can take steps in his discretion about checking violent activities of hostile Nagas. The validity of anything done in his discretion shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not have acted in his discretion.

He can issue ordinance when the legislature is not in session and can also seek the advice of the President on any important legislative matter.

But in this connection it may be pointed out that except in exceptional circumstances or in situation of political instability the Governor has no discretion. He remains a nominal head. In the words of Dr. Sharmu, “The Governor is the constitutional head of the state just as the President is of the Union. We may say that he is President shorn of his emergency and transitional powers.”

---

4. Governor and Dismissal of Ministry:

In November 1967, Governor of West Bengal Dharam Vira, got an impression that Chief Minister, Ajoy Mukerjee, had lost confidence of the House and the Chief Minister desired to convene Assembly meeting on December 18.

The Governor, however, wanted that the meeting should be called earlier, but when Chief Minister insisted on his date, the Governor in his discretion dismissed Ministry and invited Dr. P.C. Ghosh to form the Ministry and call session of the Assembly.

Accordingly when new Chief Minister called Assembly session on November 29, 1967, Speaker created constitutional crisis, by adjourning the House sine die. This created a lot of controversy and main issue that came to focus was whether Governor had any constitutional right to dismiss the Ministry, without ascertaining whether the Chief Minister enjoyed the confidence of the Assembly or not.

Article 164 of the constitution of course provides that the Minister shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor but in the case of Sunil Kumar Bose and others Vs. The Chief Secretary of Government of West Bengal (1950), it was observed that, “The Governor under the present constitution cannot act except in accordance with the advice of his Minister … The power to act in his discretion or in his individual judgment has been taken away.”

In this particular case, there were two main reasons which prompted the Governor to dismiss the Ministry:

(a) That the Chief Minister did not call for session of the Assembly on the date, on which the Governor desired it to be convened. This delay clearly meant that the Chief Minister was not in majority and was gaining time.

(b) It was not in the interest of a state and was constitutionally unjustified to continue a minority Ministry in power in the state.

As regards the date of convening the session of the Assembly, under the constitution what is provided is that interval between two sessions of Assembly should not be more than 6 months. As long as this provision of the constitution is not violated, it is the responsibility of the Chief Minister to suggest a date on which Assembly session should be called.

Though technically Governor summons the Assembly, yet the date is decided by the state cabinet. Not only this, in this particular case the difference between the two dates suggested by the Governor and the Chief Minister was not much and could have been adjusted in the spirit of gi
ve and take.

As regard minority government it is, of course, correct that minority government should not continue and as soon as Chief Minister feels that he has lost confidence of the House he should resign.

It is not at all justified for the Governor to develop a subjective notion that the Chief Minister has lost confidence of the majority in the House and therefore; government should be dismissed. This can lead to serious consequences in a parliamentary form of government.

Not only this, hut in India there have also several instances, when Governors allowed minority governments to remain in power. When C. Rajagopalachari was invited to form government in Madras, he was not in majority.

---

5. Governor and the Legislators:

Under the constitution presiding officer of a House is the custodian of rights and privileges of the members and he is supposed to maintain decorum in the House. In England, from where India has much borrowed as a parliamentary form of government, the members of Parliament have clearly understood that Queen is merely constitutional head of the state.

But in India there have been several instances when the legislators in the states did not allow Governor to proceed further, when he came to address a session of the House. But what assumed a great significance was in 1966 when Governor Hukam Singh was not allowed to proceed in the Rajasthan Assembly and he himself expelled 12 MLAs from the House.

This created a controversy; namely, whether Governor could expel an MLA from the House. Those who favoured this point were of the view that he was an integral part and the limb of the House and as such quite competent to do so. On the other hand those who criticised his action argued that maintaining decorum in the House was the responsibility of the Speaker and the Governor had nothing to do with that.

The controversy would have much developed and assumed constitutional significance, but in between fourth general elections came and secondly thereafter no other Governor in any other state ever took a similar step as had been taken by the Governor in Rajasthan.

The point at issue, however, remains unresolved i.e., whether the Governor can at all expel an unruly M.L.A. from the House, when he comes to address the Assembly.

---

6. Governor and Criticism of Ministry:

Governor being nominal head of the state is not supposed to indulge in politics, much less use press and platform to vindicate his grievances and view point about his government. Of course, he has every right to write to President what he feels about his government.

In October 1973, Bihar Governor, D.R. Bhandare went to Nagpur and Bombay and there at those places he is alleged to have said in the open meetings that in his state Ministers and highly placed public servants were corrupt.

He is also stated to have said that in order to check corruption in the state, he had recommended to the President to dissolve state Assembly. These remarks of a Governor drew nation wide criticism and main point was whether a Governor had any right to publicly criticise his government. But after a few days when he came back to his state capital he openly denied, what had been reported in the press.

He said that he had no right to recommend dissolution of Assembly, when there was political stability. But the state government was not satisfied with this and demanded his recall. It was of the view that his continued remaining in the state was likely to effect smooth working of state administration.

Similarly in 19X9, Andhra Pradesh Governor Kumud Bahun Joshi also critisised some policies of the State Government which was highly resented by the latter and a demand was made for her recall.

---

7. Governor and Governor’s Address:

It is constitutional obligation of the Governor to address every new session of the Assembly and budget session at its beginning. In this the Governor reads an address prepared by his government, which outlines its achievements and programmes of the future. It is, thus, a policy document which is prepared by the government and the Governor is not supposed to make any changes in that.

This practice has been borrowed from England where ‘Address from the Throne’ is prepared by the Prime Minister and read by the Queen.

Whatsoever is said in that; is accepted because in that country it is clear that it is a document of the government and if there is anything wrong in that, that should be the responsibility of the government, because Queen can do no wrong. Moreover, in England Queen has no discretionary powers.

But in India the position is different. Here the Governor has discretionary powers and it is this constitutional obligation to see that nothing is done in the state which strains the relations of the executive with the judiciary or conduct and behaviour of judges is unnecessarily attacked.

An interesting case, happened in West Bengal. Governor Dharm Vira advised the President that Ajoy Mukherjee Ministry in the state was not in a position to give a stable government and that it should be dismissed. On his advice the government was dismissed.

But the way in which this was done became a matter of controversy. When mid-term elections were held, Ajoy Mukerjee was again returned to power and the Ministry demanded that the Governor should be recalled.

The Governor himself even wanted that he should be transferred to some other state. But central government did not wish to leave an impression that the Governor was being called back on the advice of Chief Minister, because that could lead to several serious constitutional problems.

The refusal of the central government to recall the Governor very much annoyed West Bengal government. In between, Ajoy Mukerjee government moved the High Court about wrong dismissal of government by the Governor but the court did not accept government’s view point, as in its opinion the Governor was the sole judge to decide about the dismissal of the Ministry.

In the address prepared for the Governor, Ajoy Mukerjee Ministry added two paragraphs in which dismissal of the Ministry by the Governor and the support given to him by the centre was condemned. This indirectly meant reflection on the central government as well as High Court.

The Governor suggested to the Chief Minister that these paragraphs should be omitted as these neither dealt with any policy statement nor indicated any achievement of the government. But Chief Minister insisted on their being read out.

In spite of the fact that controversy was going on the address when printed and laid on the Table of the House included those two paragraphs. When, however, Governor Dharam Vira read his address he omitted these.

This of course created a pendulum in the House, but raised a wider issue as to whether the Governor was in his constitutional rights to omit any portion of an address prepared by the cabinet and whether he was duty bound to read that in to-to. The opinions were bound to differ.

Those who favoured the action of the Governor argued that he was justified because:

(a) Omitted portion did not deal with any policy statement or achievement of the government and as such it was not obligatory on his part to read that.

(b) He himself had dismissed the government and his decision had been upheld by the court. Reading these paragraphs would have cast indirect reflection on the judiciary. It was the responsibility of the Governor to see that there was no unnecessary reflection on the judiciary.

(c) In these paragraphs central government had been adversely criticised. How could a Governor condemn the central government which had acted on his advice and was not in the House to defe
nd itself.

But on the other hand the supporters of government action felt that the Governor was constitutional head of the state and it was his constitutional duty to read a prepared address. If there was anything wrong the government would have been condemned on the floor of the House and taken to task for including in the address unnecessary references.

But the controversy did not Hare up because after some time the Governor was recalled and thereafter, in no other state such a situation arose.

---

8. Governor’s Address and Affrontation:

Though in India it is quite well known that Governor is constitutional head of die slate and he has practically nothing to do either with policy making or formulation and that affrontation to his authority has no meaning, yet on several occasions, the opposition parties have used the occasion of his addressing the House, to express their grievances. The opposition several times has boycotted his address on one pretext or the other.

In the Punjab Vidhan Sabha 16 opposition Members walked out of the House to join a procession outside the House, as Governor Ujjagar Singh began his speech to inaugurate budget session of state legislature.

In 1969, except one SSP member, the entire opposition boycotted the Governor address of the state legislature as a protest against alleged installing of a puppet Ministry by the Governor in the state and that too in an illegal and unconstitutional manner.

In West Bengal in 1969, Governor Dharam Vira could address the House after great physical strain and some of the members even blockaded the way from which he was to walk in to address the House. As already said Governor Hukam Singh had to suspend 12 MLAs in Rajasthan Legislative Assembly who did not allow him to proceed with his address.

In Maharashtra Governor had to call Marshal to take one MLA (Mr. Dhote) out of the House for his shouting in the House and not allowing him proceed with his address. In fact, in India there is no state in which Governor’s address was either not boycotted or not disturbed.

In January, 1990 addresses Governors of Tamil Nadu, U.P. and M.P. were disturbed on the plea that since they had resigned they had no right to address the Assembly.

---

9. Governor’s Committee:

Governors who were supposed to be constitutional heads in some cases began to act in a manner which invited wide spread criticism. Their actions about summoning, proroguing and dissolving Assemblies, as well as some of their actions received wide spread criticism, particularly by non-Congress opposition parties.

They demanded that a code of conduct should be evolved and guidelines issued to the Governor on such important matters. It was, however, felt that issuing written guidelines would be a difficult, and perhaps not a practical solutions to the problem, because the Governors had to act under different situations and circumstances.

When Governors, however, met for their annual conference in 1970, President V. V. Giri decided to set up a Committee of five Governors, headed by Kashmir Governor, Bhagwan Sahey, to study the provisions of the constitution and to recommend whether it was possible to lay down some guidelines to deal with the problems which faced Governor in their dealings with the cabinet, legislature and in the use of his discretionary powers.

The Committee interviewed several people and submitted its reports in October, 1971. It was of the view that it was difficult to lay down any guidelines and, in fact, laying down such guidelines was unconstitutional.

There was no authority in the constitution which could lay down such guidelines. Much will depend on the spirit of give and take and degree of political discipline which was bound to develop with the passage of time.

The Committee was of the view that if a Chief Minister avoided facing the Assembly at the earliest, it was clear indication of the fact that he had lost confidence of the House and the Governor was very much justified in dismissing such a Ministry. Another suggestion of the Committee was that a Governor should invite only such person as Chief Minister who was a member of the legislature.

No outsider should ordinarily be invited to head the government. In case any such person was invited he should get himself elected to either House at the earliest.

The Committee viewed with concern that some Chief Ministers, after their swearing in ceremony postponed the formation of Council of Ministers. It was of the view that this tendency should be discouraged and Ministers should be appointed as early as possible, after swearing-in of the Chief Minister.

If a Governor doubted majority strength of the Chief Minister, then Assembly session should be called at die earliest possible opportunity so that majority claim of the Chief Minister is tested.

Then another recommendation of the Committee was that if certain Ministers in a coalition Ministry belonging to a particular party or group resigned due to disagreement with the Chief Minister, then the latter need not resign.

If, however, doubts were raised about majority support of Chief Minister’s party or parties it was obligatory on the part of the Chief Minister to establish beyond doubt his strength in the Assembly and that too at the earliest possible opportunity.

Constitutionally the Governor was bound to accept the advice of Chief Minister. But in case he felt that a particular action was unjustified, he should record that, indicating the nature of his objections.

The Committee also said that, “It is clear that he cannot break up the coalition by seeking to dismiss the Ministers representing the partnership and yet claim to remain in office himself.”

The Committee was also of the view that in order to assist the Governors in evolving healthy conventions with respect to all these issues a special wing in President secretariat may be set up to collect and make available all authentic information regarding political and constitutional development in all the states from time to time.

The Governor is die head of the state, and has certain constitutional obligations to discharge. It is, therefore, wrong to think and believe that he is merely agent of the President at the Centre. He has several obligations towards his state as well.

It is not possible to ban defections legally, because that is likely to offend some provisions of the constitution.

These recommendations of the Committee were placed before the annual conference of the Governors held in November, 1971. The conference appreciated the recommendations but was of the view that it was not possible to lay down any guidelines.

It was not possible, firstly, because written guidelines could come in conflict with the provisions of the constitution and secondly, it was difficult to anticipate all eventualities and situations in which Governor was required to function.

In November 1973, President V.V. Giri, while addressing the conference of Governors, again pointed out that in their relationship with the Council of Minister, they were required to work in a certain anonymity and should not openly criticise their governments.

He said that the Governor and the Council of Ministers do not function in competition with each other and that press and platform is not the forum for Governors for ventilating grievances. When a state is placed under President’s rule, the Governor is not running a care taker government, but he is to see that state machinery remains in ‘tact’ and Governor is responsible for its efficient running.

He pointed out that conventions, of course, have their own place in India but reliance on conventions without regard to totality of circumstances in a given case may not only be irrelevant but also misleading. He suggested the
Governors that they should remain away from political parties clashes.

---

10. Suggestions for the Future:

Under the constitution, the Governor is required to function as an independent personality in the state in which he is posted. He is not merely an agent of the Centre. But with the passage of time, an impression has gained ground that he is the representative of Centre in the state and sure to work in the manner he will be required to do so by the Centre. This impression need be removed at the earliest.

Then another impression is that it is a sinecure job which is given to someone as a favour by the Centre, particularly to those who have ceased to be active in life and are to be accommodated. Again this impression should be wiped out.

On the other hand an impression should be created that Governor has been carefully selected purely on merits and is the most suited one to deal with complicated affairs of public life and can judiciously hold a balance between national and regional interests. He should inspire confidence of all political parties in the state with his conduct and behaviour.

He should avoid taking rash and drastic steps and behave in a manner that his impartiality is never in doubt. As far as possible he should take decisions on the spot so that there is no impression that he is acting under the guidance of central government only.

A Governor should not create an impression that he is acting parallel to his Council of Ministers or is a court of appeal against the decisions of his government.

While making an appointment the centre should see that a Governor is a person of unquestionable integrity, honesty and that he has distinguished himself in life, so that he is listened with care in die state.

No active politician with clear political affiliations should be appointed as Governor, because such a person cannot inspire trust and confidence of other political parties. Not only this, but he spends a lot of his time in the politics of state of his interest. It will be better, if educationists, scientists, etc., who have long administrative experience are appointed as Governors.

As far as possible, before making an appointment of a person as Governor, state concerned should be consulted and its view point appreciated. This will leave an impression that die Governor is not being imposed on die state.

It should be laid down as a service condition that after their retirement the Governors shall not take part in active politics, so that they can act in a detached manner.

Dr. A. K. Sen, former Union Law Minister opined that, “In order to give true meaning to the office of the Governor, the first essential thing is to choose proper person for filling the high office. It should not be heated as a last refuge of a retired politician, or a civil servant, or as a place for the distribution of patronage. Outstanding men in the political, social or educational life of country, who are not controversial figures must obviously be the proper choice.”

Unless person of sterling qualities and integrity without political biases and ambitions and expectations for the future career are appointed as Governor, controversy about their actions is bound to be there and opposition parties are likely to feel that the head of the state is not looking after their interests, but only those of the ruling party at the Centre. Their conduct and behaviour will continued to be questioned.

---

Upload and Share Your Article: