Category: Political Science Notes

Difference between Behaviouralism and Marxism!

Marxism is older than behaviouralism. From the late eighties of the nineteenth century Marx’s literature, his ideas and views were read and analysed by large number of scholars of both hemispheres. At the beginning of the twentieth century Marxism constituted the central topic of academic discussion and analysis, and it was aptly compared with capitalism. Its popularity as a scientific doctrine spread far and wide.

This wide popularity was not viewed by many theoreticians of liberalism with a favourable inclination. Though the origin of behaviouralism as a separate doctrine can be traced to the twenties and thirties of the last century, it flourished in actual sense after the Second World War. Many behaviouralists began to think that Marxism was about to pose a great challenge to liberalism, and this apprehension was not fully unfounded. Dramatic rise and popularity was a cause of great concern.

But they did not directly challenge Marxism, as their rank enemy. Some renowned political scientists of USA propounded a doctrine whose purpose was to establish that capitalism with all its manifestations was functioning quite satisfactorily and for that reason it is infructuous to think of alternative doctrines.

Behaviouralism was propagated with the sole purpose that academically capitalism or liberalism could be strengthened and a well-knit fabric of concept must be built up so that it could overshadow Marxism. Liberal philosophers were frightened at the growing popularity of Marxism and they were determined to obliterate the importance of Marxism from the minds of educated people.

There are number of differences between Marxism and behaviouralism. In the first place, behaviouralism treats society as a collection of discrete individuals and because of this they think and behave in their own way and are not always influenced by others. It is observed that some are sometimes influenced by others). In the opinion of behaviouralists society consists of parts and is never to be treated in totality. Marxism, on the other hand, is not in favour of fragmenting society into separate individuals.

It regards society as a complete whole. If men are treated as separate units, the unified character of society will be its ineffectiveness. Marxism has come to this conclusion on the ground that behaviours of all persons are closely linked with each other and they collectively form a complete whole.

The behaviour of one individual is characteristically influenced by that of another person. This contention of individual’s behaviour, Marxists claim, is based upon scientific study of social development which they have investigated with the help of history.

In the second place, Marxism originated from the anarchic economic situation Created by capitalism. The gigantic growth of capitalism is absolutely responsible for anarchy in the fields of production and distribution and capitalism is also responsible for inhuman exploitation of the working class. Marxism, in this sense, can be called a strong protest against capitalism and also a prophylactic device of emancipation.

Behaviouralism is, again, a protest movement and this protest is against the increasing influence of Marxism. Behaviouralists believed that the undeterred progress of Marxism would pose a great danger to the very existence of liberalism in the free world. Hence the main fulcrum of difference between the two prominent ideologies is that behaviouralism fought hard to elongate the survival of liberalism/capitalism and, on the other hand, Marxism was on the way of precipitating the fall or capitalism or liberalism.

Thirdly, behaviouralism has heavily leaned to certain psychological ideas such as motives, emotions, desires, feelings etc. In fact, all these form the corpus of behaviouralism. It gives no proper credence to economic and political factors. Thus, any doctrine based absolutely on psychological concepts is unworthy of acceptance. On the contrary, Marxism believes that matter is far ahead of mind.

Man forms ideas and views from the observation of matter. Economic needs are the chief guiding forces of man’s various activities and any concept that denies this fundamental view is liable to be rejected. However, the rejection or acceptance of a concept is not an important issue. The real issue at hand is the behaviouralism has deliberately bypassed the real situation.

Fourthly, class conception and its impact on the formation of opinion of individuals are practically non-issues to behaviouralists. On the contrary, to Marxists class structure of society and individual’s membership to class are very important of their opinions. According to Marxists, man’s thought is influenced by economic factors and the economic factors and class structure are inseparable concepts.

Because Marx and Engels viewed class mainly in terms of economics. Bentley and some other political scientists in a lackadaisical manner recognised the importance of class but this failed to receive due recognition in their hands. To sum up, man’s ideas (in whatever form these may appear) and his economic position are closely interrelated. The failure to recognise it has blurred the concept of behaviouralism.

Fifthly, behaviouralism cannot be used as a vehicle of social change and political development. This has been emphasised even by the liberal political scientists such as Christian Bay. Rather it advocates for the retention of capitalism. Marxism strongly advocates for social change and political development. It does not believe that capitalism has certain self-regulatory mechanisms which are capable of safeguarding capitalism from imminent crises.

Sixthly, in revolution, all the groups and classes of a capitalist society have developed mutual relationship and cooperate with each other. That is good relation among them. Naturally class struggle and revolution are foreign to behaviouralism. Marxism is not prepared to buy this argument.

The economic interest and position of the working class and the capitalist class are quite opposite and naturally there cannot exist peace and good relation among the classes. Hence, the views of behaviouralists and Marxists about social change, revolution, class conflict and many other relevant issues are poles apart.

A final difference between the two ideologies or doctrines is behaviouralism, it is claimed, is based on empiricism because the theory has been built up upon the data and facts. But at the same time it is a psychological theory. How people behave, how they react to political incidents and occurrences etc. are the potential sources of behaviouralism.

In other words, psychological factors are of prime importance to the behaviouralists. Marxism does not treat it (psychology) as of great importance. To it matter or material conditions are the chief determinants of people’s behaviour and even their psychological traits. That is why Marxism has been viewed in terms of materialism.

All the differences between Marxism and behaviouralism can’ be stated in a single and cogent sentence behaviouralism is a weapon to be used for the retention of capitalism and Marxism is a weapon which the proletarians can use to destroy capitalism and create a new society in its place.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Idealism, Materialism and Socialism: Phases, Features and Assessment!

In Socialism:

Utopian and Scientific Engels points out that in Hegel’s idealist philosophy there was no scope of socialism because his main concern was absolute idea or world spirit. The evolution of history through dialectic will culminate in world spirit or absolute idea.

But according to Engels this does not portray the real picture of society because materialism has no link with absolute idea; it is connected with real situation, the sorrows and sufferings of ordinary people and their attempt to emancipate them from the miseries and sorrows. Thus though the relationship between dialectic and socialism is quite logical, socialism is not directly related with dialectic.

It is evident from Hegel’s philosophy. Hegel dealt with dialectic but not with socialism. Hegel had freed history from metaphysics—he had made it dialectic, but his conception of history was essentially idealistic. But now idealism was driven from its last refuge, the philosophy of history, now a materialistic treatment of history was propounded…. Socialism was no longer an accidental discovery of this or that ingenious brain, but the necessary outcome of the struggle between two historically developed classes—the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

Two points are clear here. One is after capitalism socialism is the inevitable consequence. The other point is the workers—or what Marx and Engels have called proletarians—will have to intensify the conflict between the two major classes of capitalist society. Therefore, behind the setting up of socialism there is a positive as well as revolutionary role of the proletarians.

Old and New Socialism:

There is a difference in Engels’ assessment between old socialism and new (Marxian) socialism. The adherents of old socialism or socialism of the Utopian thinkers were pained at the sight of growing impoverishment and misery of the working class and they were confident that only socialism could give relief. But they could not proceed from this. They left the emancipation to the mercy and goodwill of the capitalists.

The propounders of new socialism (Marx and Engels) entered into the deep of the various aspects of socialism. They investigated the causes and suggested methods. The capitalists were making abnormal profit through the sale of product produced by the workers and the workers were paid minimum wage simply to maintain their day to day lives.

The difference between the price of the commodity and the cost of production was so high that the capitalists were not only able to earn fabulous amount of profit the productive system was so arranged as to build up a citadel of wealth. Marx called this exploitation. This is also known as unpaid labour.

This type of exploitation was not fully understood by the earlier socialists. The rising volume of surplus value was also another reason of the misery of the workers. Engels writes: “These two great discoveries—the materialistic conception of history and the revelation of the secret of the capitalistic production through surplus value we owe to Marx. With these discoveries socialism became a science”. Socialism of the past period was primarily based on imagination. It could not explain materialistic aspect with reason.

Two Phases of Socialism:

The analysis so far made beyond any shadow of doubt reveals that “socialism is the product of the laws of development of capitalism. The form or forms which socialism might take would only be revealed by the historical process which was still unfolding”.

In other words, socialism is nothing but the product of social, economic and political conditions created by the capitalist development. Marx’s most important text containing his basic conception about socialism is the Critique of the Gotha Programme (written in 1875 and published in 1891 eight years after his death).

In his book he distinguishes between two phases of socialism or two stages of a communist society. The first phase of the communist society is the one that has emerged or developed from the capitalist society. So the first phase of communist society bears in every respect the birthmarks of the old society that is the capitalist society, from whose Womb it has come.

The main feature of the first phase of the communist society is that it will carry with it all the marks of capitalism. But Marx has convinced us that the first phase of the communist society cannot be a permanent system.

It slowly but steadily converts itself into a better and perfect form of society. He does not assure us how much time the transition would take. But he was sure that the first phase will turn into final form of socialism. His confidence lies in the fact that there are contradictions in the first phase and dialectic will bring an end to it.

Features of the First Phase:

Marx has pointed out some features of the first or lower phase of communist society.

Some of them may briefly be stated here:

(1) The first phase will not be free from the shortcomings of the capitalist society and according to Marx this is inevitable.

(2) The means of production will no longer be private property of individuals. These will be collectively owned by the society as a whole.

(3) Everyone will have to work and in exchange of his work he will receive consumption goods which we may call remuneration.

(4) Every worker will receive from the common fund as much as he has given to the society.

(5) This involves equal right and it is the main (Marx calls it supreme) feature of the first phase of communist society.

(6) Another feature has been pointed out by Marx in the above book : “With an equal performance of labour and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one in fact will receive more than the other, one will be richer than another”.

(7) In the first phase there shall prevail equal right and this equal right is certainly bourgeois right which like every right presupposes inequality.

Marx, in the light of the above features, says that these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society because it has emerged after the prolonged birth- pangs from capitalist society. We have already noted that these are the contradictions.

These will clear the way for another revolution and that is why Joseph Stalin urged for permanent revolution. What Joseph Stalin emphasised was that only one revolution was quite incapable of setting up a communist society, a series of revolutions were required.

Features of the Higher Phase:

In order to throw light on the higher phase of communist society we shall quote a large passage from the Critique of the Gotha Programme:

In a higher phase of communist society after the enslaving subordination to the division of labour and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished, after labour has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want— after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

In the higher phase of communist society there shall not exist any state, it will wither away, because the necessity of state lies in its ability to suppress the proletarians and foster or favour bourgeois class. In the capitalist system’ the state acts as an instrument. In the communist society since there will not be any class
, there will not be any state. If there is no state freedom will have its new dimensions.

Marx, Engels and Lenin firmly believed that state and its functions were opposite to individual liberty. “So long as the state exists there is no freedom, when there will be freedom there will not be a state”. In a higher phase there will not be any sign of antithesis between mental and physical labour.

Assessment:

Marxian brand of socialism has failed to garner unequivocal support from all quarters of society. Marx and Engels collected materials from the well-developed capitalist society of Britain because British capitalism was matured (at least partially) when Marx and Engels were writing. But, ‘unfortunately, socialism of Marx could not spread its roots in British system and the main reason suggested by many is the British working class did not lend support to revolutionary socialism.

In Britain there has developed a long tradition of parliamentary form of government. In this tradition there is practically no place of militant agitation, class struggle and revolution. People are accustomed to democratic methods of agitation and naturally this system cannot accept insurrectionary ways of dislodging the government. The result is though the workers in Britain are exploited by the capitalists their interests in revolutionary way of changing the system is almost nil.

Marx himself admitted that revolution or class struggle would not fall from sky. Though the emergence of socialism is, to some extent inevitable, workers must organise themselves and make preparation for revolution. But the workers of most of the countries are not prepared at all for such preparation. This in the past stood in the way of revolution.

The psychological preparation of all workers and other people (who are exploited) is another precondition of revolution and it has been found that this has not happened. Workers, it is alleged, are not psychologically prepared. Moreover, for any revolution, sacrifice is necessary.

In all the capitalist states the counter-revolutionary forces are so powerful that it is very difficult for the revolutionaries to fight with them and achieve success. The capitalists, through their pervasive controlling machinery, control the civil society and the superstructure. This enables them to resist any attack from the revolutionaries. In other words there is a perceptible imbalance of power between the pro- revolutionaries and anti-revolutionaries.

The capitalist forces control all the organs of the government and chiefly because of this the revolutionaries could not succeed. Because of the hegemony of the civil society the idea of revolution or class struggle even could not crystallise in the capitalist countries. Gramsci thinks so. Even Ralph Miliband in his The State in Capitalist Society subscribes to this argument.

Some believers of democratic methods of agitation think that revolution disrupts the normal life and flow of social living which is not approved by many and these, people prefer the policy of gradualism or go-slow.

The spread of revolutionary thought among the people is another precondition. The high percentage of illiteracy in the Third World states has blunted the sharpness of revolution. The philosophy of revolution has failed to ignite the thought of people.

There is a lack of firebrand leaders in many countries. People participate in the revolution but it is the duty of the leaders to imbibe people. How many states have leaders like Marx, Lenin, and Castro etc.?

Upload and Share Your Article:

Definition and Nature:

The term legitimacy is derived from the Latin word legitimate meaning to declare lawful. Literally it means conforming to the law or rules, justified by law. From the standpoint of law it means rightfulness. Heywood’s definition runs as follows, “Legitimacy confers on an order or command an authoritative or binding character thus transforming power into authority” (Italics added). It is treated by many as a moral or rational principle. If the order or command of an authority is based on legitimacy then it can demand obedience. In other words, illegitimate demand cannot claim obedience.

Another definition is, “The property that a regime’s procedures for making and enforcing laws are acceptable to its subjects” (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics). The term was first coined or used by Weber. He said that legitimacy constituted the basis of very real differences in the way in which power was exercised. In the context of sociology Weber used this term and finally it got a place in political science.

If we study the above definitions we shall get few basic features of the idea. One is, legitimacy is associated with obedience. If the command is not right or legitimate there is no guarantee of obeying it. In recent years the term is liberally used in sociology and here lies its second feature. It means a “willingness to comply with the system of rule regardless of how it is achieved. It also means belief”.

Legitimacy and Stability:

It is now clear that the legitimacy of the political system is linked with political obligation. Before showing obligation the individuals will first of all ascertain the legitimacy of the political system or authority.

These two concepts (i. e. legitimacy and obligation) are again associated with the stability of the political system. If the citizens feel that the foundation of the political system has no legitimacy they can reasonably refuse to show obedience or may withdraw the obedience which they showed earlier.

The refusal to show obligation or the withdrawal of obligation may be the source of problems and at least one such problem is instability. It is because the political system stands on the obedience of the individuals to the system. Hence the stability cannot be separated from obedience and legitimacy.

This emphasizes that obligation/ obedience is a political term though it has been used by many idealist philosophers as a moral term. Legitimacy as a political term focuses on why do people obey a particular political system and not should they obey the system? Liberal political thinkers of today pay a considerable amount of importance to both legitimacy and stability of political system. If people are dissatisfied with functioning and about other aspects they may be reluctant to show obligation which may lead to the collapse of the system.

Weberian Concept of Legitimacy:

Max Weber is perhaps the first modern thinker who seriously thought about the concept of legitimacy. Though Weber discussed it in the background of sociology the central idea remains more or less intact when it is applied in other disciplines, particularly political science. Weber’s classification of legitimacy into three—tradi­tional, charismatic and legal-rational still holds good in some cases. In tribal societies or in societies where modern system of administration has not yet been established these three types of legitimacy are abundantly found.

Legitimacy is based on long-established customs and traditions. People obey a government or an authority because their fore-fathers obeyed or customs and traditions have taught them to obey a particular authority. Charisma of an authority or a person legitimises an authority.

The image of the political authority or leader overwhelmingly influences the people and they are spell-bound by the oratory, good figure or by any other special characteristic. If a person comes to hold power through legal or constitutional way the common men are compelled to obey him. For example, the president, prime minister etc. Along with the legality there is another element and it is rationality. Weber thinks that bureaucracy is a rational form of authority and people should obey such a rational authority.

Legitimation Crises:

Definition and Nature:

Max Weber simply analysed the concept of legitimacy. But the neo-Marxists departed from Weberian theory of legitimacy and focused their attention to the legitimation crisis. The champion of this new trend Jiirgentlabermas (born 1929). His Legitimation Crisis was published in 1973. Habermas and several other neo-Marxists have thoroughly studied the nature and functioning of capitalism and have concluded that “within liberal democracies there are crisis tendencies which challenge the stability of such regimes by undermining legitimacy. The core of this argument was the tension between a private enterprise or capitalist economy, on the one hand, and a democratic political system, on the other hand, in effect, the system of capitalist democracy may be inherently unstable”. (Italics added)

More than one and half centuries ago Marx thought and propagated crisis in capitalism and that according to Marx was due to the contradiction in capitalism. But the neo-Marxists (such as Habermas) thought of a new crisis and this is legitimation crisis Habermas has said that in capitalist societies there are number of crisis tendencies and these have enough potentialities to destabilise the capitalist societies. Habermas further maintains that the capitalist societies cannot survive simply on the basis of consent and legitimacy.

Causes of Legitimation Crisis:

There are several causes or aspects of legitimation crisis.

Habermas and several other neo-Marxists, after studying all the aspects of capitalist societies, have concluded that a number of factors are responsible for the legitimation crisis:

1. In order to build up a strong “structure” of legitimacy the authority of the capitalist society sanctioned a number of political, social and other rights. This considerably helped the expansion of democratic process of the political system along with it the legitimacy.

The rights and liberties of the people expanded. But this acted as a boomerang to the capitalist society. People demanded more and more rights and privileges. But it was beyond the capacity of the capitalist society to satisfy these. A discord between the state authority and the people emerged. This threatened the very foundation of legitimacy.

2. Government was incapable of meeting numerous demands of the private economic sector. In the eighties of the last century the conflict between the state authority and the supporters of the market economy became pronounced. The underlying reason was that the members of the free market economy vehemently opposed the state move to curb the profit of the free market, and the government took this step being pressurised by the people.

The latter exerted pressure on the government that the market economy was making huge profits by exploiting the common people and this must be stopped. Any dilly-dallying attitude was enough to hurt the legitimacy and in practice did that. The authority of the capitalist society was faced with a dilemma. The legitimacy was, in fact, in crisis.

3. In order to explain and support the “crisis theory some researchers have said that in the seventies of the last century the governments of many capitalist countries were “overloaded” by the increasing demands of the people. They mounted pressures upon the government for meeting more and more demands.

This
was the consequence of the expansion of rights and liberties. But the tragedy was that it was beyond the capacity of government to shoulder the abnormal burden. This is called overload theory. The state authority was under excessive pressure of the overloaded demands. Any move to bypass the demand was sufficient cause to the people for reconsidering their obedience to the authority.

The state was again in a dilemma. It could not antagonize the people for fear of the withdrawal of obligation. On the other hand, physically or financially, it was not in a position to meet the increasing demands.

4. The legitimation crisis was also very profound and deep-rooted in the Third World states. There were wide gaps between the ability of the government and the expectations of the people and the gaps began to widen day after day which created critical position for the legitimacy.

Classification of Crises:

We have discussed so far the nature and definition of legitimation crisis. Habermas has, however, drawn our attention to some of the crises. He has delineated four types of crises: economic crisis, rationality crisis, legitimation crisis, and motivation crisis. David Held has briefly stated the crises in the following language, “His (Habermas, argument is that capitalist societies today are enlarged from at least one of the four possible crisis tendencies. It is a consequence of the fundamental contradiction of capitalist society (social production versus private appropriation) that, other factors being equal”, there is always a crisis. Behind every crisis there is, according to Habermas, a factor called “requisite quantity”. He says that economic crisis arises out of the fact that “requisite quantity” of consumable values is not produced.

It means that there is a gap between what the consumers want and what the structure of the economy can supply. There may be a rationality crisis. It arises out of the situation that the authority has failed to take requisite quantity of rational decisions.

This creates a disenchantment in the minds of the people about the ability of the government to take proper decisions. For the survival of the regime the government must take action motivating actions and when there is an absence of requisite quantity of the motivation, actions do not come forth and crises emerge. All these create crises for legitimacy.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Aristotle: Life, Works and His Place in History!

Life and Works:

After Plato, Aristotle was the doyen of Greek philosophy and perhaps the greatest philosopher of the ancient world. He was the most renowned disciple of Plato but not the copy-cat of the master.

It is generally said that Plato found the corrective to his thinking in his own student. He was born in 384 B. C. at Stagira which was a colony of Macedon. In early life he was well acquainted with the problems of colony and colonial life.

All these created a lasting imprint on his mind and character. He earned the experience of practical life. Aristotle belonged to an upper middle class family. His father was a physician and attended the family of King Amyntas. Philip the king of Macedon occupied the throne.

In 367 B. C., at the age of seventeen, he left Stagira and migrated to Athens to study philosophy at the Academy of Plato. There he studied for twenty years under the guidance of Plato.

After the death of Plato (347 B. C.) he left Plato’s Academy. At the time of death Plato nominated his nephew Speusippus to take the charge of the Academy. Most probably this displeased Aristotle because of which he left Academy. Some scholars are of opinion that Plato’s Academy could not satisfy his ever-growing zeal for knowledge.

With a few companions he went out for a tour and extensively travelled different countries and returned to his native land. Then he was invited by the Macedonian King Philip to teach his son Alexander and the duration was just two years. During his travel of foreign countries he vigorously studied different science subjects and particularly marine biology. From his father he inherited the practical training of medical science. He also studied physics and natural sciences. Aristotle acquired a good command over both theoretical and practical sides of different science subjects.

In 335 B. C. Aristotle informed Alexander that he wanted to establish a study centre at Athens. Since he was not a citizen of Athens it was difficult for him to acquire land. Alexander favoured him. Moreover he had many friends in Athenian and Macedonian highups. All these helped him to set up a school.

In 335 B. C. his school, Lyceum, was established. But the death of Alexander in 323 B. C. revived the anti-Macedonian feeling in Athens and his Lyceum incurred the wrath of Athenians. He left Athens and went to Euboea where he died in 322 B. C.

Aristotle appointed several lecturers to teach various subjects—theology, math­ematics, metaphysics, astronomy, biology, botany and meteorology. Aristotle him­self lectured on all these subjects and also on Ethics, Politics, Rhetoric and Poetics. To teach different subjects Aristotle generally collected data and materials. He also wrote extensively on Ethics, Politics, Rhetoric and Poetics.

He was a prolific writer. But most of his writings have been lost. His politico-legal doctrine as a whole is expounded in Politics. It is a classic work. The book contains not only his own views but also a criticism of Plato’s views. His other famous books are Ethics, The Athenian Constitution and Rhetoric.

His Politics is not only a book of Political Science, but also a book on Ethics. It is a scientific book on the combination of politics and ethics as well as human good and morals.

Human Good and Politics:

Aristotle has said that Political Science is the architectonic or master discipline and naturally it controls all other disciplines. Under its authority all the subjects including sciences are taught. It also directs the citizens what they will learn and also how much. Since political science is the supreme authority.

Aristotle has said, its purpose with also be supreme that is all-embracing. In his own words—”Now since political science uses the rest of the sciences and since again it legislates as to what we are to do and what we are to abstain from the end of the science must include those of other sciences, so that its end must be the good of man.” Political science thus aims at the whole of human good, and not at the good of isolated individuals.

What is human good? In defining it he has followed the standard Greek usage. It means “happiness” or “the good life”. Again good life includes the exercise of ethical virtues and intellectual virtues.

He thought that the possession of wealth, health and friend would enable a man to be happy and at the same time exercise the ethical virtues. Aristotle called health, wealth etc. as external goods. But he has warned us by saying that their excessive amount is not necessary for the attainment of happiness and exercise of ethical virtues.

Good life also includes the exercise of intellectual virtues. It means wisdom and philosophical contemplation. On this subject we find a great influence of Plato upon Aristotle. “As a young man he had been influenced by Plato’s arguments in favour of the philosophical life and in all his ethical writings we find him arguing that philosophical contemplation is the highest and best human activity.” But philo­sophical contemplation is a rare ability.

It is not to be found in all the citizens of the Polis. However, for good life, it has necessity. Moreover, he thought that for the exercise of intellectual and ethical virtues a certain amount of leisure and material prosperity was necessary. He did not exclude the material possession from the domain of good life. That is why we find him advocating slavery.

Nature of Political Science:

Following Aristotle we can devote a few words to the analysis of the nature of political science. He has said that every reader of science expects certain amount of certainty or accuracy. This he can get from mathematics and astronomy. But hundred percent accuracy cannot be obtained from any science.

So far as political science is concerned there is no guarantee of perfect accuracy. It is due to the nature of political science. Human behaviour is the subject-matter of political science and it is impossible to make correct predictions. But degree of accuracy is greater in physical and biological sciences. However, this does not lower the value of political science.

Aristotle has called mathematics, physics etc. “theoretical” subjects because they are engaged in disinterested scientific enquiry. These sciences do not make any analysis of “ought to be”. They are rather interested in “what is”. On the contrary, political science is a practical science whose aim is to determine how one ought to act.

The end of political science is not knowledge but action. The subject deals with human behaviour as well as that of the group. It analyses human behaviour and on the basis of it draws conclusions.

These conclusions guide the future course of action relating to political affairs. The aim is to establish the standard of social behaviour. Aristotle’s Politics is a handbook or guide for the intending statesman. It is not an academically dispassionate account of political phenomena.

Place of Aristotle:

The political ideas and philosophy of Aristotle have tremendously influenced the thinkers and philosophers of subsequent periods. Polybius and Cicero may be mentioned in this connection.

Polybius’s teaching of the forms of government and their successive change originated from the theory of Plato and Aristotle and was instrumental in their popularization of their views. Cicero held high regards for Aristotle and he shared most of his views on the advantages of mixed form of government.

Cicero subscribed to Aristotle’s teaching of the correspondence be­tween the laws on the one hand and natural rights and rational principles on the other. Influence of Aristotle is also to be found on Chris
tian political thought.

Church Fathers modified some of the doctrines of Aristotle. St. Augustine placed himself upon the footstep of Aristotle and made a difference between monarch and tyrant and insisted that the government would be limited by law.

In the 13th century, Politics was translated into Latin and exercised the minds of many persons and Thomas Aquinas was one of them. Aristotle’s conception of law, justice and form of government found place in the political ideas of Thomas Aquinas. He reproduces much of the six-fold classification of constitutions. Aristotle was highly respected by Aquinas.

Dante has very little respect for Aristotle. In spite of this, in his De Monarchia he used a number of Aristotelian arguments in support of his ideal of world monarchy. According to Dante, all the elements of state (family association) as well as statehood in general come about in a natural way. On the whole, De Monarchia is greatly influenced by Politics. Marsiglio of Padua borrowed a number of Aristotle’s political ideas for writing his Defensor Pacis (1324). Here the influence of Politics is unmistakable.

The conception developed by Aristotle in Politics were thus used by Marsiglio under very different historical conditions as means for substantiating the doctrine of people’s sovereignty anticipating in fact the social contract theory of Rousseau.

Politics continued to be the essential background of political philosophers such as Machiavelli, Jean Bodin and Richard Hooker. Influence of Politics upon Hobbes’s Leviathan cannot be denied.

In the thirties of the 19th century Politics was published by the Prussian Academy of Berlin and a serious study commenced. A great many thinkers of this century were considerably influenced by the ideas of Aristotle. Politics was translated in different European languages.

Machiavelli rejected Aristotle’s conception of combination between ethics and politics, but accepted his secular idea of politics. Like Aristotle, he has laboriously investigated the causes of social unrest and revolution, changes of constitutions, sources and causes of strife and impact of all these upon the dynamic political life.

The practical aspect of politics was not unknown to Aristotle. Needless to say, Machiavelli has followed the footsteps of the Greek philosopher. The difference is Machiavelli confined himself within Italy, whereas Aristotle’s interest crossed the boundary of his own city-state.

The influence of Aristotle upon Jean Bodin is prominent. Bodin largely follows Aristotle in his analysis of natural and geographic factors, the specificity of state power as compared with other kinds of authority and the difference between monarchy and tyranny.

Montesquieu also in this respect does not lag behind Bodin. He is indebted to Aristotle in respect of his analysis of the role of geographic and climatic factors, the forms of government and their principles. Following Aristotle, Montesquieu has also developed the concept of law.

So far as the origin of state is concerned, Aristotle and Rousseau are not similar. But the state on both occasions has become the manifestation of idealism and morality. Despotism has been severely castigated by both philosophers.

The prob­lem of relationship between the state as a whole (political organism) and its parts (individuals) has been treated by both almost in the same manner.

The argument of Rousseau is not very much different from that of Aristotle so far as the relationship between the state and the individual is concerned. Like the Greek philosopher, Rousseau has not assigned any special status to the individual.

Rousseau’s general will is an indicator of the fact that the individual must surrender to the collective decision. There is a surprising similarity between the common good of Aristotle and that of Rousseau.

To Plato and Aristotle the state was an absolute end, ethically a complete whole. This concept has been borrowed by the German philosopher Hegel. The state, according to Hegel, is the highest embodiment of ethics and morality and these two of the individual cannot be separated.

Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau and Hegel all have thought that for the attainment and enrichment of morality the individual must surrender to the state. None of them has recognized the separate existence of association within the ambit of state. Thus Rousseau and Hegel, following different paths and pursuing different aims, have revived and re-emphasized the ethical aspect of the political teachings of Plato and Aristotle which has been rejected by Machiavelli.

Even in the 20th century the interest in Aristotle has not declined at all. His Politics is still read by the serious students of all disciplines. The reason is the problems raised by Aristotle are of ethical and political and these problems still haunt us.

In order to solve the problems he made certain recommendations. We are studying the problems because these are also our problems and also his recommen­dations.

The world has progressed during the last twenty three centuries. But we have not yet been able to discover what the best form of government is. How can the stability of a constitution be achieved? We are not definitely thinking in setting up an ideal state, but we are aspiring for a well-administered state.

We are on the threshold of the twenty first century. Science and technology have placed enor­mous power at the disposal of man. But still there are different classes, class- antagonisms, and bitter rivalry among the elites and competition among the political brokers.

By criticizing Plato’s theory of communism in family and property Aristotle has displayed a good deal of pragmatism. It is practically impossible to deny man’s attachment to property and family.

He is also perfectly correct when he says that by destroying private property and family life the unity of the state cannot be achieved. Today we fully understand the worth of his argument.

The causes of revolution and particularly its remedies are really unique in many respects. Maxey asks—can modern political science prescribe any surer remedies than these to counteract the virus of revolution.

Upload and Share Your Article:

In this article we will discuss about the appointment and powers of the chief minister of the state. 

Appointment of Chief Minister:

Governor, who is executive head of the state, invites the leader of the majority party in the Legislative Assembly to form the government. Under the constitution all that is needed is that such a person should be citizen of India and possesses such qualifications, as are required for becoming a member of the Legislative Assembly.

There are no educational or other qualifications about his appointment. Such a person could be a member of either House of the legislature or even an outsider.

In 1952, Morar Ji Desai was appointed as Chief Minister of Bombay though he had been defeated at die polls. So was the case with C. B. Gupta when he was made U.P. Chief Minister. In 1977, when Parkash Singh Badal became the Chief Minister of Punjab he was an outsider.

Similarly in 1980, A.R. Antulay and Jagan Nath Pahadia took over as Chief Ministers of Gujarat and Rajasthan respectively, when they were Ministers at the centre and thus did not belong to die state legislature. In 1989, Bihar Chief Minister, Sinha was not a member of either House of Bihar legislature.

In 1995, when Ms. Mayawati took over as U.P. Chief Minister she was not member of ether House of state legislature. How a leader is elected is not the concern of the Governor. He can be elected by die members of the Assembly or party President or anybody else.

In 1980, MLAs of U.P. Legislative Assembly unanimously decided to have Sanjay Gandhi as their leader but resolved that in case party President (Smt. Indira Gandhi) found it impossible to spare his services for the state, she may nominate any other person as their leader and it will be presumed that such a person has unanimously been elected as the leader of the Assembly party, which in effect means state Chief Minister.

In 1989 Congress Legislature party in Karnataka which had been returned to power, left it to the Party President Rajiv Gandhi to nominate leader of the party and thus, Chief Minister. All that the Governor is to ensure is that such a person commands majority of the House and can give stable government to the state.

The task of the Governor in nominating a leader becomes easy when there is a single political party in power in the Assembly because at that time the choice is clear. He is not to be guided by die consideration that the same party which rules at the centre is not commanding majority in the state e.g., when Anadurai, M. Karunanidhi, M. G. Ramachandran, E.M.S. Namoodripad and many others were invited to form governments they did not belong to ruling Congress party at the Centre.

When N. T. Rama Rao, K. S. Hedgde and S. R. Boomai were invited to form government, they did not belong to the Congress party. So is true about Jyoti Basu and Profulla Kumar Mohanta.

In case no single political party in the Assembly commands absolute majority and some political parties come together on the basis of some minimum programme and elect their leader, such a person will be invited by die Governor to form government.

In 1959, Ajoy Mukerjee in Bengal and in 1967 S. Gurnam Singh in Punjab were invited to form government because some political parties combined together had elected diem as their leader.

Then another situation can be in which some political parties chalk out a programme of action before the elections. These contest election as an alliance and after the election when such that comes to power its leader, if he still enjoys the confidence of die House, is invited to form government.

After 1980, mid-term polls in Tamil Nadu, All India Anna D.M.K. and its alliance parties were returned to power and Governor invited the leader of the alliance M.G. Ramachandran to form the government. In Haryana in 1986 Lok Dal and B.J.P. contested elections on an understanding with each other.

After their win Lok Dal leader Devi Lai was elected leader of die Assembly i.e., Chief Minister. Similarly Congress (I) and Farooq Abdulla’s party National Conference contested elections together and after winning that Farooq Abdulla formed Government along with Congress (I).

In some cases a party in the Assembly may extend its support to another party to enable the latter to form the government but without joining the government. Thus, the support is extended from outside. In 1995, B.J.P. extended outside support to B.S.P. to enable Mayawati to form government. It is not die concern of Governor to stress that the supporting party must join the government.

But, Governor uses his discretionary powers only when there is no single political party in majority in die Assembly. As already said during the period 1967-71, when there were coalition governments in several states, the Governors used their discretion in inviting a person to form government in the state.

In case, however, he feels that there is no political party or combination of political parties which can give a stable government to the state, he can recommend imposition of President’s rule and even dissolution of Assembly or keeping that in suspense for some time.

But who should be invited to form government in this regard, die Governor is expected to be careful and be fully satisfied that the person concerned shall be in a position to give the state clean, stable and efficient administration. Governor consulted even Advocate General of the state before he invited B. P. Mandal to form government in Bihar.

But when appointed as Chief Minister, he continues to remain in power as long as a political party or group of political parties accepts him as his leader.

In a coalition government, if a partner to his government withdraws its support and in its place some new partner joins and combination still accepts the same person as the leader, his position remains the same, subject of course to the condition that new arrangement has majority support.

The Chief Minister will, of course, have to resign as soon as he loses the majority support in the Assembly or his party enjoys majority support but members want to have a change in leadership and a new leader of the party is elected. In other words there is no fixed tenure for the office of the Chief Minister.

It may, however, be mentioned that in order to have their control over state politics every central leader tries to put his own supporter as a candidate for Chief Minister-ship. He ensures that his followers should be at the helm of affairs and thus quite often leadership issue of state legislature party is either decided outside the capital or with close association and involvement of central leadership.

Powers of the Chief Minister:

Chief Minister of a stale, being its real executive head, enjoys vast powers. Of course, it will depend on the personality of the person who holds the office, how he uses those powers, but these vest in him. But his position is such that there is no other alternative for him but to use his powers.

He can either use his powers in a manner that central leaders look towards him as being man 011 the spot or he may look towards central leadership for guidance before taking action. Usually those Chief Ministers who enjoy strong support of central leadership act strongly than the others.

These days, however, M.L.As of even the ruling party charge their own leader of acting in an arbitrary manner and demand change in leadership after sometime. They make it clear that unless their demand for change is accepted they will leave the party thus bringing down fall of the government. In 1995, some B.J.P. MLAs created such a situation, though crisis was averted because of intervention of central leaderships.

Formation of Council of Ministers:

One of the important tasks of the Chief Minister, imme
diately after his being elected as leader of the party is to form the Council of Ministers. These days it is not an easy task. The Chief Minister is to see that all shades of opinion in the party are represented in it.

Then he is to see that women, those belonging to scheduled castes where tribes are inhibited, the members of these tribes and backward classes are fully represented in the Council of Ministers.

In case there is no single political party in majority in the House and he is heading number of parties, then he is to see that all parties get proper representation, because if any party withdraws its support, then that will mean collapse of the government. At state level there are many aspirants, who wish to become leader of the party. It is after great difficulty that some are persuaded to withdraw their claims.

Not only this, even one party which is in majority in the Assembly that can be faction ridden and involved in group politics the Chief Minister is to see that each group gets proper representation and no group remains dissatisfied. Still another problem at this stage is that there is too much interference of central leadership in the appointment of Ministers.

Each central leader or Minister in the central cabinet wants that he should have representation in the state cabinet through his process. The list of Council of Ministers is almost always got approved by the central Parliamentary Board before that is made public.

In some cases the seeds of dissatisfaction among some party members, who aspire to have Ministerial berth, but do not get that, are shown at this very stage. It is also due to this reason that oath taking ceremonies of Ministers are delayed by several days in some cases, after the Chief Minister has been sworn in.

There is no bar on the size of the cabinet. It is for the Chief Minister to decide about it. Though usually it is preferred that it should be of small size, yet quite often due to various pressures it becomes big in size. It is preferred that size of the cabinet should not be more than 1/10 of the total strength of the House.

But this has quite often not been adhered. Similarly it is for the Chief Minister to decide whether he will like to have two-tier or three-tier Ministry. In two-tier Ministry there are only Ministers of the Cabinet rank and Ministers of State, whereas in three-tier Ministry in addition to these two categories Ministers, there are also Deputy Ministers.

These days usually there are Jumboo Jet Council of Ministers because Chief Minister, in order to check defection or to increase strength of his supporters in the Assembly offers Ministership of every influential M.L.A. It is also used as method for attracting MLAs from opposition parties and independents.

Then another function of the Chief Minister is that of allocation of portfolios, which again not an easy task is. There are certain prestigious departments and every Minister will like to be their in-charge. The Chief Minister, therefore, is to see that senior cabinet colleagues get important portfolios. He is also to ascertain their wishes and preferences.

In a coalition government or in an electoral alliance arrangement, quite often even the allocation of portfolios is decided beforehand. While allocating portfolios, Chief Minister is also to see competence of the person concerned. But in all cases, the cabinet colleagues are to accept the leadership of the Chief Minister.

If for any reason may be due to dissatisfaction with the portfolio, policy formulation, implementation of policy, etc., a Minister finds himself unable to pull on with the Chief Minister, the only alternative left to him is to leave the cabinet.

In case the Minister is not prepared to leave the cabinet, the Chief Minister might drop him, by requesting the Governor to dismiss him, which the latter is quite willing to do, because constitutionally Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the Governor, though such an extreme step is taken in extreme cases. Haryana Governor, on the recommendation of the Chief Minister, dismissed a lady Minister, from the cabinet, not very far back.

Again it is the responsibility of Chief Minister to see that all Ministers work in close co-operation with each other and that the Council of Ministers functions as a well-knit unit and a well co-ordinated team. He is to see that there is proper co-ordination among different departments and that there is no over-lapping.

He is to see that the Ministers do not indulge in criticising each other and that the working of government as a whole is not criticised either through press or through mass media and that if they have any grievances these should be firmly expressed at the cabinet meetings, within the four walls. But decisions once arrived at should be gracefully accepted in a spirit of give and take.

As leader of the team he presides over the meetings of the Cabinet and Council of Ministers. These are important, because all policy decisions are taken in these meetings. As presiding officer, he approves all agenda items and thus no item can be discussed without his permission.

Thus, he decides what is to come (or not to come) before the House for its approval. He communicates all state matters to the Governor and also decisions of his Council of Ministers. He also places such matters for the consideration of Council of Ministers which the Governor wants him to consider. Thus, he is a channel between Council of Ministers and state legislature.

Chief Minister and State Legislature:

In a parliamentary form of government the executive, headed by Chief Minister and the legislature are supposed to work in close co-operation with each other. As a leader of the House he makes all policy statements in the House and whenever, he feels that his cabinet colleagues are not in a position to satisfy the House he comes forward to help them.

He defines government’s policies and programmes in the House and faces the opposition whenever, an opportunity arises. He communicates the views of the House to the Governor and as such he acts as a channel between the two. He decides for all practical purposes the agenda of the House.

It is his responsibility to keep the Governor informed about all government policies and views of the Council of Ministers on all important and controversial issues, etc., on the one hand and law and order situation on the other.

But in respect of legislature his most important power is that of the dissolution of the House. At any time the Chief Minister can advise the Governor that the House be dissolved. In this connection it may be noted that Chief Minister’s resignation on political grounds is considered to be the resignation of the whole cabinet.

Thus the cabinet also does not try to irritate the Chief Minister because there is every danger that he might resign and the new one might not include some of them in the new cabinet.

Chief Minister and Power of Patronage:

Though in theory all appointments are made by the Governor, yet in practice power of patronage vests with the Chief Minister. He is consulted about the appointment of judges of the State High Court. No posting and transfer can take place in the state without his approval.

By including someone in the cabinet he can bring any person to the forefront and lime-light and by dropping him from the position he can just throw him in oblivion. He is consulted in the appointment of State Advocate General and the members of State Public Service Commission. In fact, no senior or important position in the state can be filled without his approval.

His Other Powers:

Chief Minister is a link between the Governor and the Council of Ministers on the one hand and the legislature on the other. He communicates their view point and ensures that there is no misunderstanding between the two.

He
keeps the Governor informed about the latest political situation in the state and also the problems with which he is faced. He also informs him about legislative proposals pending before the Council of Ministers.

He also furnishes information to the Governor on such matters on which that is required by him. He decides what type of information should he divulged to the House and what should be kept away from it on the grounds that that is not to be divulged in the public interest.

Then he is the real person to decide which important matters are and on which party whips should be issued and on what problems the members should be given a free hand.

Then as leader of the House much responsibility falls on him for maintaining decorum in the House and in seeing that business of the House is transacted in accordance with the rules of procedure and on time schedule.

He is to see that state is financially sound and there is economic stability in it. He ensures that in the state perfect law and order is maintained. Therefore, Chief Minister is the pivotal point in state administration.

Upload and Share Your Article:

In this article we will discuss about the role of Nehru during Leftism in Congress.

Nehru was known for his leftist views in the Congress. He favoured non-co-operation and civil disobedience movements but did not appreciate Swarajists views and policy of wrecking Assemblies from within. He believed that there should be no difference in Congress party between rich and poor, classes and masses and towns and villages.

In 1928, he along with Subhash Bose founded India League with the objective of achieving complete independence for India and reconstruction of Indian society on the basis of social and economic equality. He strongly stood for complete independence of the country.

He said that the Congress should aim at economic, social and political swaraj and its economic goals should be clearly specified. He felt that it was wrong to believe that main cause of India’s poverty was foreign exploitation. It was very much linked with economic structure of our society as well.

For removing poverty and misery of the people of India Nehru felt that it was essential that far-reaching changes should be introduced in social and economic structure of the society. He wanted that present wide existing social and economic inequalities should be reduced. He tried to link freedom movement with social and economic conditions of the people.

He had his own reservations about Gandhian technique of non-co-operation and non-violent method of struggle. He could carry Karachi Session of Congress held in 1931 with him when he could get his Resolution on Fundamental Rights and Economic Policy passed.

The Rightists in the Congress including Sardar Patel and Dr. Rajendra Prasad did not very much appreciate Nehru’s Leftist views. But even then they nicely pulled on with him because of his respect for Gandhiji and Gandhian philosophy.

He accepted Congress policy of joining Ministries by Congress men on the basis of elections held under the Government of India Act, 1935. He was moving spirit behind the election manifesto prepared for contesting these elections.

His views in the Congress were appreciated by the peasants and the workers. Congress programme of reforming land tenure system, reduction in land revenue system and liquidation of rural indebtedness proved very appealing.

It was under Nehru’s influence that Congress party included in its programme demand that hours of work of the workers should be regulated and their working conditions improved. His programme and approach had mass appeal and it was amply reflected when Congress party won 1937 elections.

But when Congress Ministries failed to keep promises made to the people during election days he criticised these for their lapses. When Leftist forces began to gather round Subhash, Nehru instead of joining him sided with Gandhiji.

He did not support communist view point of supporting British government in its war efforts to fight against Fascism. He believed in Gandhian philosophy that objectives achieved with violence could not produce lasting results.

Though his views were those of Leftists yet these were so flexible that even the Rightists could be adjusted in these. That is perhaps the reason that as a leftist he succeeded in bringing changes in Congress while others failed.

The Leftists in India did not succeed much in changing the cause of freedom struggle. Their efforts to capture leadership of the Congress failed. But even then it cannot be denied that it was because of their presence that the Congress party adopted the goal of complete independence for India.

It was again because of them that at its Karachi session Congress passed a resolution on Fundamental Rights and Economic Policy. Progressive elements in Congress election manifesto of 1937 were incorporated because of their influence.

The Leftists, however, failed because they were badly divided and their extra territorial loyalties were disliked by the people of India and so also their appeal to the people to support British government in its war efforts.

Their adverse criticism of Subhash, Gandhiji and Quit India movement threw them away from nation’s main stream. They were over shadowed by the Rightists, including Gandhiji, in the freedom struggle. Thus, in spite of many brilliant thinkers, Leftists could not get mass support.

Upload and Share Your Article: