Category: Political Science Notes

Meaning of Games Theory:

Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics defines game theory in the following words: “A game is any situation in which the outcomes (pay offs) are, the product of the interaction of more than one rational player. The term therefore includes not only games in the ordinary sense, such as chess and football, but an enormously wide range of human interactions”. Another scholar defines it as “a body of thought dealing with rational decision strategies in situations of conflict and competition, when each participant or player seeks to maximise games and minimise losses”.

“The mathemati­cal study of strategies for dealing with competitive situations where the outcome of a participant’s choice of action depends critically on the actions of other participants” (COD). Theory of games is therefore a type of mathematical study to deal with competitive or sometimes conflicting situations.

The outcomes and strategies are interdependent which means that what strategy one participant will adopt will depend upon the strategy of another man or participant and in this way games proceed from one strategic point to another strategic point. Game theory is associated with human interaction and at the same time an objective to maximise profit or to rationalise the decision.

Thus, profit and decision are both crucial parts of the theory. To sum up, the theory of games has got maximum relevance in economics and substantial importance in political science in general and international politics in particular.

Origin of the Concept:

In the thirties and forties of the last century the idea of applying games to social science particularly in economics and politics originated in the minds of people. In 1932 P. G. Cambray published, The Game of Politics: A Study of the Principles of British Political Strategies. Perhaps this is the earliest and most methodical work about game theory. In 1943 Neumann and Morgenstern published Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour.

After Neumann and Morgenstern large number of scholars dealt with the subject and some of them are—Schelling, Riker, Kaplan, Raiffa etc. Game theory was being used with increasing frequency since 1960s. When the theory of games was used to study the power games or strategy of each big or superpower to counteract the move of another power or rival the game theory earned wider popularity and use.

It has been observed by many that the theory was originally used in chess game, parlour game or poker game. It is known that in all these games there are two or more players or parties and each party decides its own strategy so that it can maximise benefit. But the strategy of a party or player depends upon the decision-making, cooperation or strategy of another party. Thus, the theory of games is never a one way traffic.

One party cannot take any decision unilaterally. Profit or loss of the game depends upon the selection of strategy or decision making or cooperation. There is also a place of intelligence. After the Second World War the theory of games became, in fact, a strategic policy used for the analysis of international politics particularly the power politics between the two superpowers—USA and USSR.

Assumptions of the Theory:

The theory of games is based on certain assumptions which are to be stated for a clear understanding of the subject:

1. In the first place, it has been assumed that there must be at least two players because for any game this is the minimum requirement.’ The number of players may be greater than two and this depends upon the nature of game and willingness of the participants.

2. Here the word player is used in special sense. Player means decision-maker. The players of the game are concerned with the strategy or decision. Each player of the game is exclusively interested in arriving at a decision which will be beneficial to him.

3. The dictionary meaning of strategy is a plan designed to achieve a particular long term aim and the player of the game decides this type of strategy. Without deciding this strategy the player is not capable of playing. The theory, therefore, assumes that in every game there is a strategy and it is decided by the player of the game.

4. Rationality is still another assumption. It is assumed that the players of the game are guided by rationality which means that they always act rationally.

5. Another assumption is the player is quite aware of the alternatives which exist before him and he selects one or more than one alternatives from them. The rationality of the player enables him to select the alternatives.

6. While he selects the alternative/alternatives he adopts the rule of priority which means that in order of preference he arranges the alternatives and he selects one or two which he thinks would give him maximum pay-off.

7. Since the player is interested in pay-off he, it is quite natural, will make all sorts of attempts and apply the strategy to maximise the benefit and minimise the loss from the game. This approach of maximisation and minimisation is the core of game theory and it is called the strategy.

8. The pay-off received from the game will be in full conformity with player’s own interests or what he ardently desired. Naturally any amount of pay-off or any kind of pay-off will not be acceptable to the player.

9. The player is quite aware that in the game there are both loss and gain or profit or loss. So the player will decide the strategy and the strategy is what way or technique he will adopt that will give him maximum pay-off. It means that the player is not only rational but also intelligent.

10. In the game certain amount of uncertainty is involved. Although the player adopts strategy, rationality and intelligence in the game all these do not guarantee that his loss will be zero and gain will be maximum. This can never happen because of the fact that both gain and loss are involved.

11. The strategy is an undefined term. What type of strategy is to be adopted cannot be decided before hand. It depends on the progress of the game, attitude of other competitors and other, factors. We have already noted that the objective of the player is to maximise the pay-off.

But if the player is certain that this objective will never be achieved he will adopt the policy of damage control which means to minimise the loss. The assumption of the game is minimax policy. The term minimax may be briefly stated. By adopting strategy the player tries to lower the quantum of loss and keep the amount gain.

Application in Economics:

We have noted that the theory of games was originally devised to solve certain chronic problems which tormented the economy. We know that in the thirties of the last century USA was faced with an unprecedented crisis which is commonly known as Great Depression. Though according to Marx and his followers such sort of crisis is not uncommon in capitalism because capitalism suffers from contradictions which ultimately make way for crisis.

The capitalists were fully serious about the crisis and set themselves to the task of combating the crisis. At that juncture of time the theory of game was formulated by Neumann and Morgenstern. The economists were concerned with policy-making decisions which will save the country from devastating effects of trade cycle and depression and by doing this will ensure a smooth way for development. Marx was quite right in declaring that capitalism could not be separated from imminent crisis.

But he was perhaps not aware that the capitalist economy or liberal political system is capable of controlling the crisis. “The continuing crisis required immediate policy recommendations … but there are no agreed statement in the economics
text books about the axioms of economic thought”. The tangible consequence of the new thought was the theory of games.

The propounders of the theory believed that since there were problems there were solutions. In other words, the theory of games is an important device to show the way how to come out of the crisis and depression which engulfed the economy.

Two Important Pillars:

The entire structure of game theory is buttressed by few pillars and two of them may be discussed here. There are also other pillars but they are not so crucial so far as the application of the theory in economics is concerned. One such pillar is rationality. We have already mentioned that rationality of the player plays a very vital role in the strategy of games.

In fact, the maximisation of gain largely depends on the rational handling of situation. A. Downs in An Economic Theory of Democracy has variously defined this concept because he believes that rationality practically controls the major part of the game.

A. rational man is one who behaves as follows:

(1) He can always make a decision when confronted with a range of alternatives.

(2) He arranges all the alternatives in the order of preferences.

(3) His preference rank is transitive.

(4) A rational man will choose those alternatives which will give him best results.

(5) In the new course of action a rational man will try to follow the previous experience.

(6) Rationality also implies that before taking any decision the person makes a thorough comparison of alternatives and situations.

Here it is to be noted that the concept of rationality is associated with consistency. In other words, when a man at one time acts rationally he will follow the same course of action. The supporters of this theory are of the view that economics highly thinks of rationality or of a rational man. During the period of economic crises the rational man takes cautious step and before he takes any decision he applies his rationality.

We shall now deal with maximisation which constitutes the core of the theory of games. Neumann and Morgenstern believed that when a rational economic man is faced with economic crisis his first objective would be to find out ways of how to tide over the crisis. There are number of alternatives laid before him and he will adopt one or two or combination of them, he will proceed cautiously and rationally and his attention will always be focused on the objective of the maximisation of profit/ pay-off/benefit.

While the rational economic man proceeds to maximise pay off, he may not achieve success because the economic problems are complex and their solution requires the interference of several elements or-factors which are not under the control of the rational economic man.

Under such circumstances the apprehension may occupy his mind that his maximisation of pay-off may not be successful and in that situation will he abandon the attempt? The exponents and interpreters of the theory are of the opinion that the rational economic man will try to see that if gain is not maximised the loss could somehow be minimised.

This is definitely an important strategy. The rational economic man or investor will see that when the maximisation of gain is becoming unattainable then the correct strategy would be to minimise the loss. Neumann and Morgenstern have arrived at this conclusion. It is to be noted here that the minimisation of loss is never the objective of player. It is the last resort.

Types of Game Theory:

Zero-Sum Games:

The propounders of game theory have devised different types of theory of games and the most common form is zero-sum games of two persons. The game is played by two persons and this is a very simple type of game. Chess, bridge and poker fall in this category. In the two-person game it is played by two men only. Naturally, if one person gains the other person will incur loss. So what is gain to one may be loss to the other.

If one person launches an assault upon the other person and achieves some advancement, it means the loss to the other man. Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) in The Prince advised the prince that it was the primary duty of any ruler to ensure the unity and integrity of the nation and to that end the prince must make all efforts which include to launch the first attack against his enemy and when he does ft he gets benefit and the other party loses. Let us take an illustration of recent time.

After the Second World War (1939-45) the world was divided into two camps—one was led by the United States and the other by the erstwhile Soviet Union. The advancement of the Soviet camp was tantamount to the loss of the American camp, and vice versa. This happened during the Cold War period from fifties to the mid-seventies of the last century. After the collapse of the Cold War the game of power died a natural death.

The interesting aspect of the Cold War period was both the groups or parties were involved in continuous rivalry. The victory of one party could not deter the other, rather it encouraged and instigated the other party or group to take a new strategy or adopt of policy that would produce favourable results.

Theory of games also involves ideological conflict. The Cold War was characterised not only by the game of power between the two groups but also by the ideological conflict between Soviet Union and United States. Former Soviet Union and her allies of Eastern Europe which represented communism while America and other members of the group stood for capitalism or liberalism.

The move of each party was designed to stall the positive arid aggressive move of another party in respect of ideological warfare. U.S.A. used the electronic and print media’ to prove the superiority and excellence of capitalism or liberal democracy. The Soviet Union did not lag behind. She distributed the literature of Marx, Engels and Lenin among the people of the Third World either at nominal price or freely.

In the type of zero-sum game as it prevailed after the S. W. W. the main parties were two—USA and Russia. In the American group there were UK, France, Germany (then West), Canada and other capitalist states. On the other hand, the Soviet camp included the communist states of Eastern Europe. Another variation of game theory is to be found in the conflict between Moscow and Beijing and it was ideological conflict.

But Washington’s support to China was in no term an ideological support for Chinese variety of Marxism-Leninism. The main purpose of Washington was to isolate Russia in international politics and gain ascendency in the vast field of world politics.

Needless to say that in many instances America gained over Russia which meant loss for Russia. In this model of zero-sum games the parties are America and Russia and the purpose of each is to gain over the others.

Variable-Sum Games:

There is another type of games theory narrated by Karl Deutsch in his The Analysis of International Relations. This type is variable-sum (Mixed-Motive) Games. Deutsch says that though majority of the games fall in the category of zero-sum games model but in actual situation there are numerous various variations and one of them is variable- sum games.

In the opinion of Deutsch: “These are games in which the players not only win something competitively from one another, but also collectively stand to gain or lose something from an additional player. Such games are mixed- motive games for their primary players”. Such games are generally characterized by competition and coordination. Deutsch has cited an illustration.

In many countries revolts have been found to be erupted among the prisoners. Some prisoners defy the order of the prison guards and try to escape from the prison. The prison guards, to save th
eir services, resist this move and the prisoners remain adamant and this leads to some skirmishes. In the melee some prisoners escape and this is their gain while others fail to do this and this is their loss.

The conflict between prisoners and prison guards has been interpreted as a type of game theory. There is another side. Some prisoners may oppose the attempt of their co-prisoners and this may favourably be treated by the prison authority. Here the point is no side gains absolutely and the loss is not absolute.

Application of Games Theory in Politics:

Neumann and Morgenstern have propounded various models of theory of games and subsequently a number of writers have applied them in politics. But the genesis of games theory reveals that the relevance of this theory is more pronounced in international politics than in domestic politics. Kaplan, Schelling and Riker are the prominent personalities. Kaplan and others believe that the theory of games is a very important tool for analysis of international politics.

Particularly the post Second World War politics of most of the countries can be fruitfully explained in terms of games. Every nation, specially the big powers, is busy in finding out strategy to cope with the move adopted by the rival powers. During the Cold War period the rivalry between the two superpowers was excessively animated by the strategy of games. The strategy taken by one power was swiftly followed by another power and this process heavily surcharged the international politics for more than two decades.

So long bipolarism prevailed in world politics and occupied a major section of this politics the theory of games was a very vital tool of analysing such political situation. It is believed that today’s international politics and power politics are synonymously used.

Though the bipolarism no longer prevails the multi-polarity of world politics has a strong and crucial relation with games theory. Whenever a big power ventures to take an action or tries to adopt a strategy that automatically comes under the aegis of game theory.

Numerous recent instances may be cited in support of our contention. In the present day international politics there are several big powers such as USA, Britain, Russia, and France. There are also some emerging big powers whose influence in international politics is no less important.

Some of them are India, Japan, Germany (today’s united Germany) and China. So the move of any one country is very often faced with the challenge of another country. In a world of multi-polarism there exist continuous moves and counter moves adopted by different powers to gain ascendency or to harvest maximum benefit from the power game.

Another offshoot of the application of game theory in international politics is in order to gain more, nations (particularly big powers) form alliances or coalitions and these are called military alliances. The chief objective is to control international politics and each nation takes a strategy so that its position gets enhanced.

So the rivalry among the power groups always remains a characteristic feature of world politics and so long it is so the theory of games will continue to be a relevant factor of international politics. It has been maintained by some that in today’s situation of world politics the formation of coalition or military alliances has become a general tendency and to make it successful a aspect of world, politics strategies are being devised continuously which demands the application of games. Hence we are of opinion that the theory of games has a very important place in international politics.

Assessment:

1. The theory of games is not a toy but a tool. The games act always as tool for arriving at rational decisions both in economic and political fields. It can be better stated in the words of Mackenzie, “A company may ‘play games’ by computer against a competitor or ‘against nature’, but to do so it must specify exactly, the rules, the information … and the strategy. In this sense, games theory is not a toy, but a powerful and rigorous tool for computation. The application to politics proceeds by relaxing the rigour and precision of the theory and by venturing into an area where measurement of pay- offs is possible only in gross terms. It is thus possible to maintain that political gaming is a toy, not a tool”.

Mackenzie uses the games theory both as a tool and a toy. Sometimes it works as a toy and sometimes tool. However, in what form it is to be used that depends on the user as well as circumstances. He also observes that even when it is used as a toy that may be useful heuristically.

2. Game theory works upon the assumption that in a simple game there are two players and the decisions of the players are based on their rationality and a moral attitude. But this assumption is highly faulty because how could we know that players possess adequate amount of rationality and they will remain amoral in the face of any eventuality. Moreover, there is no way of ascertaining the rationality.

This considerably clouds the whole concept of game theory. The mere fact is that the theory of games is based upon a faulty concept—rationality. It can neither be measured nor its existence is ascertained. Again it is not supposed that all the players will be rational, and in that case the success of the theory of games will be followed by a question mark. It is surprising that its sponsors have not thought it fit to highlight their aspect of the theory.

3. There is another drawback of the theory. Taking of decision depends not only on the rationality of the participants but also on the information they receive and it is claimed that the information is not always up to satisfaction. The players do not get first hand or correct information. This may blur the making of correct decision.

For correct decision, an important precondition is there shall exist an efficient and honest network of communication system and in many political systems this is found to be lacking. There is also another condition and it is the decision-making process depends upon the circumstances. The theory ignores it.

4. The theory of games rules out any possibility of interference of norms, values, ethics etc. The players are primarily concerned with the final outcomes even if these are devoid of normative values and ethical considerations. They always focus their attention on the strategy taken by the rival parties. In other words, the real situation is the determiner of the moves to be taken and in this way moral and ethical norms have been ousted from the jurisdiction of the theory of games.

When the theory of games is applied in international politics it assumes peculiar dimensions. The players of the game (here the big powers) pay very scant importance to the universal values such as ideals, morality, ethics etc. Their main concern is to defeat the opposition.

Machiavelli thought of such power politics and he advised his prince to follow that type of power politics which will have no connection with morality, religion and ethics. Today’s politicians are scrupulously following this same principle. But we do not deem it fit to be the follower of this technique. So we can say that the normative character of politics and theory of games, are in opposite direction.

5. The theory of games was originally devised for its application in economics. At least Neumann and Morgenstern had that intention. But a score of political scientists applied the theory in political science. The application of a theory in a particular discipline or branch of social science may have importance or relevance but the same theory may not have the same importance or applicability in other disciplines. This is the greatest drawback of the theory of games.

6. The concept is too naive to be applied in international or domestic politics. What is the end result of the ga
me? One player takes a strategy and the other player counteracts that and in this way the game continues to proceed to infinity. Again, there is another problem.

The consequences of the game may not be accepted by the people and the decision taken by the player may be strongly resented by the general public. The theory of games does not say anything about it. The advance of the theory to infinity cannot be a helpful method for building up an acceptable theory. Any political process must have an end and the game theory frustrates us.

Conclusion:

We have pointed out some of the major limitations of the theory of games. But these drawbacks should not induce one to jettison the concept in toto. Since the days of Neumann and Morgenstern different models of game theory have been devised by scholars and this suggests that the theory still enjoys a certain amount of acceptability. “Game theory” writes Deutsch “is still developing, and even the eighty- seven types of two party conflicts cited by A. Rapport have not yet been explored for their possible applicability to international politics. Game theory models for conflicts among more than two parties (N-person games) still need to be developed much further but already they incorporate much more accurately the realities of multilateral international relations and conflict”.

Karl Deutsch further claims that in recent years many researchers have developed new models of game theory which deal with new strategies and situations, and these new models have considerably enhanced the acceptability and applicability of the game theory. If so we cannot be any more suspicious about its narrowness or other limitations.

Finally, we are of opinion that no model in any discipline can claim hundred percent success or applicability and in that sense the theory of games is no exception. No theory of social science can claim complete acceptance by all sections of academic circle and the theory of games is certainly no exception. If so the theory of games is no exception.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Definition and Nature:

The students of political science very often come across such terms as liberal democracy, socialist democracy, plebiscitary democracy, etc. There are also many other terms. Perhaps looking at these terms the well-known political scientist Bernard Crick once said that it was the most promiscuous term. It is because a military dictator sometimes claims that his country is democratic.

The leaders of the former Soviet Union very often boasted of a perfect democracy though the basic element of democracy—multiplicity of party—was absent there. The rulers of all bourgeois states demand that theirs is the real democracy.

If we bring them into our consideration we shall find that it will be a herculean task to arrive at an agreed view of democracy. Here we are thinking of liberal democracy which means that in such a democracy people are allowed to enjoy maximum amount of freedom and the state intervention in the affairs of individuals is at a minimum level.

The liberal democracy possesses few features:

(1) It is indirect and representative.

(2) It is based on competition.

(3) Electoral choice enjoys great importance.

(4) In liberal democracy state is distinguished from civil society.

(5) If institutions and organisations do not jeopardies the normal functioning of state and its interests, they are allowed to enjoy autonomy.

(6) In liberal democracy disagreement is allowed to persist and it is believed that disagreement is healthy.

(7) In liberal democracy there is multiplicity of ideas and all of them exist side by side.

(8) In true liberal democracy the intervention of state is minimum.

(9) It is characterised by free market economy.

Explanation of Features:

The most important feature of liberal democracy is the competition of ideas and competition of views. Once Ernest Barker said democracy is never a one-idea state. There are multiple ideas and all of them always compete or contest among themselves.

Because of the multiplicity of ideas there always occurs competition among persons and institutions or organisations. Competition can easily be called life-blood of democracy and liberal democracy is the most secure abode of all sorts of competition.

Only in liberal democracy the distinction between state and society is maintained and nurtured. It is believed that individuals can develop their qualities only through strong and autonomous institutions. The distinction also emphasises the decentralisation of power.

The famous Marxist Gramsci held the view that in liberal democracy civil society is placed at a very high position and it is the civil society’s autonomy and gradual rise of power that have caused the survival and the increasing strength of capitalist state. Liberal democracy is indirect and representative democracy. It works through the representatives elected by the people and elections are periodically held.

The periodical elections are indication of accountability. Representatives are to give explanations of their activities to the persons who have elected them. A liberal democracy is another name of limited state and its chief progenitors are Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and J. S. Mill.

Pluralist View of Liberal Democracy:

Definition of Pluralism:

Liberal democracy has been viewed from different angles. One such angle is pluralist interpretation of liberal democracy. Pluralism is opposite to monism. The primary perspective of pluralism of pluralist view is in a democracy there are is no single centre of power, rather multiple centres. Not only this there are a number .of social and political centres. Each idea is centred around a particular centre. It also denotes that power is exercised by many centres.

It may be that all the centres are not equally powerful. Some exercise more and others less. In spite of this the multiplicity of centres is the basic characteristic of pluralist democracy. John Schwarz mantel in his Structure of Power: An Introduction (1987) defines liberal interpretation of democracy in the following words: A system-where there are competing parties, a network of pressure groups and associations, a separation of powers in some form or other in the constitutional field, is one where, in the pluralist view, the concentration of power would be avoided”.

We thus see that political parties, pressure groups, multiplicity of organisation and association are the hallmarks of liberal democracy. The basic tenet of liberal democracy is competition and the competition is always among all the groups and ideas. If the possibility of competition is removed or blocked the concept of liberal democracy will meet-an untimely death. In this background we can note certain basic features.

Features:

The main feature of liberal democracy is that there is hardly any scope of the abuse of power because there are many groups and organisations and they are so much vigilant about their power and autonomy that any move by the state to intervene unnecessarily will be resisted by the groups and men. In autocratic political system this is not to be found. The decision of the state is final.

Robert Dahl is a great exponent of liberal democracy and he carried out investigation in American liberal democracy. What he found was that though in such a democracy some elite groups are powerful than others, these, under no circumstances, dominate the entire political scene of liberal democracy.

Liberal democracy is also called pluralist democracy. In such a democratic structure the important thing is the institutional arrangements for sharing, implemen­tation and distribution of political power and in this system no agency or individual has overriding power over the other. An important aspect of institutional arrange­ment is the separation of power which acts as a mechanism of checks and balance. Another institutional arrangement is the supremacy of constitution.

There is another feature of pluralist democracy which may be stated in this way. Liberal pluralist democracy is regarded by many (for example H.S. Kariel) as a historical phenomenon, a normative doctrine and mode of analysis.

In British political system there is neither a written constitution nor a clear separation of powers. In spite of this British democracy is of liberal plural type. Why? British liberal democracy, to use H.S. Kariel’s phrase, is an historical phenomenon.

Behind the present system of British liberal democracy there is the history of hundreds of years and it is mixed with the British political culture and tradition. Ultimately it has become a part of normative doctrine.

Liberal plural democracy strongly emphasises the civil society, people’s rights and liberties. Particularly in all liberal democracies economic rights and liberties are always given maximum priority and laissez-faire is its consequence.

Heywood points out that the democratic element of pluralist democracy is that the ruler’s decision is based on the consent of the ruled and it is called popular consent. The consent is expressed through many avenues and a very important avenue is periodical elections.

In all liberal democracies elections are periodically held which enable individuals to ventilate their views. For this reason such a democracy is also called electoral democracy.

Liberal democracy blends elite rule with a significant measure of popular participation. Professionals administer the state. But at the head of the administration there are political executives who are accountable to the electorate. The importance of the professionals in a liberal democracy is chiefly due to the fact that all categories of people have not the ability to s
houlder the onerous responsibility of administration. Only the elites possess the ability.

Elitist View of Liberal Democracy:

Sources of Elitism in Democracy:

We have, in the last section, analysed the pluralist interpretation of liberal democracy whose core idea is competition among parties, groups, organisations, ideas, principles etc. A democratic state takes a liberal attitude to all of the above- noted elements and imposes generally no restrictions on them. On the contrary, an elitist approach to liberal democracy pays less stress on competition among parties, groups and ideas and more importance on elite and mass.

The original ancestor of elitism is Plato. In The Republic he gave excessive stress on elite rule. Elitism is represented by two Italian sociologists (they were chiefly known so) Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941) and Vilfredo (1848-1923) and Swiss sociologist Robert Michels (1876- 1936). The political analysis of Max Weber, the famous German sociologist, also contains huge amount of elitism.

It has been observed that there is a subtle difference between elitism in general and the elitist approach to liberal democracy. There are also other scholars who have strongly advocated the elitist view of democracy.

In the first two decades of the twentieth century Max Weber, after studying the democracies of several matured industrialised countries of Western Europe, observed that though in all these countries the structure and functioning of democracy were strictly maintained ultimately a very handful of persons were at the helm of power.

Central Idea:

The Swiss sociologist discovered that in every society there was an “iron law of oligarchy”. By this term Michels meant that apparently the democratic states were administered by popularly elected persons/representatives, but the real administration was run by very few persons who belonged to the upper strata of society.

Explaining Michels’s stand on elilist interpretation of liberal democracy a recent critic (Schwarz- mantel) gives the following opinion: “Democracy in its core meaning of the exercise of popular power and of popular participation in the running of society’s affairs can never in actual fact be realised. In all political systems power is and remains the privilege of a dominating minority………. minority tries to veil effective power to hide it under some formula which makes its domination”.

The fact is that though in such system the elite rules, it shows or tries to show to the general public that it rules on behalf of the mass and runs the administration for the general welfare of the society. Elitist view asserts that democracy does not mean that all will participate in the governance of the state because it is not possible.

The minority will rule but popular sovereignty prevails. The aim of the administration is to ensure the general welfare of the body politic. The stability in governance is achieved through the minority rule.

How Democracy Works?

According to elitism, in all democracies, there are primarily two classes—one class rules and the other class is ruled. The elections are held and a new class may come to the power and the former ruling class sits in opposition. In this way the cycle moves.

But it would be wrong to assume that in this process common people get any opportunity to govern. The constitutional, structural and other arrangements are so made that there is hardly any scope for the general mass to be a part of state administration. An in-depth analysis of elite rule will be found in C. Wright Mills’s influential book The Power Elites.

He has portrayed a fine picture of how elites or elite groups capture and hold power. He has said that there is a nexus among different elite groups and in overt and covert ways they share, power and wealth of the state among themselves. Ralph Miliband, a well-known Marxist, offers us the same picture about liberal democracy.

He in his The State in Capitalist Society has said that in the USA the top businessmen, the bureaucrats, military men and leaders of the upper class rule. Mills also notes about the rule of the triumvirate consisting of big business (particularly in the defence-related industries), the US military and political cliques surrounding the president. According to C.W. Mills these three groups practically constitute the power elite.

Assessment:

Many political scientists and. scholars (apart from Marx and his followers) do not intend to call liberal democracy ruled by elites a real democracy. Rather it is a state ruled and controlled by a very powerful pressure group or class. As C.W. Mills correctly observes there is an unholy alliance among all the elite groups and when one elite group seizes power another group or all other groups prefer to stay in opposition. Any opposition to the governing class or group is nothing but mockery.

It is frequently observed by all the elite groups that there is widespread mass support behind the elite group. But this is not correct. General masses of men do not get any opportunity to raise their voice. C.W. Mills also said that in elite dominated states the means of power are parochially exercised.

Since the concentration of power is the chief feature of elite rule there is no place of equality, competition among parties and associations. Such a democracy (if it is to be called democracy at all) has not been able to receive widespread support from all sections of society. But we are to admit that elite-dominated government is the on-going feature of all liberal democracies. There may be variations in the character and extent of elite rule but the concept of elite rule cannot be ruled out.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Introduction:

The scholars, after a thorough research, have concluded that the liberalism as a political ideology is not the outgrowth of the twentieth century’s intellectual progress. Its origin can be traced to the political ideas of the fourteenth century. During the last six centuries the concept had to face several situations and had to overcome uphill tasks in the sense that many political systems, individuals and organisations stridently opposed it on various grounds some of which had solid foundations.

The flood-like appearance of Marx’s and Engels’ works and Marxian literatures eclipsed though temporarily, the growth and influence of liberalism. The establishment of Bolshevik government in Russia in 1917 kindled the hope in the minds of anti-liberals that with the weapon of Marxism the rapid advance of liberalism could be stopped and particularly an anti-liberal atmosphere could be built up in the Third World states.

At first Moscow and later on Beijing opposed liberalism tooth and nail. Ultimately the academic and political worlds were deeply plunged into the conflict between two leading ideologies of the world—liberalism and socialism. The recession of the Cold War in the mid-seventies and finally the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991 turned the condition of liberalism upside down. It was being felt that only liberalism could provide solace to all people of the world. It was capable of solving the basic problems both economic and political.

Origin and Definitions:

The word liberal is derived from the Latin word liber which means free men Liberalis is also a derivative of liber. The central idea of all these words is freedom or liberty. Liberal also denotes generosity or open-mindedness. Open-mindedness/generosity indicate liberty in taking food, drink, social attitude, behaviour and selection of the alternatives.

Thus we find that freedom is always associated with the word liberal. In the middle Ages when the French people used the word liber they meant that people will have freedom in respect of their selection of alternatives and pursuit of thoughts and ideas.

There are large numbers of definitions of liberalism which convey more or less same ideas.

Some are noted below:

“It means the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual’s rights and to maximise freedom of choice” (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics). Advocates of liberalism have used some selected words to denote the meaning of liberalism. It means political to (1) Freedom and choice. The freedom to select alternatives which are suitable. (2) Liberalism is a systematic political creed. (3) It is the manifestation of reason and toleration in the face of tradition and absolutism. (4) Freedom, equality, liberty etc. are embodied in the liberalism.

As an adjective “liberal” implies an attitude of mind, rather than a political creed. But the noun liberalism designates a Political Creed and this was used specifically in the early parts of the nineteenth century. Robert Eccleshall in his noted article Liberalism has stated that liberalism, in ultimate analysis, is a political ideology intimately associated with the birth and evolution of the capitalist world. So we can say that as a political ideology liberalism means to pursue policies of freedom in political and economic spheres and clear restrictions on the activities of state authority.

Liberalism does not embody a particular meaning. It is a cluster of meanings, in different periods it has meant different conceptions. For example, it is an intellectual movement whose purpose is to curb the power and authority of state and to ensure freedom of individuals. It has been observed by a recent analyst that liberalism is an ideology based on a commitment to individualism, freedom, toleration and consent.

Hence we can say that in modern sense liberalism are both an ideology and a movement whose purpose is to strengthen the cause, progress etc. of individuals through the vindication of right to select the choicest alternative and for that purpose to endorse the restrictions upon the authority of state.

Liberalism, strictly speaking, an offshoot of capitalism since it was believed that the meteoric growth of capitalism could be possible only through an adoption of liberal policies which contain an allowance of maximum freedom to investors and producers. Thus, liberalism is an economic and political doctrine.

Rise and Growth of Liberalism:

It is really an uphill task to ascertain the origin of liberalism because an ideology cannot be created at a particular point of time. However, it’s quite safe to say that liberalism was born in England during the middle of seventeenth century. Here again the readers may be cautioned that the seeds of liberalism existed in British society even before that time.

Nevertheless, we can say that several factors and writings of a number of persons contributed to the origin of their political ideology:

(1) The collapse of feudalism is an important cause of the origin of liberalism. Let us explain it briefly. In the feudal period the feudal lords practically controlled the economy and politics along with the church and its fall opened the advent of capitalism and emergence of a middle class which aspired to have a positive role in politics. The capitalist class and the middle class did not want the dominant role of the church.

The capitalists supplied the finance for the management of state and the middle class supplied executives and administrators. Slowly but steadily these two classes captured the power of the state and wanted to impose restrictions upon the government. In this way there arose liberalism in embryonic form.

(2) Eccleshall in his article Liberalism maintains that Enlightenment is another factor of the growth of liberalism. The thinkers and philosophers of the Enlightenment period were sceptical about the role of laws, administration, custom etc. They strongly advocated for the rational reconstruction of society so that the individuals can get enough freedom. Autocratic rule or dictatorial administration was vehemently oppo­sed.

(3) Two major events of the second half of the eighteenth century helped the emergence of liberalism. These two events are: Declaration of American Indepen­dence in 1776 and the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789. Both these events furthered the progress of liberalism. American war of independence was not simply a war of the independence of a particular nation but a major war against colonialism which contained the seeds of liberalism. On the other hand, after the French Revolution, Declaration of Rights of Man heralded the collapse of autocratic rule in France and its wave spread to other parts of Europe and this accelerated the advent of liberalism.

(4) The writings (including philosophy) of some men were conspicuous in advancing the emergence of liberalism. Some of them may be stated briefly. John Gray says that Thomas Hobbes may be regarded as an exponent of liberalism. Hobbes’ (1588-1679) “Closeness to liberalism lies in part in his uncompromising individualism. It is found also in his egalitarian affirmation of the equal liberty of all men in the state of nature and his rejection of a purely hereditary title to political authority”. Benedict de Spinoza (1632-1677) was also a precursor of liberalism. He was mainly concerned with natural rights, freedom, curtailment of political power, maintenance of peace and security.

Behind the birth of liberalism there was a very important role of John Locke (1632- 1704). Locke, by many, is regarded as the father of modern nationalism. His Two, Treatise of Government, A Letter Concerning Toleration are regarded by many as potential sources of liberalism. Gray says that Locke’s thought harbours a number of theme
s which confer a distinctive complexion on English liberalism that persists up to the time of John Stuart Mill.

His theory of natural rights, right to property, concept of consent, constitutionalism, people’s right to dislodge a government for its future to act in accordance with the terms and conditions of contract are classic examples of liberal thought.

The major ideas of liberalism enunciated by Locke were carried out by many who belonged to the latter part of the eighteenth century and early years of nineteenth century. To be brief Locke vigorously championed the central themes of liberalism. Tom Paine (1737-1809) was another figure whose thought symbolises the ideas and spirit of liberalism.

Paine strongly advocated for natural rights and limited government which later on became the focus of liberal thought and philosophy. His limited government is nothing but minimal government or state which has been elaborated by Robert Nozick. J. S. Mill and several other political scientists thought that people’s liberty, rights and other interests could only be assumed through the constitutionalism, representative government and constitutional declaration of human rights.

Elements of Liberalism:

Liberalism has been branded by many as meta-ideology which means that it encompasses many principles, values and elements within its fold. Whereas other ideologies do not possess this capacity. The following are the main elements/principles/values of liberalism—Individualism, freedom, reason, toleration, con­sent, constitutionalism, equality and justice.

1. Individualism:

Individualism is the central idea or theme of liberalism. It believes that the interests or welfare of the individual should be given primacy over all other values and principles. Individual is the basic concept of political theory and arrangements shall be made to safeguard his interest. Liberalism says that since a political system consists of individuals it should be the chief objective of this system to see that their interests are fully protected and the individuals are quite capable of doing their own job. The role of the state is to some extent like a night watchman.

This conclusion is based on certain presumptions such as they are reasonable and do not harm others. They are capable of pursuing their own interests and outside interference will not produce any benefit. To reach the goals (the development of individual’s personality, protection of interests, allowance of freedom etc.) it is essential that the society is to be restructured suitable for people.

It has been suggested by liberal thinkers that establishment of market economy, curtailment of state authority to the minimum level, non-governmental organisations must have maximum freedom to operate etc. The liberalism believes that all these are indispensable for the development of the latent qualities of the individuals. That is why it is frequently said that the primacy of the individuals is the core of liberalism or liberal political philosophy.

2. Freedom:

Another important core value, principle or element of liberalism is freedom. To the liberals it is the value of supreme importance because without it the individual will simply be a unit without any dignity. Moreover, liberty or freedom is the best vehicle for developing the best qualities. But the liberals do not advocate for absolute or unrestricted freedom because freedom/liberty will do more harm.

They are in favour of chained or restricted liberty. J. S. Mill (1806-1873) was the pioneer of individual liberty but he favoured the association of law with freedom because he believed that restriction is for the general welfare of the community. The famous British historian Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997) developed a famous concept of liberty which states that liberty/freedom has two concepts—negative and positive.

The negative liberty implies that man should be allowed to enjoy an atmosphere free from all sorts of restrictions. This was the contention of classical thinkers. But modern liberals do not think of liberty where there shall be no restrictions. It is positive liberty because real liberty is one which implies laws and restrictions.

3. Reason:

Liberalism harbours upon reason. To put it in other words, liberalism and reason are inseparable from each other.

This relationship can be viewed from angles more than one:

(1) Mention has been made earlier that liberalism partially the product of Enlightenment which strongly emphasises that man is rational being and guided by reason and rationality. The advent of Enlightenment emancipated man from age- old superstition, ignorance and bondage. Enlightenment also established the age of reason.

(2) Since individuals are rational and reasonable they are quite capable of taking any decision and to judge what is good and what is bad for them. In that case there is no necessity of imposing any decision by any outside power/authority.

(3) The liberals believe that real progress of society could be achieved only through the individual initiative and outside interference will dampen the spirit of initiative.

(4) The primacy of reason ultimately led Adam Smith (1723-1790) to enunciate a doctrine of laissez-faire. A large number of philosophers and thinkers enriched the various aspects of Enlightenment through their philosophy and ideas. Enlightenment in all possible ways gave priority to reason and rationality. “Rationalism is the belief that the world has a rational structure and that this can be disclosed through the exercise of human reason and critical enquiry”.

4. Toleration:

Toleration is another value/element of liberalism. In any society there is found different opinions, religious sects or communities of belief and faith. All of them must live side by side peacefully and for this is required toleration. Also various ideologies and opinions make a society diverse. It is the basic feature of any society. Liberalism believes that all these diversities must exist side by side.

One community/section has no right to impose its decision or belief of another. Only in authoritarian community imposition of ideas and belief happens. On the other hand, liberalism attempts to accommodate all the beliefs, faiths, ideologies and opinions. Lord Ramakrishna very frequently said many are the opinions and many are the ways.

The noted French philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778) once said “I detest what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. This opinion of Voltaire clearly shows that he forcefully advocated for the practice of toleration. Massacre of St. Barthalomew (1572) is the manifestation of the most hated type of in toleration.

Not only this massacre, numerous other events took place in various parts of European society and they were definitely black spots of society. What liberalism wants to impress upon us is that toleration ought to be practised by all sections of body politic and if it is not done the progress will be adversely affected which will be a loss for whole humanity.

5. Consent:

Consent is another value/element of liberalism. The idea of consent though very old, its modern appearance took place in the hands of the contractualists, such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Both of them assertively argued that the members of the state of nature assembled together to take a decision about the setting up of a body politic and behind this decision there was the consent of all. Locke dealt elaborately with consent and this was one of the pillars of his liberalism.

The freedom fighters of America raised their arms against the British rulers and said that they had no consent behind British rule in America. We hold the view that consent is a very importa
nt element of any democratic government and this has been variously explained by many in numerous forms. It is generally held that representative form of government is the most popular embodiment of consent. J.S. Mill was a great defender of government based on consent.

The liberal thinkers even go a step ahead and declare that every law and policy must be based on the consent of those for whom these are made. In this way consent has become an integral part of democracy and liberal political philosophers are of the opinion that all forms of pluralist societies (also liberal societies) must start from below. That is, consent of all or majority must constitute the basic structure of society.

6. Constitutionalism:

Constitutionalism is an important principle/value/element of liberalism. It has two meanings—narrow and broad. In its narrow meaning constitutionalism means certain limitations upon the government specified by constitution. The narrow meaning further states that whenever a government intends to discharge any function or adopt a policy it must follow the restrictions.

In broader sense it implies values, principles and ideas which act as guide to the government. Whenever the government proceeds to some work it must implement these values, principles, ideas etc. The objective is to give proper credence to the aspirations of the people and to translate them into reality.

Constitutionalism is a basic principle of liberalism. It, in simple language, states that government’s business never specifies that it has the unlimited freedom to do anything without considering the advantages or disadvantages of the common people. It must follow certain basic rules and procedures laid down in the basic or ordinary laws.

Needless to say that this idea was first formulated by Locke and in the later periods it was adhered to by many. This is called constitutionalism or liberation. We can further state that constitutional principles must be observed by both the rulers and the ruled and none has the authority to act arbitrarily. The arbitrariness and constitutionalism are the issues situated at two opposite poles. Constitutionalism is another name of limited government or the theory of limited state.

7. Equality:

Liberalism is based on another principle and it is equality. Though we treat it as a political principle/value it is also a religious and moral principle because the religious- minded people generally say that every person is born equal as Rousseau said man is born free. So it is unreligious to deprive him of his equal status with others.

The religious people also believe that it is never the intention of God to create inequalities among men and if an artificial distinction is created among men that will go against the will of God and in that sense it is immoral. We can further observe that as a political ideology liberalism has also built up a nexus with religion.

But liberalism is also an ideology of practical world. In any society all the individuals cannot claim same levels of merit, intelligence and capacity of hard work and in that case there must arise clear differences in remuneration. This must be admitted. Idleness and hard work cannot be equally remunerated and if done so that will make way for the appearance of gross injustice. None will be ready to demonstrate his ability.

This type of social inequality does not infringe upon the concept of equality. Equality as a principle in political science asserts that none will be allowed to enjoy special privileges ignoring the common minimum privileges to which everyone has legitimate claims.

8. Justice:

Though justice is a principle of both socialism and liberalism, the latter gives it more importance and politically declares that the very basis of liberalism is justice. The liberal justice has several forms or meanings. We note few of them. It is the declared policy of liberalism that each individual will have his due share and since all men are born equal none can deprive other of the share.

All the persons have same status in society and there shall be an atmosphere so that people can enjoy the status. “Liberals, fiercely disapprove of any social privileges or advantages that are enjoyed by some but denied to others on the basis of factors such as gender, race, colour, creed, religion or social background. Rights should not be reserved for any particular class of persons. The most important forms of equality are legal equality and political equality”. Liberal conception of justice further draws our attention to the point that the door of opportunity shall be open to all.

Everyone will get the chance to have a share of opportunity. Liberalism also speaks of social equality. All these interpretations lead to the liberal conception of justice. It also says that talented and non-talented persons are not to be grouped together. In this political ideology there is a special place of talents which means that merit should be recognised and should be given its due share. It is called meritocracy.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Errnnest Barker’s small book is famous for reason more than one. Barker is basically a believer of idealism and he has viewed certain basic concepts of political science in the background of idealism.

His theory of justice occupies a very important place in the thought system of the English speaking world. Present analysis is based on the views expressed in the book Principles of Social and Political Theory published in 1950.

Barker’s Views about Meaning and Origin:

Barker makes an attempt to discover the root of the idea of justice. He observes that justice is derived from justus or justitia. The meaning of these two words is to join together. Which will be joined together? He is of opinion that man and man and value and value are joined together.

We are quite aware that in any pluralist society there are numerous men who hold different values and we respect this plurality of values and thought because it is the grand way of the progress of ideas and thought. But the society is not the amalgamation of separate units, all are correlated and there is also an interdependence among them.

There is the value of liberty as well as the value of fraternity. There is a strong necessity of filling or joining these values. Barker believes that if all these values are allowed to function differently the whole fabric of society will be at a great risk.

The relationship among men and values is always in the process of adjustment and readjustment. This has been necessitated by the change of society. Charge in the outlook, attitude, values and also material condition. If the society fails to adjust itself with the new situation its survival will be at stake. Now the question is at what basis the society will proceed to adjust itself with the changes? The clear answer is— it is justice. “Justice is the reconciler and synthesis of political values; it is their union in an adjusted and integrated whole”.

Justice is the reconciler and synthesizer of political values such as liberty, fraternity etc. In the opinion of Barker justice reconciles different values and by doing this the process of adjustment and readjustment proceeds continuously. Absence of adjustment and readjustment justice will be affected.

We know that the enjoyment of liberty by one may affect adversely the liberty of other people and in that situation it is the duty of the state to effect a rectification. The enjoyment of liberty of one man cannot be the source of deprivation of liberty for other person. It is the function of justice to bring about a reconciliation between the claim of different person.

What is the strength of justice with the help of which it performs the function of reconciliation? According to Banker there are four different sources.

These are:

(1) Religion,

(2) Nature,

(3) Economics

(4) and ethics.

We can say these are the weapons with which justice synthesizes the values and makes a reconciliation among men. It is not that justice uses all these weapons at a time but it uses sparingly. The use depends on situation.

Religion as the Origin of Justice:

Barker has thoroughly studied the social, political, religious and ethical systems of Western society and has concluded that religion is so active in society that it very often acts as a source of justice. Religion determines the ethical principles and contain the notion of justice. These ethical principles are embodied in laws enacted by the state and such laws are to be obeyed by all.

In every society there are many persons who have no faith in religion and they do not bother about religion and its influence upon individuals’ life. But once the ethical principles are incorporated into laws of the state these are binding for all and to disobey a law is followed by punishment.

Barker maintains that in Middle Age, and even in the greater part of modern age religion created a remarkable impact on social, political and cultural outlook, behaviour and manner of people. But religion does not always act as the direct source of justice. The state in various ways and methods instills the faith on religion and moral principles in the minds of men in round about ways.

The state does not enforce law based on moral principles, but it encourages men to obey law. The state believes that if individuals form the habit of obeying laws other than the laws based on religious and moral principles, in course of time they will obey all types of law. Moreover, men are taught that the objective of moral and religious laws is attainment of justice.

Nature as the Origin of Justice:

Nature as a source of justice is very interesting and the concept is very old. But here the word nature is not used in the senses biologists and physicists generally use. When we treat nature as a source of justice, it is used in the sense of “ought” and not “is”. It emphasises that what a man or authority should do or act.

It also means ethical or moral sense and not material world. In ancient Greek philosophy Nature, God, Reason etc. were placed on the same set or were juxtaposed. They were not interested in making any distinction between them. Not only this it was also identified with religion and ethics. In this way nature was awarded highest regard and most important place in the intellectual world.

It was also believed that by nature individuals are rational and they cherish liberty, equality and fraternity which are treated as universal values.

Let us now combine together all the currents of thought:

(1) Man recognises that he should not be guided by “is” but by “ought”.

(2) Man is by nature rational (at least majority of them).

(3) It is natural that he should act rationally.

(4) Nature is the fusion of ethics, morality, reason, God, religion etc.

(5) Since man is imbibed with reason and rationality he will always give preference to “ought” or “should be”.

(6) He will do those acts which make a reasonable combination of liberty, equality and fraternity. In this way there shall emerge justice in society and behind this nature is the cause.

Economics as the Origin of Justice:

It has been observed by many that restructuring economic system or its reforms can provide a potential source of attaining justice. Before forming this opinion we want to discuss other things.

Marx and Engels have provided the best and elaborate explanations of how the economics or economic power as the source of injustice and exploitation which is the abnegation of justice. In a state where the economic power is in the hands of few persons (who constitute a class called the capitalist class); they will utilise it in their favour.

First of all they will force the state authority to enact law which will be used to safeguard their interests. The generally do it by sending their representatives to the legislature and executive branch. In this society justice will be meant the protection of interests of the dominant class. But this is not the nature of real justice.

What did Marx, Engels, and their followers say so far as the economic power, nature of state and justice are concerned? Only the seizure of the state power by the working class and this and establishment of its dictatorship through a class struggle could emancipate the working class and free the economic power from the clutches of the dominant class and this could make way for the establishment of justice in the society. What Marx and Engels had wanted to assert is that the redistribution of wealth and income would be the source of justice.

The redistribution would lead to the removal of inequalities in wealth and income. In the opinion of Marx an
d Engels economic inequality is the root cause of all other inequalities viz social, political and other inequalities, and inequality is another name of injustice. Thus economics cuts both ways —it causes inequality and injustice and also makes way for justice.

How economics can be a source of justice in society has been clearly explained by Duguit. According to Duguit national society can be imagined as an economic society. Different occupational groups will constitute such a society. Different producers were engaged in producing various commodities and all of them would form groups. Though these groups and other manifold organisations are separate and pursue their objectives separately all of them are bound by relationship and solidarity.

The concept of solidarity denotes that though there are many groups engaged in different activities of production, there shall exist a cooperation among them all. Barker says: “The maximum of production—which is the essential aim of the society, because it brings the maximum of production and maximum of enjoyment—entails the maximum of cooperation. This maximum of cooperation involves and supplies the principle of solidarity and this principle of solidarity furnishes in turn the notion of justice, the notion of what is right in itself, the notion of value which is impersonal law.”

After highlighting Duguit’s viewpoint Barker proceeds to analyse the other aspects of the concept. He asks—Is economics or principle of economics the primary basis and origin of the notion of justice? He answers the question in the following words: “If economic factors and economic interests have partly determined the legal system of order and the legal framework of rules, it is even more true that law has furnished the whole general system of order, and the whole general framework of rules, within which and under which the factors and interests of economics have had to work ….. Positive law is a general scheme which covers many fields of life besides the economic.”

The law makers of the state that is the members of the legislatures and the lawyers who apply or adjudicate the laws are no doubt considerably influenced by the economic interests. But the entire scheme of positive laws has been built in such a way as to influence and design the human relations, In other words, the chief and simple purpose of all positive laws has been to streamline the economics of society.

Barker concludes with the following observation: “If that is the relation of economics to positive law we may fairly expect something similar to be true of the relation of economics to the idea of justice and we may refuse to believe that economic principles can ever be the source (though they may be a contributory source) of our idea of what is inherently right”.

Ethics as the Origin of Justice:

Finally Barker deals with the issue to what extent ethics acts as a source of justice. He says that when the moral standard of the community is enforced by the general moral conscience it can conveniently be the source of justice. This general moral conscience is a synthesis of values and the values are the impersonal source of law. We thus see that the ethical values of the body politic are implemented into practice by the general moral conscience and this is again the root cause of law.

In other words, according to Barker law is not the manifestation of views and ideas of any particular person or group of persons. In a true law general moral conscience is embodied and when such a law proceeds to enforce the moral standard of the society both morality and justice will come to settle.

But the above process will never be translated into reality if law is not properly made. How it is to be done? Barker says that a true and ideal law will have both validity and value. How are these two objectives be achieved? For the validity of law it is first of all essential that it must be enacted by the legally constituted authority.

It must be enforced and recognised by the same legal authority. To put it in other words behind every law there shall be recognition of state authority. This type of law can be said to have validity. But every law at the same time must have value which means that it must be in conformity with the general canons of ethics, morality, ethical conscience and the general notion of justice.

If the human relations are built upon the general canons of ethics and if law embodies these canons, then it will be taken for granted that law has value. Thus we conclude that a proper law will have both validity and value and when such laws are obeyed (of course spontaneously) by general public that situation can ensure justice. Barker further observes that law is not morality or ethics and it cannot force a man to be moral or to perform ethical acts.

But here the relation between law and ethics does not end. Law must create an atmosphere which will be congenial for the proper observance of ethical duties and in this way law helps the realisation of ethics. It may further observed that a law must establish a moral minimum standard for all people of the society and this minimum moral standard must be observed by all members irrespective of caste, creed, race, sex and religion.

In the form of recapitulation we can say law must be the proper manifestation of general moral conscience and when this happens a law cannot be far away from the moral and ethical domain and such a law can create an atmosphere in which people can comfortably perform duties which are in consonance with morality and ethics.

When all these prevail justice will have a good place in society. In this way Barker analyses the relation between law, morality and justice. A state must be careful that its acts and laws do not violate moral precepts. When all these conditions are fulfilled ethics can ensure the justice in the society. Though Barker gives due emphasis to all the sources of justice we are of the view that his clear preference is for ethical and moral origin and this is due to his strong attachment to idealism.

The Final Principle of Justice:

What Ernest Barker says in The Final Principle of Justice is nothing but the repetition of what he has already said. We have just now stated it. Repeating his earlier standpoint Barker says that justice is, in real sense, the synthesis of various principles of rights and their distribution. Justice performs the function of joining or fitting together the various rights or claims of the principle of liberty, principle of equality and the principle of fraternity.

He calls liberty, equality and fraternity as right because any responsible citizen (who is also law abiding and duty performing) can claim to have liberty, equality and fraternity. Justice not only joins but also knits together all these principles. It is the function of justice to effectuate cooperation and adjustment of many all these principles.

One very important argument is to be stated here. Barker calls this function of synthesisation of justice as the final principle (emphasis added). Here we interpret the term final as supreme. Any other principle than justice can function as an agent of synthesisation.

It also means that only justice can be the coordinating agent of all the claims to liberty, equality and fraternity. The supreme objective of the distribution and adjustment of liberty equality and fraternity is the realisation of justice and no other principle can be allowed to interfere.

Barker has further explained the term justice as the right ordering of human relations. This argument carries a lot of significance. If the relations among the human beings of a society are not properly and fruitfully arranged justice will be the chief or only victim. Right ordering of human relations has another important aspect.

The relations among individuals will be adjusted and arranged in such a manner that none will be dep
rived of his legitimate share of liberty, equality and fraternity because everyone must have a share to all these and that must be in consonance to his development of inherent qualities.

In the opinion of Barker justice is a social reality. It is social reality in the sense that the concept of justice is known to all and everybody wishes to get justice either from society or from state. This justice has not been created all of a sudden by a group of persons.

He says that it is a social thought which means that behind the development of justice there is a social thought. Social thought means a thought created, cultivated and developed-by people of society. People’s partici­pation has made it a reality and enriched the whole concept. Justice is not based on any imagination. Through the development of social thought concept of justice has reached a stage which is actual.

Barker has analysed another aspect of justice. We have already noted that justice itself is not ethics or morality but it originates from ethical and moral concepts and ideas. It is to some extent based on morality and ethics. Barker beautifully writes, “This justice is not morality, and its code is not that of ethics. It is not a rule of the inward life, but a rule of the outward life”. Life of whom and what is the exact nature of such life? He says that life is of the men who live in society in an organised way.

Mention has been made that justice is not an imaginary concept and naturally it does not deal with inward life and directly with morality and ethics. It is the concept of the external world and outward life. When the human relations are properly ordered that will (or may) lead to the realisation of justice. Naturally justice cannot be conceived of as the product of contemplation or internal ideas. It is closely linked with the reality in which we live.

We know that justice joins both men and principles of liberty, equality and brotherhood and if so it is an order of persons and principles and this order regulates the principles of distribution and relations among human beings. Justice does this with an utmost impartiality. This is a very important characteristic feature of justice. Justice always maintains balance among various elements and forces of society.

When this balance remains unattained or unattainable it will be presumed that justice will be disturbed. Balance of what? Balance in the distribution of claims to liberty, equality and fraternity. A true justice sees that one is not getting more than what is his due. In order to perform this job the hands and eyes of the justice are blind folded. Blind foldedness implies the impartiality. If the balancing feature of justice is lost or disturbed justice will lose its real significance.

Upload and Share Your Article:

The students of Western political thought generally, with great interest, study the ancient political thought of ancient Greece and it is believed that there are reasons behind this.

Some reasons may briefly be slated here. In the first place the Greek philosophers in their search for knowledge in general and political philosophy in particular pointed out some basic concepts such as nature of state, its origin, administration, relation between state and individual in their analysis.

Though the contents of these concepts have undergone sea-changes during the past two millennia, we still study them because they evoke our interests.

In the second place, the ancient Greek thinkers, it is said, drew a difference between legitimate use of power and indiscriminate use of power or application of force. The Greek thinkers believed that application of force for the realization of objective is uncalled for.

The persons in authority should avoid the use of force. Again, they also thought that power should be legitimate that’s authority or power. This confirms their support for democracy. Their argument runs as follows:

Since the entire cosmos is governed by law human society cannot be an exception. In today’s world we see that everyone gives importance to the sovereignty of law.

In the third place, it appears from the political ideas of the ancient Greek thinkers that in their analysis there was great importance of the rule of law, that is law, must govern both the rulers and the ruled. This conception of rule of law practically governs a major part of Western political thought. One of the central ideas of American constitutional system is the supremacy of the constitution which is treated as basic law of land.

Even in UK and some other countries the rule of law and equality before law constitutes the central part of state administration. At least J. S. Mcclelland (History of Western Political Thought) thinks in this way .He observes modern constitutional theory is in part based on a particular reading of ancient constitutional thought and practice.

In the fourth place there is a very good reason for studying ancient Greek political thought. We know that there is an importance of dialectics is the political philosophy of Hegel and Marx. But the dialectics was discovered and abundantly applied by Plato and few other Greek philosophers. Later on, Hegel and Marx borrowed the concept from the Greek philosophers.

There is still another reason why we study ancient political thought of Greek. The Greek thinkers and philosophers had great faith on people’s sovereignty and for that reason they made arrangement for periodical open assembly the attendance in which was compulsory—the people will assemble at a particular place in order to frame laws for the administration of the City-state.

This is called direct democ­racy. The Swiss constitutional system borrowed this and it holds till now. Contract thinker Rousseau in his famous work Social Contract revived it. The Greek city-state was small in size and population and this facilitated the functioning of direct democracy.

Another very important reason for studying Greek political thought is “Greek philosophers were the first to raise the most fundamental problems of state, law and politics. The solutions they offered have foreshadowed in many respects the future development of political thought and their echoes have not yet completely died down in our times” (Political Thought of Ancient Greece, VS. Nersesyants). Today we are seriously thinking about sovereignty, virtue and politics and many other related ideas. But it is not surprising that the Greek thinkers discussed all these though in embryo form.

There is still another reason. We are at the threshold of the twenty first century. Both the rulers and the ruled are seriously thinking about good government, good state and welfare state.

It means that the state is not a helpless spectator in the manifold affairs which occur within the state. It must guide or regulate the affairs for the attainment of general welfare. Plato believed that it is the specific duty of the state to make its citizens good or ideal so that they will be suitable for an ideal state.

His—The Republic deals with the various aspects of an ideal state. Today we do not definitely think in terms of ideal state because we are sure that ideals are unattainable. But we think about welfare state.

Yes, there are lots of difference between ideal state and welfare state. But in ultimate analysis both ideal state and welfare state coincide. Plato thought of an ideal state in the light of general good or welfare of people.

He believed that only in an ideal state people could witness the realization of their general good or well-being. The ancient Greek philosophers repeatedly thought of welfare of people in terms of virtue.

We think that the term welfare cannot be detached from virtue is an ethical or to some moral term or concept.

Naturally a state is never a helpless onlooker of the events that occur. It must interfere if the happenings interfere negatively with the general good of citizens.

Our point is that the concept of virtue, morality etc. were the key concepts of Greek political philosophy. Today they have reappeared in our political ideas in the form of general welfare.

Our conclusion is that there is no basic departure of the present—day politics from the basic ideas of Greek political thought. All these reasons enthuse us to study ancient Greek political thought and these reasons, we firmly believe, will remain valid even in the coming decades.

Upload and Share Your Article:

In this article we will discuss about the president and the council of ministers.

Before the passing of the Forty-Second Constitution Amendment Act it was not clear whether it was binding for the President to accept the advice of the Council of Ministers or not. The Amendment Act made it obligatory for the President to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, though there was wide criticism about this amendment.

The critics were of the view that this should have been left to conventions and not specifically provided in the constitution. Forty-Fourth Constitution Amendment Act changed the situation a bit.

The President can now suggest the Council of Ministers to reconsider the advice tendered to him about a proposed Bill and if the former again advises the latter on the earlier lines then the President will have to accept the advice.

Any Minister of the Council of Ministers can inform him about the decision of his Ministry on any particular measure, but the President has every right to suggest that the matter should be placed before the Council of Ministers whose approval should be sought.

Under the Constitution the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, holds office during the pleasure of the President. In other words, the President can appoint or dismiss or remove any Minister at his discretion.

But in actual practice the President is bound to invite only the leader of the majority party in the Lok Sabha to form the government. He is only to appoint those persons as Ministers whose name are recommended by the Prime Minister.

The Ministers hold office, not during the pleasure of the President but that of the House. As long as the party enjoys the confidence of the House and the Prime Minister is willing to keep a person in the Council of Ministers, the President has no other alternative but not to disturb the existing arrangement.

Of course, President’s discretion to some extent arises when there is no single political party in the Lok Sabha with a clear cut majority.

The President can then use his discretion and invite a person who, in his opinion, shall be in a position to form government. After political instability that came in the country in 1979, after the fall of Janata governments there were some speculations that at the centre also an era of coalition government will usher and that will give the President an opportunity to use his discretionary powers.

After the fall of Morarji Government in 1979 when Congress (I) the then largest single party in the Lok Sabha declined to form the Government, the President ignored the claim of Shri Jagjiwan Ram and instead invited Choudhry Charan Singh to form the government. But after 1980 elections the electorates returned Congress (I) with massive majority in the Lok Sabha and this fear got eliminated.

In 1989 when elections were held in the country for the Lok Sabha, ruling Congress (I) was defeated. It could win about 200 Lok Sabha seats but emerged as the single largest party. Newly formed National Front- emerged as the second largest party.

Some political jurists opined that the President should use his discretion and not invite Congress (I) to form the government though it was single the largest party, because the people had disowned it at the polls. That situation, however, did not arise because the Congress (I) did not stake its claim to form government.

The President then used his discretion and invited leader of the National Front V.P. Singh to form the government and show his majority within 30 days in the Lok Sabha. It is, however, the duty of the Council of Ministers to keep the President informed of its decisions.

Since in India there is the system of joint and collective responsibility, therefore, what the President is supposed to know is the decision of the Council of Ministers as a whole. He is not bound to accept the advice of any single Minister. The decisions of the Council of Ministers are, of course, communicated to him through the Prime Minister.

It was this right to information which created a rift between Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and President Giani Zail Singh. The latter had a grudge that the former was not keeping him fully informed about affairs of the state. The differences were so wide that the President once threatened to dismiss the Government, though the Prime Minister enjoyed the confidence of the Lok Sabha.

In India a very difficult situation about his right to dismiss a member of the Council of Ministers was created by President Zail Singh. During last months of his office, the President felt irritated about some of the criticisms made by Prof. K.K. Tiwari, a Minister in the Council of Ministers headed by Rajiv Gandhi. He had thus earned President’s displeasure.

The annoyance was so deep that the President suggested the Prime Minister to drop him from the Council of Ministers or otherwise he will dismiss him on his own.

Sensing the gravity of the situation, the Prime Minister dropped Prof. Tiwari from his Council of Ministers and thus the crisis were averted. Had the Prime Minister not dropped Prof. Tiwari, the crisis have perhaps taken a different turn and a new precedent would have been set in the parliamentary history of India.

Upload and Share Your Article: