Category: Political Science Notes

Besides Max Weber’s typology of legitimacy, the need and feeling for justice can be regarded as another source of legitimacy. In fact, ideology of the people, and not of the rulers, is the main source of legitimacy. In democ­racies, legitimacy is indicated by its ideals, popular consent, representativeness, elections, rule of majority, civic liberties and similar privileges available to the people.

Grace A. Jones, with reference to the British political system, has mentioned certain sources of legitimacy in the following manner:

(1) Past visible in political and social institutions;

(2) Tradition of non-violence;

(3) Numerous symbols and rituals;

(4) Belief in the value and validity of existing political procedures, e.g., conventions;

(5) Election-procedure, freedom and consensus justifying laws;

(6) Homogeneous and integrated society, continuity of traditions in family from father to son, e.g., party allegiance; and

(7) Political culture with some degree of adaptability.

Dahl has also indicated various sources of winning legitimacy or earning compliance:

1. To encourage compliance:

(a) By increasing rewards for compliance,

(b) By decreasing disadvantages of compliance,

2. To discourage non-compliance:

(c) By decreasing rewards from other alternatives,

(d) By increasing disadvantages of other alternatives.

He has suggested that internal sources of rewards and deprivations are always better than external sources. More and more internalization gradually replaces the need of external sources. When the political system is widely accepted as legitimate and its policies are regarded as morally binding, the cost of compliance reduces. When legitimacy and authority are in low key, it has to make more use of money, police, privileges, weapons, status and other political resources. Obviously, democracy requires more legitimacy and authority than other systems.

Still legitimacy is not some high level abstract feeling, but a phenomenon existing underlying the whole system. It is related to whole system and its governance. It is not a moral feeling or subjective conceptualization. It is a belief of the people in the rightness of the activities of the government. But it comes out in concrete form also. In the words of Easton, it relates to the allocation of authoritative values for the society. Who, in what form, when, how, in what manner, and where are also the questions related to its legitimacy.

At the interval level, it is related to praise, honour, affection, etc., or their reverse forms like dis-honour, anomie, alienation, etc., At the external level it is connected with material things like land, money, license, status, privileges, immunities etc. They may not actually be given but expectation of getting them or the fear of losing them also works a lot in motivating each form of legitimacy. Material goods, in any system, are never unlimited; therefore, political leaders always try to economise them.

They do so by (i) preferring internal or abstract awards, and (ii) using means like leadership, influence, and propaganda. With the help of these, they are able to get compliance simply on the basis of communicating to them. Material rewards, apart from being limited and scarce, their distribution can also prove dysfunctional. But these internal and external sources should not be treated as separate. They are related with each other. In sum, internal resources are less costly than material resources.

Non-material resources of legitimacy are less expensive than running the political system on the basis of power as physical force. Democracy requires the first two sources, whereas dictatorship mostly operates on physical force. Therefore, cost of running a system on the basis of force is very high, making the system still more fragile, instable, and alienated.

Apart from the consideration of cost, it must be pointed out that authority is the most efficient form of influence. It is legitimacy which enables political actors to transform influence into authority. Power, influence, and authority, standing on the ground of legitimacy, do not require to spend much political resources. In the context of Third World countries, it can be stated that legitimacy plays a key role in getting along with their political system. They have scarce economic and political sources.

They have to telescope centuries into decades, and attain modernisation as early as possible. Only an attitude of ‘rightness’ or belief in the legitimacy of their structures, functions, procedures, leaders, and decisions can come to their rescue. Even, with less amount of power or a weakened government, a developing society can attain its goals. It keeps majority as well as minority communities bound to each other. No majority can keep a considerably big minority under coercion.

It has to win them over by propagating values, ideology, and role-expectations. So is the case with the minority groups and communities, as they too have to stand at par on the common levels of legit­imacy. Within the bounds of this legitimacy, political leaders, parties, groups, and individuals are allowed to compete among themselves. As legit­imacy is deeply entrenched into cultural values, secession or separatism cannot burst out so easily.

Upload and Share Your Article:

The basic unit of Easton’s system analysis is ‘interaction’. Interaction is generated from the behaviour of the members of the system when they play their role as such. When these myriad interactions, in the perception of the scholar, become a ‘set of interrelations’, they are considered as a ‘system’. Easton’s subject matter of analysis is only the set of political interactions.

There are four major premises or broader concepts of his flow-model or input-output analysis:

(i) System;

(ii) Environment;

(iii) Response; and

(iv) Feedback.

In the analysis of politics, one has to make use of these concepts.

1. System:

His system is a ‘political system’, the basic unit of analysis. It is a ‘system of interactions in any society through which binding or authoritative alloca­tions are made and implemented.’ Easton is interested in studying political life which is seen as a system of behaviour operating within and responding to its social environment while making binding allocations of values. The making of binding and authoritative decisions distinguishes the political system from other systems (existing both within and outside the overall society) that form the environment of that political system.

Within this political system, there are many political groups and organisations, called para-political systems. But he is more concerned with ‘political system’ standing as the most inclusive unit of political life. Political system, as such, is found everywhere. It is the inclusive whole of all political interactions. Easton analyses the nature, conditions, and life processes of political life operating in form of an analytic system.

By adopting the concept of ‘system’, Easton has free Political Science from its traditional, legalistic, institutional, and formal moorings, and proposes to view it as it really is. This ‘system’ is made of interactions of those persons who take part in public life, and are related with making and implementing of public policies.

Easton is not satisfied to see ‘political activity’ merely as ‘direction of man by man’ (de Jouvenel), or as ‘relating to control or will’ (Catlin), or ‘relation between influencer and the influenced’ (Lasswell). It is also not adequate to see politics related to authority, power, government and rule (Dahl). His concept of system is more inclusive.

In a sense, his concept of ‘system’ is integrative involving values, culture, authority, governance, implementation, participation, process, etc. ‘System’ is a very wide term, which includes all forms of formal and informal processes, interactions, functions, structures, values, behaviour, etc. The political system allocates values for the whole society and its decisions stand obligatory. A ‘system’, thus, can be any set of variables, whatever be the form or intensity of interactions or interrelationship operating among them. A political system is a subsystem of the societal system, but it has a binding power of its own. Even within a political system, there are many subsystems.

Easton’s political system is both open and adaptive. Exchanges take place between a political system and its environment which is made of many systems and their subsystems, including even para-political systems. All these, and other various events and influences make up the conditions under which members of a political system act and react.

The latter can find these as favourable or obstructive to its survival. As such, it must have the capacity to face those obstructions, and adapt itself to those conditions. Most often, a political system has a trait or capacity to adapt itself to changing environment. Political systems contrive mechanisms to regulate their own moves, transform internal structures, and even reformulate goals.

A political system, like any other system, has boundaries. These bound­aries relate to the formation of political interactions and go on changing. The political system, somehow, tends to maintain its systemic boundaries, and boundary conditions. In other words, it has to carefully look after and protect its life-processes or capacity to respond effectively to external environment or internal influences. It has to operate as an effective trans­forming process. In case, it is unable to maintain its boundaries, it may lose its identity, even merge into other systems.

It may be reiterated that Eastonian framework of systems theory is conceptual and analytical. His ‘political system’ is born of concepts, and is conceptual or ‘constructivist’, used as a set of variables selected for description, explanation, and research. It is different from, and not, a concrete or natural system. An actual, concrete or natural system, also called as membership-system, consists of human beings or actual individuals. Easton’s analytic system is made of abstractions that focus selected elements of human behaviour.

His system, thus, is a set of particular interactions, which is related to allocation of values that are binding for society and their implementation, within that membership or concrete system, called society. Binding nature of the set of interactions is another quality separating political system from other systems. This abstract analytic system interacts with its environment, converting its inputs into outputs through processes or within puts, and feedback as shown in the following diagram:

2. Environment:

Easton’s political system is a complex set of certain processes or interactions which transforms particular inputs into outputs of authoritative policies, decisions, and implementation. This conversion takes place in some environment. As an open system, it must have the resilience to respond to that environment, facing all obstacles, and adjusting itself to conditions.

Only by doing so, it can survive or exist over a period of time.

Analytically, environment can be of two types:

(i) Extra-societal, and

(ii) Intra-societal.

As given in the Diagram above extra-societal environment involves interna­tional political systems, like various political systems, alliances, UNO, etc.; international ecological systems; and, international social systems, as cultural, socio-structural, economic, demographic, and other systems. Intra-societal systems include ecological, biological, personality-oriented, social, cultural, socio-structural, and demographic systems operating within the political system.

Conflicts, strains, and changes emerging out of environment can prove functional or dysfunctional to that political system. Therefore, the latter should have, for its survival, persistent capability to respond to that environment. Easton rightly puts more emphasis on the capacity of the system to cope with the environment. Countries of the Third World can find a lot of useful material in Easton’s concept of ‘environment’, and required ‘capacity’ to deal with it.

Easton has pointed out that system theorists have spoken a lot on the first two concepts – ‘system’ and ‘environment’. As regards the third and fourth concepts of ‘response’ and ‘feedback’, he can be said to have made his own contribution to systems theory. In fact, the latter concepts, instead of being singular ones, are clusters of many concepts. So is the case with the first two concepts also.

3. Response:

A political system has to respond to its environment in coping with crises, stresses, and other difficulties. It has also to perform, o
n its own, some other functions, such as, maintaining order in the society and to uphold its own form and identity amid ever-changing environment. All of them have been put under the generic concept of ‘response’.

Specifically, the political system has to perform three main categories of functions:

(a) Allocation of values for society,

(b) To motivate its members to accept the allocations as binding, and

(c) To cope with stress and challenges coming to the system.

The first two are essential parts of political life. Without them neither can the political system exist nor the society survive without the political system as such. Easton gives the central place to ‘systemic persistence’ which usually remains under ‘stress’ for several factors. The system has to look into the sources of stress and modes or processes of regulating stress. A political system is a set of interacting essential variables which fluctuate within a certain limit or range. It cannot go beyond its ‘critical range’. The system is considered under ‘stress’, if the essential variables push it to cross over the critical range.

The system tries to remain within critical range, but at times, it is compelled to go beyond. For its survival and persistence, it has to respond in many ways – at the level of demands or support, or at output or feedback levels. The political system collapses in case it is unable to cope with coming stresses and crises Therefore, it is always necessary constantly to evaluate the nature of stresses, capacity of the system to cope with, and the means and methods to do so.

The political system is driven by:

(a) ‘Demands’ and challenges made on it, and

(b) ‘Support’, it gets from its members.

It meets the challenge of demands with the help of supports, but it can manipulate and regulate both. It receives them in form of ‘inputs’ from its environment, the society at large. These inputs are converted into ‘outputs’, but the system also keeps a watch over effects and consequences of its outputs through ‘feedback’, which helps it constantly to modify its inputs as well as outputs. Easton’s political system, in a way, is a conversion process in which inputs are transformed into outputs, helped and guided by feedback.

All the systemic responses are broadly divided into two categories:

(a) Inputs, and

(b) Outputs.

(a) Inputs:

Inputs are responses entering into the system.

They consist of:

(1) Demands, and

(2) Supports.

Demands put strain or stress on the system, whereas support provides energy to sustain it. Though the two are of different nature, still they make up one category of ‘inputs’ to be converted into ‘outputs’ through within-puts or the conversion process. Easton does not discuss the nature or form of within-puts. The political system receives both demands and supports from society or environment. It is driven by demands, and sustained by supports.

(1) Demands:

Demand is ‘an expression of opinion that an authoritative allocation with regard to a particular subject matter should or should not be made by those responsible for doing so’. It can take the form of stress, effects, demands, agitations, crises etc. all coming from environment. They all intend to influence, move, modify, or change the political system, and can be undifferentiated wants, articulated recog­nizable demands, or specific issues. Mostly, they are of collective or public nature. Demands are, after their determination, satisfied through ‘allocation of values’.

Demands can take several forms, such as, provision for certain things, services, and conveniences; regulating public behaviour; participating in the political system, for making symbolic expressions, etc. A system may not be in a position to convert all demands into outputs. It looks into quantity, nature of contents, source, kind, volume, intensity, etc. Only a few demands reach the output stage. Excessive demands put stress over the system, and cause ‘overload’. Overload may ‘be due to the volume, intensity, velocity, urgency, and contents of the demand.

In order to deal with the problem of overload or excessive demands, the political system can make use of several ‘regulatory mechanisms’:

(i) Structural mechanism:

It is located at the boundary of the system and regulates the flow of articulation of demands. Unimportant demands are scrutinised and regulated by and through various gate-keeping roles. They may not even be allowed to enter the system.

(ii) Cultural mechanism:

On the basis of prevailing socio-cultural norms, certain demands can be designated as incompatible with them, thus, lessened in considerable manner, if not rejected altogether. Sometimes they become the basis or constraints of political demands.

(iii) Communication channels:

Through the use of TV, radio, corre­spondence, press, etc. demands may be strengthened or weakened or diluted to a considerable extent.

(iv) Reduction processes:

Demands may be reduced to a limited number through a process-selection, scrutiny, grouping, etc. Some criteria, general or restricted, may be added to it.

(2) Support:

A political system also receives support from its environment. After subtracting demands from inputs, we get supports which operate between the system and its environment. They are positive responses towards specific objects or level of a political system. Support can be towards (a) the political community which means the acceptance of political division of labour; (b) the regime which embodies basic values, political structures, and norms underlying the political system; and (c) the political authorities or persons holding power in the given context. Support can be given at some particular or all levels.

Support to political community reflects paying regard to the general form and arrangement of power in the society, and acceptance of the demar­cation between the political and non-political. Support to a regime broadly means legitimacy of the system, its constitutionality, basic structure, and inherent values. The last level invokes holding of respect, loyalty, and obedience to the particular persons wielding political authority. It includes administrators and officials.

The support can be rendered in many ways – by paying taxes, obedience to law, participation in the form of voting, discussion, comments, and constructive suggestions, or deference towards public authorities. The form and style of expressing support can be overt or covert, positive or negative, diffuse or specific, and so on. Often the political system obtains support by and through allocation values and implementation thereof, manipulation of outputs, socialisation, and other political means.

Without support at a certain minimum level, no political system can persist. There can be many causes of failure, as is the case with some Third World countries for not getting support from their populace, such as inadequate use of regulatory mechanism, non-generation of support, and neglect of outputs.

(b) Outputs:

Outputs are the decisions and actions of the authorities. They produce effects and consequences which have direct relation with the members’ attitude and behaviour for the system. Easton calls them as ‘authoritative allocation of values’, ‘binding decisions and actions’, or ‘exchange between the system and its environment’. Output is turnout or production made by the political authorities. It is the flow of those responses which go from the system to environment.

Outputs are converted inputs or finished goods prepared from the raw material of inputs. Even the political authorities themselves can also take initiative in the making of outputs. They are the results of the t
ransformation process of the political system.

Outputs reveal many forms – realisation of taxes, regulation of public behaviour and conduct, distribution of honours, goods, and services, allocation of values, display of symbolic outputs, etc. They are reflected in verbal or written statements from the authorities as well as concrete actions. They can be the effects or results of immediately authorised decisions.

If they relate to decisions taken in distant past, they would be called as ‘outcome’. In case they are not binding, they would be named as co-outputs. Outputs can be inter or intra systemic. In all cases, they release support-stress. They can be regarded as a primary source to get specific support, but a satisfactory flow of output over a period of time tends to produce all-out or diffuse support.

Outputs have several aspects – economic, social, cultural, political, etc. From the viewpoint of political system, political aspects of the outputs are more important. They influence the broader society or environment, and also determine the need and form of each succeeding round of inputs. Even the form, need, and quality of support depends on it.

4. Feedback:

‘Feedback’ is another important concept in Easton’s systems theory. Capacity of a political system to persist over time depends on feedback. It is a dynamic process through which information about the outputs and the environment is communicated to the system which may result in subsequent change or modification of the system. Information about demands and supports may enter the system as inputs in usual manner.

When infor­mation relating to converted inputs, or outputs comes in, then there is a kind of re-communication of information, or re-inputation of inputs already converted into outputs. By doing so, the political system gets an opportunity to modify or transform its behaviour conducive to that feedback. In this manner, it can make it more effective or persist in a better way. In the absence of feedback, it is likely to operate in the usual unresponsive manner, and lose support.

Information about environment reaching as inputs in usual manner may enter the system too late. It may reach there in a distorted form, as it happened with Indira Gandhi Government (1977) and the Shah of Iran (1979)- ‘Loop’ means a curve that rejoins the main line farther on. ‘Feedback Loop’ connotes a process wherein information is obtained; actions, reactions or responses are made on it; then to see the result, and re-collect the same; and, to be benefited by it to achieve the goal.

It includes the arrangement and linking of information channels for the aforesaid purpose. Feedback involves a continuity by linking of obtaining information, reacting, and knowing the effects further to improve upon Systems behaviour and responses. It is a ‘output-information-reinputation- recommunication-reoutputation’ process.

Feedback process, in this way, is concerned with input sequence, demands and support emerging out of environment, conversion processes, outputs, and feedback mechanisms. Feedback mechanisms carry effects and consequences of the outputs into the system again as inputs. They make the system dynamic, purposive, and goal-oriented. Interactions and their various forms within a system confront the problems of stress, maintenance, etc., by counter-balancing, by reducing, or by removal. But their interac­tion-circuits may remain incomplete or breakdown at any point, e.g., stoppage at the level of demands. A demand has to go along with the long conversion process.

Its shape, size and content may considerably change till it reaches the output-stage. Sometimes, the demand dies out by then completely. Similarly, information coming from the environment may not be considered as a ‘demand’ by the authorities. Ultimately, the latter have to decide whether some allocation of values should be made to meet that demand or not. But reaction or response to every such breakdown of the circuit has to be taken into consideration for further action and implemen­tation by the system.

Easton presents the concept of ‘feedback loop’ as the basis of the capacity of the outputs to generate specific support. It connects the conse­quences of the outputs with the inflow of inputs: demands and supports. Thus, it establishes a circulatory relationship between inputs and outputs. There is all-round impact of this dynamic process – on support, stress, survival and persistence. It completes the political circuit through its input – conversion – output – feedback process. In a political system, several feedback processes operate at various levels. But Easton relates the feedback processes pertaining to the whole political system.

For analytical purposes, there are two forms of feedback:

(i) Negative feedback – it relates to the information regarding the system and the regulation of errors; and

(2) Goal-transforming feedback – it is concerned with the purposeful redirection of the system.

In all conditions, feedback is a regulatory demand of political systems. However, feedback itself can suffer from many pathologies, regarding accuracy, responsiveness, time-lag, etc. Several mistakes can take place in the process of communication. Even delayed information can cause great harm to the survival of a political system.

The feedback loop can be analysed from several angles. From the view of system-maintenance or gaining specific support, its operation can be divided into four stages:

(1) There are situations of feedback, which can come out of authorised direction, associate outputs, or outcomes. They all are part of the political system. But its estimation depends on its perception or observation.

(2) There are feedback-responses which can be in the form of satisfying the demands, or positive or negative support.

(3) In the third stage feedback-responses are communicated to the political authorities.

(4) In the last stage, after completion of the feedback-circuit the authorities deliberate, discuss, and arrive at certain decisions. Much depends on variables like responsiveness of authorities, time-lag, availability of infor­mation-resources for decision-making, etc. Here, resources of the system as a whole are involved. The feedback loop, in Easton’s input-output analysis, interlinks authorities and its members in a manner that the former may take steps soon after they get information through the feedback.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Directly or indirectly, all areas within the purview of sensory organs can be studied in a behavioural manner. Though limitations of time, resources, skill and technological advancement are there, yet according to Heinz Eulau, all segments of Political Science can be treated behaviourally.

Still, some specific areas preferred by the behaviouralists are:

1. Individuals engaged in face-to-face relationship.

2. Small groups and organisations.

3. Systems and subsystems like political parties, legislatures, pressure groups, etc.

4. Voting behaviour.

5. Concepts, such as the will, power, processes, decision, structures and functions, system, etc.

6. Processes.

7. Policies and values.

8. Comparative politics.

9. New tools and techniques.

10. Theories, approaches, and other frameworks.

Van Dyke has pointed out that behaviouralism (or behavioural sciences) is an all-inclusive term. It includes all those sciences which study the behaviour of man or other living creatures. In ‘political behaviour’, we include all political activities of man. It is not only the behavioural aspect of politics, but all political behaviour. Simple use of the term ‘behaviouralism’ usually means ‘political behaviouralism’. It involves all activities of man related to public decisions or distribution of power in society.

Behavioural approach aims at reaching empirical generalisations and developing a theory. Observation of behaviour leads us to certain unifor­mities or regularities of behaviour. Wider the uniformities, greater the validity of generalisations. These generalisations are to be testable or verifiable. In this sense, behavioural approach is more than a method.

Political behaviour analysis has four important characteristics:

(i) It studies individual person’s behaviour even while analysing groups, the elite, and movements, etc.;

(ii) Chooses a frame of reference, often taken from other disciplines;

(iii) Starts with theoretical propositions for the purposes of empirical research; and,

(iv) Adopts scientific methods and techniques.

Areas of political behaviour analysis can be broadly divided into two parts:

(a) Behavioural studies conducted in situational or institutional contexts, such as voting behaviour, legislative, judicial, or administrative behaviour, etc., and

(b) Studies undertaken around specific organising concepts or the broader conceptual schemes.

They are generally known as approaches, but do not rise to the level of a general theory, e.g., system analysis, group approach, decision-making analysis, communication theory etc.

These centralising concepts obviously have two levels:

(i) Specific and lower, such as, group, power decision, conflict, etc., and

(ii) General and higher, such as system, field, process, communication, etc.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Political technologies, as conceived here, are not readily available. They have to be searched, surveyed and discovered and further processed for use. If they are not available, the user has to identify and process them keeping in view the current needs and requirements of the political situation.

Such political technologies can come out of the experience, confrontation, and searching solution of the problems. This source can prove to be a laboratory to test and explore the newer ones and turn out finished and final goods of ‘political technology’ after processing them in adequate manner.

‘Identification’ means ascertaining of particular patterns of goal-oriented political operations and behaviour. They should be dispas­sionately observed, studied and discerned for future use. Identification of political technologies should not be person, place and time specific.

Identifi­cation or discovery does not mean that they were already available to the original users in the past or were manufactured by them in a final and finished form. In fact, in the past, the operators of these technology-like acts, the rulers or governing elite, might not have consciously created them, or have had openly sought help and guidance from political scientists, engineers, and scholars.

The users of technologies might have overlooked many other factors. In some cases, the leaders of the ruling coterie might have imitated blindly the acts or steps of their predecessors. In other cases, the genesis of the political technologies may not have been as transparent as was in case of Mahatma Gandhi. He instead of imitating others liked to act upon his ‘inner voice’ and fabricate a large number of new political technol­ogies. Hundreds of leaders now make an attempt to follow him earnestly.

Political technologies come out of patterns of specific political activities or operations. Only those activities which fit in or stand within the param­eters of the concept of ‘political technology’ can be considered as such. The seven cluster-variables elaborate this concept. From this point of view all other political variations such as policy, strategy, tools, technique and methods are different from political technology. The latter is not problem or person specific. In a political technology there is a sense of power sharing.

Political technology, besides the above, is a four-directional patterned operation. On the left, there is the context of some political problem or demand. On the right, there is adversary or opposition. While going on front side, there stand your own resources and personality variables.

On the back, there is the outcome, success or failure. It may be pointed out that the items of the cluster-variables, including the variables of a cluster are inter­changeable. A political leader may invest his resources equitably or proportionately. He might put in only one or two types of resources and spend them all. It could be his all-out operation.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Definition of Collectivism:

Collectivism is also called state socialism. In the Encyclopaedia Britannica Collectivism has been defined as under: “Collectivism is that policy or theory which aims at securing by the action of central democratic authority a better distribution and in due subordination thereto, a better production of wealth”. Collectivism is a branch of socialism. It developed in Europe as a reaction against Individualism.

Development of State Socialism:

In England, collectivism rose in the name of Fabian Socialism. In 1884, Fabian Society was established in England. George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, Sidney Webb and his wife Beatrice Webb, Mrs. Anni Besant and Ramsay MacDonald became its members. Later on Graham Wallas, Tawney, Laski and G.D.H. Cole preached its principles in their books.

Today the Labour Party of England has its faith in state socialism. In Germany, Roberts (1805-1875), Ferdinard Lassalle (1825-1864) and Edward Burnstine (1850-1932) played an eminent role in its development. In India, Mr. Nehru was an ardent supporter of Democratic Socialism.

Principles or Characteristics of the Collectivism:

1. Opposition to capitalism and imperialism and full support for democratic socialism:

Collectivists are severe opponents of capitalism, because it creates economic inequality in society and the labourers are exploited. Maximum national income is concentrated in the hands of a few persons and common people starve. The Collectivists are also against imperialism.

2. Attitude towards state:

They do not want to abolish the state, but they want to change its form. So far the state has been a capitalist institution. They want to control the government by winning elections and then make such laws for the benefit of the labourers as may help in putting an end to their exploitation.

In short, instead of abolishing the state, they want to utilise it for the establishment of a socialistic system and for the abolition of the capitalist system. For this purpose, they want to nationalize the production of many things and limit the investment of private capital.

The Collectivists do not agree with the view of the individualists that state is a necessary evil. They also do not agree with the Anarchists that the state is an unnecessary evil. They consider the state a good institution and want to increase its functions for the welfare of the people.

They want to make the state a welfare institution and they want to increase its functions to the maximum. On the other hand, they also want to safeguard maximum freedom of the individual. The Collectivists are not in favour of the centralisation of the powers of the state. They maintain that there should be decentralisation of the powers of the state.

It means that except those functions which are absolutely essential for the Central Government the rest of the functions should be performed either by the provincial governments or by the local institutions. They say that local governments should be given maximum autonomy in the administration of their affairs.

3. Abiding faith in Democracy:

The collectivists have full faith in democracy. They were in favour of giving voting rights to all men and women. A complete explanation of the programme and aim of the Collectivists was given in the England Labour Party’s pamphlet ‘Labour and New Social Order’ published in 1919.

The Collectivists would nationalize big industries from the point of view of people’s welfare. The government would pay compensation for the factories taken over by it. Besides, the private ownership of small industries would remain intact, but laws would be made to improve the condition of the workers in these industries.

The Collectivists are also supporters of social security. They want to give aid to unemployed, invalid, old and ailing persons. They are also in favour of fret education so that every individual should get equal opportunity of advancement.

4. Opposition to Individualism:

The Collectivists condemn Individualism and say that open competition between the capitalist and the worker is not desirable. They say that an individual cannot achieve real freedom by starving himself. Poverty is a great hindrance to freedom. Man can achieve real freedom only in socialism, which, after abolishing capitalism, gives opportunity to the workers for their progress.

5. Opposition to Marxism or difference between Communism and Socialism:

The Collectivists are not uncritical followers of Marx. Besides, Marx, they have also been influenced by T.H. Green, Rousseau and Kant. They agree with Marx that capitalism is a bad thing and it exploits the labourers. Therefore, it must be abolished.

As the manner of its abolition, both hold different views. Marxists want to abolish capitalism by violent and revolutionary means while the Collectivists want to abolish it by parliamentary means, i.e. by winning elections against the Capitalists and by making laws to abolish capitalism.

They want to bring about socialism by slow degrees and through peaceful means. They do not want to give power into the hands of labourers but to the entire society. They also do not agree with Marx’s Theory of Surplus Value.

They are of the belief that wealth is produced not by the labourers only, but by the entire society. They also do not agree with Marx’s Theory of Class-struggle, because it creates conflicts in the society and destroys its unity. They also do riot agree with Marx’s theory of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the withering away of the State.

Another difference between the Marxists and the democratic socialists is that Marx completely ignored democracy, religion and nationalism, while state socialists are staunch supporters of nationalism and democracy and they are neutral in religious matters.

Criticism of Collectivism (State Socialism or Democratic Socialism):

Collectivism has been criticised as under:

(1) With the socialisation of industries individual incentive and inspiration will die.

(2) Each individual works for his own interest. There is no individual interest in socialism and thus the production will fall.

(3) The Opponents of Socialism, Particularly Mill and Spencer, were of the view that individual liberty is curtailed in socialism.

(4) Mellock was of the view that in the absence of individual interest of ‘he collecting personal property, the people will have to be coerced to do work, which will bring about the downfall of the individual character.

(5) Sir Irkson has said that natural influence of socialistic theory has resulted in the suppression of the powers of human race.

(6) The Communists have bitterly criticised collectivism. They say that collectivism ignores the scientific principles of Marxism, therefore, socialism cannot be brought about by the constitutional means. Socialism has been established in Soviet Russia, China and countries of Eastern Europe through revolution.

There is no country in the world where socialism has come through peaceful means. Though the Communist Party remained in power in Australia for many years and Congress is in power in India since 1947, yet they have not been able to bring about socialism. Several times labour government was established in England, but socialism has not come any nearer there.

(7) It will be difficult to nationalise the industries by payment of compensation.

(8) The functions of the state will increase manifold, and it will result in inefficiency.

Importance of Collectivism:

Though Collectivism has also been criticised like other isms, yet there is no truth in this criticism. It is difficult, no doubt, to bring about socialism by constitutional means, and this ideal has not been given a practical shape in any country, yet it is true that according to the ideals of collect
ivism, a welfare state has been established in India, England and in many other countries.

Efforts have been made to control the profit of the capitalists and condition of the workers has been improved through laws. Many important industries have been nationalised in England and India. The abolition of zamindari system and fixation of the limit of agricultural land has taken place in a peaceful manner in India. Therefore, though constitutional method may cause some delay in bringing about socialism, yet bloodshed is not at all desirable. It is desirable to abolish capitalism by constitutional means, even if it causes delay.

Upload and Share Your Article:

(1) Mode of appointment of judges:

In advanced courtiers of the world, generally three modes are adopted for the appointment of the Judges.

These are:

(a) Election by the people;

(b) Election by the Legislature;

(c) Appointment by the Executive.

The system of the appointment of judges by the people is in vogue in many states of America. In the Soviet Union, the judges of the People’s Courts are elected by the people. In Switzerland, the lowest court is called the Court of first instance and the judges of this court are elected by the people.

In Assam, Bihar and Maharashtra, the Presidents of the Judicial Panchayats are also elected by the people. There are some historic examples of the defeat of able and distinguished judges because of unpopularity of judicial decisions. This has happened in America. In this way, the judge fails to do justice.

Therefore, Laski has said, “Of all the methods of appointment that of election by the people at large is without exception the worst”. Prof. Gamer also says, “Election of the judges lowers the character of the judiciary, tends to make a politician of the judge and subjects the judicial mind to a strain which it is not always able to resist.”

The election of the judges by the Parliament or the legislature is seen in Switzerland. The Judges of the Federal Tribunal are elected there by the National Assembly for six years. In the past, in certain states of America, this system was adopted, but later only four states Rhode Island, Vermount, South Carolina and Virginia-retained it. In former Soviet Union to the judges of the Supreme Court were elected by the Supreme Soviet.

The election of the judges by the Parliament is not considered good because there are political parties in the Parliament. In the Parliament, a judge can be elected only by majority if he enjoys the confidence of the majority party. When a judge is elected by the support of the majority party, he will have to appease that party.

In order to be re-elected in the next elections, he will have to give such decisions as to please the majority party. His tenure of office will depend upon the pleasure of the members of the Parliament. He will have to ignore his daily duties in order to canvass votes for himself at the time of the elections. It is also possible that the judge may indulge in corrupt practices fearing his defeat in the election.

This system is also against the theory of Separation of Powers. Kent, a famous jurist, has said, “It presents too many occasions and too many temptations for intrigue, party prejudice and local interest to secure a judiciary best calculated to promote the ends of justice.”

The third mode of appointment of the judges is appointment by the Head of the State (the King or the President). This system of appointment of the judges is adopted in India, England, the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan and South Africa.

However, the judges are free from all influence after their appointment. This system is also not free from defects because, in practice, the President or the monarch appoints the judges on the recommendations of the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor and both these persons are related to majority party.

Therefore, sometimes they recommend the names of such persons as have some leaning towards that party. Commenting on this system in America and France, Dr. Garner writes, “That instances are by no means lacking in the states of American Union where appointments were made as rewards for party services or because of personal favouritism and the requirement that the appointment shall be approved by the State Senate or the Executive Council did not always serve as an effective check in preventing them”.

In order to remove the defects of this system, Laski does not consider simple nomination by the Executive as an adequate system. He suggests that judicial appointments should be made on the recommendations of the Minister of Judges with the consent of a standing committee of the judges which would represent all sides of their work.

The reason for this is that after their appointment the judges are not under the influence of any party and their recommendation is appropriate. That is why, in India, the President while appointing the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, consults the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts and at the time of appointment of other judges of the High Court, the President consults the Chief Justice of that High Court.

In India, the judges of the District Courts are appointed by the Governor on the recommendations of the State Public Service Commissions. For this purpose, the State Public Service Commission holds competitive examinations.

In England and other Commonwealth countries, the judges are selected from among the advocates and pleaders working in the courts. In certain countries of Europe, the judges are selected by the Ministry of Justice through competitive examinations. Thus, this is the best system of the appointment of the judges and it is prevalent in many countries of the world.

2. Long Tenure:

For the independence of judiciary, a long tenure of the judges is as essential as a good mode of their appointment is. If the tenure of the judges is short, its consequences will be bad. In case of a short tenure, the judge will remain busy in planning for his re-election.

Sometimes the judges, in order to win the election, become partial while giving decisions. Sometimes, he indulges in corrupt practice when he loses the hope to win the election. If the tenure is short, the judge is unable to comprehend fully the various complications of the law.

Today in many countries of the world the judges remain in office till they attain the age of 65, or 70, provided their conduct is above board. But in some states of America and Switzerland, the tenure of the judges is very short.

In Switzerland, the tenure of the judges of the Federal Tribunal is 6 years. In the American State of Vermont, the tenure of the judges is 2 years, in Pennsylvania it is 21 years, in New Jersey it is 7 years, in Delaware 12 years and in some other states it is 6 years. In Mexico, the tenure of the judges is 6 years.

Though in some States of America the judges are re-elected yet because of the drawbacks mentioned above this system is not good. The system of the tenure during good behaviour has been adopted in America for the Federal Judiciary. India, Canada and Australia have also adopted this system.

In Great Britain, the judges also remain in office during good behaviour. In India, the judges of the Supreme Court remain in office till the age of 65 and the judge of a High Court remains in office till the age of 62.

Hamilton says, “The standard of good behaviour for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of Government. In a monarchy, it is an excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady upright and impartial administration of the laws”.

3. Security of Service:

For the independence of judiciary it is essential that there should be security of service for the judges and the executive should not remove them at will. If the judges are under constant fear of being removed from office, if they give decisions against the executive (government), they will not give decisions against the government.

Thus there will be no protection of the constitution and fundamental rights of the people. Therefore, in most of the advanced countries of the world, the Parliament removes corrupt and incapable judges by a majority vote, but the honest and able judges are granted the security of service, even if they give decisions against the executive.

In Great Britain, the judges have been guaranteed the security of s
ervice and they can be removed only when both the Houses pass a resolution jointly, leveling allegations against the judges, and send it to the monarch for his/ her assent. In the United States, the judges of the Supreme Court are removed by a process of impeachment.

For this purpose, the Lower House (House of Representatives) levels allegations and the Senate investigate these allegations. In some states of U.S.A. there is a provision for the recall of the judges by popular election. It hinders the freedom of judiciary. Therefore, certain learned jurists have criticised this practice.

In India, the Supreme Court and High Courts have been made free from the control of the executive. In India, the procedure adopted for the removal of the judges of High Court and the Supreme Court is quite cumbersome. It provides security of service to the judges and they are free from the control of the executive.

This procedure is mentioned in Article 124, Clause 4 of the Constitution of India. It says that, “A judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting, has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”.

4. Adequate salary to the Judges:

In order to make the judges independent, it is necessary that they should be paid adequately so that they are able to maintain a good standard of living and they do not amass wealth by adopting corrupt practices. If the judges are adequately paid, able persons will be attracted towards this profession and they will enjoy an honourable place in the society.

If they are not paid adequately, able persons shall not be attracted towards this profession and they will have no place of prestige in society. According to Bryce, the honesty and independence of a judge also depends upon the inducements or prospects that his office carries. A low-paid judge may be attracted by opportunities for accepting illegal gratification.

An honest and capable man will shun holding an office carrying a meagre remuneration. Therefore, there should be a fairly high salary for the office of a judge so that his social position and his mode of living inspire confidence and attract really capable and deserving men from the bar.”

Whereas it is necessary that a judge should be paid adequately, it is also necessary that during his tenure of office, his allowances and emoluments are not reduced by the executive. Otherwise, the judge will not be able to decide cases impartially.

It was judiciously remarked by Hamilton that, “in general course of human nature a power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will,” Therefore, the judges are paid their salaries and allowances from the Consolidated Fund in India, England and certain other countries and there is no need for the approval of the Parliament for these payments every year. In India under the amendment a High Court judge draws a monthly salary of Rs. 8000 and a judge of the Supreme Court draws Rs. 9000 and the Parliament cannot reduce this amount [Article 124 (clause 3) and Article 217, (clause 2)].

Besides this after retirement a judge should receive pension so that during his tenure he should not indulge in corrupt practices and he should lead a peaceful retired life. Thus in India a judge receives pension after his retirement from service.

5. High Qualification:

For the independence of judiciary it is also important that the judges should be able persons since only an able judge can give correct decisions and express his views freely. Incapable judges are swayed by the arguments of the pleaders and they give wrong decisions. Therefore, in India high qualifications for the judges of High Court and Supreme Court have been prescribed in the Constitution.

6. Separation of Judiciary from the Control of Executive:

For the independence of judiciary Montesquieu emphasised that it should be free of the control of the executive. In ancient and middle ages the Judiciary was under the control of the executive. Hence, there was violation of justice and the kings decided the cases arbitrarily. It destroyed the freedom of the people.

Therefore, today efforts are made to free the judiciary from the control of the executive, so that the judges may give decisions fearlessly. In India, during the British rule, the Deputy Commissioner or the Collector had both executive as well judicial powers.

Consequently, he had sometimes to give wrong decision under the influence of high officials and ministers. In the new Constitution of India under the Directive Principles of State Policy, clear directions have been given to the government that it should make efforts to separate judiciary from executive.

Now in most of the states of India, the judiciary has been made free from the control of the executive, at the district level, and judicial powers have been taken away from the hands of the Deputy Commissioner. These judicial powers have been given to the Additional District Magistrate. There is no control of executive over the High Court and the Supreme Court. Therefore, the judiciary enjoys complete independence in India.

7. No practice after retirement:

The judge should not be allowed to do legal practice after retirement, because his previous colleagues would favour him in the cases in which he appears as a lawyer. In Article 220 of the Indian Constitution it is mentioned that no person who after the commencement of this Constitution has held office as a permanent Judge of a High Court shall plead or act in any court or before any authority in India except the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

Upload and Share Your Article: