[PDF] 4 Theories of Punishment for the Smooth Running of Society

Manu and Chanakya maintained that punishment is the basis of the state. Where there is no punishment, thieves and dacoits rule supreme there. In his well known book “Arthashastra”, Acharya Chanakya explains that if the king awards heavier punishment than justified, people rise in revolt against him and if the king is more lenient than wanted, he is despised by the people and people do not bother about him but if the king awards punishment according to the criminal law to impart justice, he is respected and revered by the people.

So law breakers are convicted, tried and punished in the state. If this is not done, the strong will exploit the weak and people will follow the maxim, “might is right”. Peace, law and order are maintained in the state only because of punishment.

In the absence of punishment, there will be chaos, confusion and disorder in the state and the weak will be exploited and victimized by the strong. Process of punishment is essential for the smooth running of society.

Following are the theories of punishment:

1. Retributive Theory:

Blood for blood is the basis of this theory. Now this right of taking revenge has been taken back by the state. In ancient times, if somebody was murdered, his relatives used to find out the murderer and kill him and thus took revenge on him. The feeling of revenge was nourished by the people from generation to generation. The relatives of the murdered persons thought it their right to take revenge and avenge his murder. The maxim blood for blood was popular in the ancient time.

“Eye for eye and tooth for tooth” was a very popular maxim in those days. Such maxims are still popular in some of the tribes living in border areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Blood for blood is the basis of this theory.

This theory of punishment is very cruel and inhuman. It does not seem to be fit for human beings. It is fit only for uncivilized people or for animals. These days no individual enjoys the right to avenge the murder of his relative. The state conducts the trial and permits the relative to put forward their arguments and imparts justice by punishing the criminal.

By this process of holding a trial and then punishing the criminal, the state attempts to appease the desire of revenge lurking in the heart of the relatives. If the individual is permitted to take revenue, this doctrine wills bad him to barbarism. Anarchy and chaos will prevail in the state. This is the reason why the state has taken this right back from the individual.

2. Preventive and Deterrent Theory:

The supporters of this theory maintain that state should give such type of punishment as will prevent crimes and teach a lesson to other criminals. Keeping this idea in view in olden times, hands and feet of the thieves and decoits were severed and they were made disabled so as not to repeat those crimes.

According to this theory, the state should not take revenge but create so much terror in the mind of the criminal that others also start shunning sue ghastly and despicable crimes. We well remember the works of a judge who uttered the following sentence, while awarding punishment to the criminal”, I am giving punishment to you not because you stole the sheep but because of the fact that people should not steal sheep in future”. This sentence makes it very clear that this theory aims at giving heavy punishment in the form of a warning to others.

3. Reformative Theory:

The supports of Reformative Theory maintain that crime is a kind of disease and the criminal should be treated well so that he may be able to recover from this disease. They maintain that just as a disease is diagnosed before the actual treatment, so crime should be diagnosed and then Proper treatment should be given to the criminal.

Many writers on this subject are of the opinion that a person commits a crime only because he was not taught moral Lessons in his childhood, or he is extremely poor, he does not have square meals or lives or had to live in the polluted social environment or had been living in the company of bad person like thieves, dacoits and gamblers and drunkards or is suffering from some mental disease. The supporters of Reformative theory opine that the government should adopt measures to remove such bad conditions and thus prevent crime.

4. Modern Theory of Punishment:

Modern Theory of Punishment is a combination of all the three theories discussed above. Retributive Theory is applied in the civil courts. In other words, the monetary loss of the sufferer is compensated and the criminal has to compensate for the loss.

Preventive and Deterrent Theory is applied to the old and habitual criminals so that they feel harassed and terrified enough not to repeat the crimes. If the old and habitual criminals are not given severe punishment, law and order cannot be maintained in the state and there will be a rapid increase in the number of criminals.

Therefore, it is wise to punish such criminals severely. By so doing the sufferers are also appeased and the other criminals are warned. Reformative Theory is applied only to the new criminals and juvenile delinquents.

These days education is given to criminals and they are taught the lessons of morality in jails. Not only this they are taught various crafts. Criminal’s sick of mental disease are given due mental treatment. In addition to this, it is also necessary that the state should give punishment according to the degree of crime. If it happens to be a gravest crime, severest punishment should be given, otherwise in case of ordinary crimes mild punishment should be awarded.

There should be separate jails for juvenile delinquents and more comforts should be given to them. Justice should not be delayed and the conditions of jails should be improved. Dark cells should be demolished in order to keep the prisoners in good health.

The state should run dispensaries and reformative schools. While giving punishment to the criminal, his age, personal record and his social and economic conditions should be kept in mind.

In addition to this, the judge should keep it in his mind very well, what effect the punishment, which is to be awarded to him, will leave on the dynasty of the criminal and on the law and order situation in the state. Provision for the Borstal Jail should be made for the juvenile delinquents. The aim of these jails is not to punish but to educate the delinquents.

Locke maintained that punishment should have certain aims:

They are as follows:

(a) The process of punishment should aim at the social good. Severest punishment should be given for the gravest crime and light punishment for a light crime;

(b) The injured persons should be treated well;

(c) Punishment should aim at preventing the criminal from repeating the crime;

(d) Punishment should prove a sort of warning to others.

Green regards man as an ethical being who seeks good life, as a member of a Punishment is the only means to enable the individual to achieve this end. The deterrent punishment, if it is not unnecessarily harsh, can lead to this effect indirectly. It can shock the criminal into realizing the anti-social character of his the importance of the rights of others.

An offender may be reformed not only by awakening his consciousness but also by making him fear the coercive power of the state. In the opinion of Kant, punishment should aim at justice. According to Bentham, the aim of punishment is to maintain peace, law and order.

Is the State empowered to give punishment?

The state is quite empowered to give punishment because the state is sovereign. The state frames laws in order to maintain peace, law and order in the state. The state punishes law-breakers. If the state fails to punish the law-breakers, there will be no law and order and no peace in society.

Evils and crimes will be given impetus and thi
eves, dacoits, robbers and bandits will rule supreme. Being afraid of punishment, thieves, robbers, bandits and dacoits hesitate to commit crimes. In the absence of punishment, the big fish will swallow the small fish and the weak will be exploited by the strong. Only punishment ensures the security of individual liberty.

Upload and Share Your Article:

[PDF] Feminism in Politics: Definition, Development and Types

Feminism in Politics: Definition, Development and Types!

Definition of Feminism:

There are number of definitions of feminism and a very lucid one has been offered by the author of the article published in Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics.

“Feminism is a way of looking at the world which women occupy from the perspective of women. It has at its central focus the concept of patriarchy which can be described as a system of male authority which oppresses women through its social, political and economic institutions. Feminism is, therefore, a critique of patriarchy on the one hand and an ideology committed to women’s emancipation on the other”.

Feminism is, therefore, a doctrine which is concerned with emancipation of women. But broadly speaking the concept embraces other areas of women’s life such as their development, role in political, social, cultural and economic affairs. It also talks about women’s rights and freedom.

The social and political structure have been built up in such a manner that women are not always at par with men in various affairs of society and this has practically given birth to a male-dominated society. Feminism, therefore, wants to highlight the idea that, since women form one-half of the population, social progress (interpreted in all senses) can never be a reality without the complete and spontaneous participation of women.

Feminism vs Feminist Approach to Politics:

Readers here are confronted with two terms—feminism and feminist approach to politics. To remove this confusion the two terms need to be clarified. We have already noted that feminism is a movement whose aim is to accelerate the social role of women because without this role and its advancement all-round progress is practically an impossibility. Hence feminism is an ideology.

But this concept cannot throw sufficient light on feminist approach to politics—when it was strongly felt that without women’s whole-hearted participation in all sorts of social functions neither social development nor their emancipation are possible. Naturally gender equality has become an issue of great importance. In order to ensure women’s participation and realisation of their rights a change in the entire structure of society must be made effective and this can be done only through political machinery—state and its agencies.

A long-drawn movement—both academic and non-academic—can turn this concept into a reality. It is necessary to note here that in real sense feminism and feminist approach to politics are not different ideas or concepts; both are interlinked. Women are to be treated in equal terms with men—this is the basic concept. This is a demand and this has led to a movement. Both academic and non-academic ideas are associated with these two.

Rise and Development of the Concept:

Early History:

Though feminism or feminist approach to politics is chiefly a product of the second half of the twentieth century its origin can be traced as far back as the ancient civilizations of China, Greece and India. In all these countries, from the history we come to know, women had special position and honour and they were found to participate in various affairs of the society.

In Brihadaranyaka Upanishad there are several conversations between Maitreyee and her husband Yajnavalkya which denote that women had freedom and opportunity to actively participate in religious, social, cultural and ethical issues and they could record their valued opinion on these matters. Both in ancient India and China women were respected, Christine de Pisan’s Book of the City of Ladies was published in 1405 and this book foreshadowed many of the ideas of modern feminism.

At the fag end of the eighteenth century several people voiced this resentment against the inappropriate and unequal treatment meted out to women. It was declared that since women form one-half of population and they are moral, intelligent and rational beings they must have equal rights with men.

This concept was vigorously advocated by Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797). She published A Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792. Wollstonecraft wrote the book in the backdrop of the French Revolution (1789). Subsequently the movement earned greater momentum.

Wollstonecraft and Feminism:

We award special treatment to Wollstonecraft’s contribution to the cause of feminism. At the end of the eighteenth century it was really a courageous effort to fight for the cause of women. In the above-noted book she said, “If the abstract rights of man will bear discussion and explanations, those of women, by a parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the same test.”

She also observed that if men are allowed to enjoy freedom and happiness is it not unjust and inconsistent to deprive women of the same? She charged the society with the argument that it is deliberately depriving the women of various rights and freedom and this is done in a calculated way. She asked who made man the exclusive judge. Both men and women have the gift of reason.

But the structure of society makes a discrimination. Wollstonecraft made the following suggestion: Women ought to have representatives, instead of being arbitrarily governed without having any direct share. Here we have given special importance to Wollstonecraft’s view because of the fact that what she said in 1792 is still important and, at the same time, thought-provoking today. The central idea of feminism or feminist approach to politics was forcefully advocated by her. She is regarded as pioneer in this field.

In the 19th and 20th Centuries:

Feminism assumed the character of a movement in the thirties and forties of the nineteenth century. In many parts of USA women gathered at the street corner meetings and demanded equal rights and privileges with men and in the sixties this movement gathered momentum when the demand for the abolition of slavery tormented the entire political scene of USA. Conventions were held at different places of USA and in those conventions women demanded that they would be given equal rights with men.

The women’s movement was particularly strong in the industrially advanced and democratic countries of the West. J. S. Mill (1806-1873) vehemently opposed the tactics to oppress the women’s movement and he strongly advocated political and other rights for women. He criticised the steps taken by the House of Commons for defeating the proposal for women suffrage.

At the beginning of the twentieth century women formed associations and accelerated their movement for the realisation of their demand for suffrage. The movement first started in Britain and France and spread subsequently in other parts of Western Europe.

In some cases the movement was quite militant in nature because the sponsors and supporters of the movement not only campaigned for their cause but also resorted to attacks upon property. This particularly happened in Paris and other areas.

Recent Picture:

Though feminism was a late eighteenth century product its actual development took place in the second half of twentieth century. Particularly after the 1960 the feminist movement began to draw the attention of many serious people of both sides of Atlantic.

The American feminist and political activist Betty Friedan published. The Feminine Mystique in 1963 and immediately after the publication the book created ripples in the academic and political circles. What she emphasise was that the advanced democratic countries of the world were granting several
political and other rights to women and in spite of this the central question of women was far away from any solution.

The main question was the complete emancipation of women from male domination. This question would be solved if women were granted equal rights with men; they were allowed to participate in all affairs of state and society. The arguments of Frieden were accepted by other feminist leaders.

In the seventies and eighties several other books were published in support of the movement and because of this feminism were termed as a wave. Two books were published in 1970. One was Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics (1970) and Germaine Greer’s The Female Eunuch. The publication of these books encouraged the women community to strengthen the movement and men began to take active interest in women’s movement.

Feminist Scholarship Neglected:

A large number of books and pamphlets were published during the last three decades of the twentieth century and all these have more or less agreed that so far as intelligence and scholarship are concerned women are not inferior to men and in spite of this their scholarship fails to receive proper recognition from different quarters.

One critic makes the following observation, “Historically, political science has not been receptive to feminist concerns or for that matter, to women in general. Women either are invisible as political actors or they are seen to be political actors of a peculiar—often deviant—sort”.

In recent years several studies have been conducted by American and British political scientists to investigate the role of women in political science and on the basis of investigation they have arrived at the above conclusion. It has been found that generally men are actors of various political activities and research and academic works are mainly controlled by them.

This type of male domination in the academic world of political science is- not due to the absence of scholarship of women. Rather, their scholarship has been neglected. Some critics have even said that political science is defined as masculine activity. Those characteristics and activities which guide men are called political. On the other hand the activities which are generally performed by women are not categorised as political.

War, election, political manipulation management of political affairs are all subjects of men’s activities. It is not generally assumed that women could successfully participate in all these affairs.

In ancient times political and diplomatic functions were under the full control of men. In fact, women were not permitted to enter into all these domains. It was believed that women are quite eligible for domestic and family matters only. Both the importance and role of women were undervalued and neglected.

This created a lot of resentment in the minds of women and mainly because of that a movement was launched in several parts of the world. If we look at the numerous works and journals on political science we shall find that women are generally neglected. For example, American Political Science Review is a front-ranking journal on political science. A study reveals that between 1949 and 1969 there were articles of 1,000 men along with the articles of only 15 women.

However, some people are of opinion that this neglect is not deliberate. Women are not fit for political activities, they take very little interest in political affairs, they are reluctant to participate in election and political affairs, they lack political knowledge, they do not take interest in forming independent opinion etc.

Liberal Feminism:

Meaning and Exponents:

Feminism or feminist approach to politics has been viewed from different ideological background which has necessitated its classification into liberal, socialist and radical feminism. We shall first focus our attention on liberal feminism.

Liberal feminism means both men and women are entitled to same or equal rights, freedoms and privileges and there is no place of any artificial distinction so far as rights are concerned between men and women. Hence the first point of emphasis of liberal feminism is women like men are human beings and therefore can claim equal rights with them.

The arguments of liberal feminists stand on the basic tenets of political liberalism. Distribution of rights must not be related with distinction of sex or gender. The latter is an absolutely natural phenomenon and it has nothing to do with the distribution of rights or awarding of privileges.

The pioneer of liberal feminism is no doubt Mary Wolstonecraft. After the publication of her famous work A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792) people’s attention to women’s rights was attracted and many people began to think about it seriously. J. S. Mill is another important personality of women’s cause and movement. The Subjection of Women was published in 1869. In the second half of the twentieth century large number of women took the cudgel of women’s cause and Betty Friedan is one of them.

Central Idea of Liberal Feminism:

Central idea of liberal feminism is basically based on individualism. Every person has the right to develop his/her personality and inherent qualities and it is the primary responsibility of the authority to make way for the realisation of this. If rights are essential for men why are the same not essential for women? Naturally women can legitimately claim equal rights with men.

To deprive women of rights in an arbitrary- manner is absolutely unjustified and this cannot be allowed to continue. Any idea of democracy is incomplete if women are not allowed to participate in all the affairs of state. Hence the real meaning of democracy indicates that both men and women must have legitimate share in any are participation. Some feminist activists have endeavoured to associate feminism or equal rights for women concept with happiness.

It is observed that without the possession of equal rights by women there cannot be any happiness and comprehensive development of the inherent qualities that women possess. Guarantee of political rights is the only provider of security and through it women can have access to happiness.

Education is included into rights and the liberal feminists argue that it cannot be the exclusive province of men. Both men and women have the right to the facilities of education. Education enlightens mind and broadens the outlook. When that situation arrives the possession of rights by women will undoubtedly erode the male domination and expand the freedom of women.

Features of Liberal Feminism:

The core idea of liberal feminism is reformism. It does not deal with the thorough change of society through radical revolution. In numerous ways it has expressed its dissatisfaction against the prevailing system of distribution of rights and privileges.

It believes that if the present system of male domination distribution of right etc is reformed in favour of women then the latter will get full opportunity to develop their personality. Liberal feminism does not deny the natural distinction between men and women and it also admits that all sorts of activities cannot be properly performed by women.

This natural distinction must always be kept in mind. What it wants to assert is that the door to all sorts of rights and privileges shall be opened to all and it is the ability and proclivity of mind that will guide the persons.

The state authority shall not be the source of any artificial distinction. Liberal feminism also says that inclination of mind, outlook, preference etc. of men and women are different and this difference must be adhered to at any cost.

For example—women have special fascin
ation for family affairs and this must not be disturbed. It believes that only through appeal, movement, persuasion and other peaceful ways the system of the society can be favourably changed. Militant ways are not necessary. The reformist attitude of liberal feminism is prominent in all respects. From this analysis it is obvious to us that liberal feminism is not willing radical change of the structure of society. Keeping the structure of society intact it wants improvement of women.

Socialist Feminism:

Meaning and Source:

Socialist feminism is quite different from liberal feminism in the sense that while the latter states that the differences between women and men mainly relate to the male domination in all spheres of society and distribution of rights and privileges in favour of men the former is of opinion that relation between women and men is rooted in the social, cultural and economic structure of society. Socialist feminism has no faith in reformism.

A radical social revolution can remedy this deep-rooted evil which is planning the society. Hence we see that the concern of women has been viewed by two groups or schools in a completely different way. ‘If the economic structure of society is not overhauled radically change in the material condition of women will remain a far cry.

At the beginning of the eighties of last century a United Nation report on the condition of women made the following observation. “While women represent 50 percent of the world population, they perform nearly two-thirds of all working hours-, receive one-tenth of world income and own less than 1 percent of world property”. This glaring and disturbing difference between men and women is a clear indicator of how women are neglected and exploited in all countries of the world.

Socialist feminism wants to eliminate permanently the difference and in order to do that the entire economic as well as political structures are to be changed.

Central idea of Socialist Feminism:

Socialist thinkers, particularly Marx and Engels, have exposed the real character of exploitation of women in any capitalist society. Engels has stated several forms of exploitation. A capitalist society is based on private property and the system of private property is always patriarchal. Son is the owner of parents’ property and daughter is thrown out of parental property system.

This is absolutely unjustified and unjust. Daughter’s right and mother’s place—both are overthrown. In this way the exploitation of women becomes the characteristic feature of any capitalistic society. There is a second form of exploitation of women in capitalism and it is the family system. Father is the head of the family and his direction is binding on all. There is no place of mother’s voice or even if she gets any opportunity to raise her voice that is feeble.

In the third place, the chief function of women in family of a bourgeois society is to bear children and manage domestic affairs. Her main function is to do hard work for the satisfaction of men members of the family. Fourthly, women’s cause and interests are neglected and a feeling of sacrifice and to serve others is always inculcated.

Finally, men have the right to satisfy their sexual appetite from extramarital sources which is denied to women. In fact, in a capitalist society, women are second class citizens and they have no place in the policy-making affairs. They cannot freely participate in the domain of politics. To sum up, in a capitalist society there is no proper recognition of women’s merit and intelligence. Though it is exaggerated, there is some truth.

Suggestions of Socialist Feminists:

The picture of women’s status in a capitalist society as depicted above is an ignoble one and it is admitted on all hands that ways to its annihilation must be found out.

(1) The entire capitalist society is based on hypocrisy and through continuous efforts that can be remedied. For this purpose women’s education is essential.

(2) System of private property is to be abolished and if it is not possible the right of daughter to parents’ property must be made a law.

(3) A new system is to be introduced in which the women must have an assertive voice and role and no decision shall be taken without their consent.

(4) The present traditional and patriarchal family system shall be replaced by communal living and family system which was suggested by Plato (427- 347 BC).

(5) Social, economic and political structure of the society should be so restructured as to enable the women to participate in all affairs of the state.

(6) Finally, the radical change in the society is to be effected through a revolution.

Such a revolution will destroy the economic and political system of society and in that place there will come a new society auguring a new life free from all sorts of exploitation. The role of the women will not be restricted to the performer of domestic works and motherhood. So we find that the socialist feminists have viewed the emancipation of women as the central place of feminism.

Exact Position of Marx and Engels:

A recent study has exhibited that though some general views can be formulated about the stand taken by Marx and Engels in regard to feminism both of them did not take special interest in it. “Considerable tension has existed between Marxist approach to feminism and political practice and Marx himself offers in his own writings little encouragement of feminism. Engels, on the other hand, adopted throughout his life a more auspicious attitude to feminism. Although Marxists have often regarded feminism as one of a number of “bourgeois deviations” from the revolutionary path, while feminists have often regarded Marxism as unwilling to give priority to gender equality”.

It is a fact that Marx and Engels did not take special interest about feminism and it is perhaps due to the belief that they were primarily concerned with the general welfare of all sections of people. Hence women in particular did not draw their attention specifically.

It was their conviction that the abolition of capitalist form of society through a protracted class struggle would ultimately bring about a general emancipation, including women. From the study of history they came to learn that slavery of women was due to capitalist system and if this is abolished no special movement would be required to establish the rights of women.

Radical Feminism:

Meaning and Definition:

The very term radical feminism implies that it is different from liberal and socialist feminism. Radical feminism focuses its attention on the fact that half the population comprises women and the patriarchal structure is that this half is controlled and guided by the other half consisting of men and until and unless this patriarchal structure is abolished there is not the remotest possibility of emancipation of women. “Radical feminists, therefore, proclaim the need for a sexual revolution, a revolution that will, in particular, restructure personal, domestic and family life.”

The well known and characteristic slogan of radical feminism is thus the “personal is the political”. What radical feminism asserts is that it is the oppression of women which is the sole cause of their all-round backwardness and without the abolition of this oppression development or favourable change of women’s physical and psychological condition will remain a distant possibility.

Again, without revolution this change cannot be achieved. Any sporadic efforts and lackadaisical attitude are absolutely insuffi
cient in bringing about general emancipation of women from the well-guarded clutches of patriarchal society. Piecemeal efforts are absolutely insufficient for the attainment of coveted goals—an emancipation of women. The entire society is to be restructured.

Central idea of Radical Feminism:

The basic difference between the liberal and socialist feminism lies in the fact that it has built up a systematic theory about women’s progress and in doing this it has highlighted the oppression, cause of oppression, the methods to combat it, and all sorts of related issues and matters. In all societies both developed and underdeveloped women in numerous ways are oppressed. Men play the pioneering role in oppressing the women.

Men have forced the women to believe that academically and intellectually women are inferior to men and for that reason they are not considered quite fit for providing adequate leadership in society. This mentality has taken its deep roots in society and any attempt on the part of women to develop themselves is discouraged.

In this way the injustice and suppression have become the characteristic feature of society. The term injustice is a broad term and it has several meanings such as sexual exploitation, racial discrimination, class oppression. In India, women are not always the victims of class exploitation but also of caste exploitation. Women belonging to so-called lower caste are denied of certain legal rights. In many Western countries women are not at par with men in respect of political and economic rights.

The ways of exploiting women are well-calculated and sometimes these are supported by authority. Legal, political and economic structure of our society is so framed that it is very difficult for women to get justice. It is said that they are legally dispossessed. Maitrayee Mukhopadhyay says so in Legally Dispossessed.

Some Exponents:

There are a large number of exponents who have analysed the radical nature of feminism from their own angles. But on several points or junctions they meet together. One of the earliest radical feminists is Simone de Beauvoir (1906-1986). Beauvoir was a French novelist. Beauvoir’s The Second Sex was published in 1949 and this book created tremendous impact upon the public mind.

According to Beauvoir the status and physical condition of women are determined not by natural differences between women and men but by the social and material conditions and forces and they are created by men and forcibly imposed upon women to satisfy the demands of patriarchy. Protracted efforts and radical revolution are the only ways to free women.

Kate Millett is an American author whose Sexual Politics was published in 1970. In this book she argued that in societies there are several forces and institutions which were created generations ago and have maintained their activity.

From the very childhood both boys and girls are in various ways indoctrinated in the line that girls are inferior to boys and this difference is due to physical differences bestowed upon them by nature. Both men and women, because of these natural differences, are not fit for all sorts of work. Millet believes that the chief source of women’s oppression is patriarchy and this can be removed by annihilating patriarchy, But this task is quite an uphill one and a multipronged attack is necessary to emancipate women.

One such way is consciousness of women shall be raised so that they can fight against all types of oppression and exploitation. She also says that political authority is to be restructured so that it can fight against oppression. She observes that prevailing social, political and economic structure is not suitable for fight. Women’s liberation thus requires a revolutionary change.

Firestone in her The Dialectic of Sex has issued feminism and the emancipation of women from different angle. She says that the biological differences between men and women cannot be obliterated all of a sudden. However, for the emancipation women, men are to come forward and this they can do by implementing the most modern and sophisticated techniques.

They can easily free them from child bearing and child-rearing. The use of contraceptives can stop pregnancy. Non-governmental organisations are to be formed which may take the charge of children. Both men and women can easily share the domestic affairs. Above all, modernisation and development are the most effective means of emancipation and without a radical social, economic and political change these can never be achieved. A revolution is thus the best way.

Women and Political Science:

“Women are Systematically Ignored”:

On a different perspective it has been pointed out that the intellect and wisdom of women have not been duly recognised in political science. In recent years, women scholars began to study the different branches of political science and they were surprised to find that in this subject there are many paradigms and these do not make any due recognition of the importance of women and, as a result of it, in the entire system of analysis there are many gaps and distortions.

This created a lot of resentment in the minds of women scholars of the discipline. The male scholars of political science and its various branches have built up theoretical and conceptual frameworks without mentioning the contribution of women. The tangible consequence is all the paradigms and conceptual frameworks have remained incomplete. Sometimes these have deliberately distorted the importance of women’s scholarship.

The women scholars, have questioned the veracity of various paradigms and conceptual frameworks. This approach of women scholars is quite natural because no discipline can claim its development complete without proper recognition of women scholars. Even if any discipline suffers from scarcity of women scholars attempts shall be made to arouse the interests of women.

Politics is a Masculine Product:

Only one aspect of male-dominated politics, that is theoretical, is highlighted. But there is a vast field of political science, which is a practical one. In ail industrialised developed countries of the world there are well-organised institutions and well-built administrative structure. In democracies all these do function well to satisfy the requirements of the authority and they do not leave any stone unturned to cater the interests of elite groups and ruling class.

But there is a dark corner behind this so- called well-illuminated and highly publicised picture. Let us see how a critic puts the matter “Historically, the actions of governments have been the actions of men, their politics—both foreign and domestic, have been made by men”.

All aspects of domestic and foreign affairs are more or less dominated by men. Even policies are determined by men. Women’s function and responsibility practically terminate at the point of exercising right to vote. This function we may call peripheral.

Because women are not fully and deeply involved in these functions such as policy-making and policy- implementation. The majority policy-makers of all the developed countries of the world are men. “Concepts such as justice, equality, citizen participation, democracy, political obligation, social contract theory were developed by men”.

Gender-Bias in Early Politics:

In order to have a clear idea about the importance or role of women in politics/political science it is necessary that attention should be focused on ancient literature of politics. Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics have not paid due consideration to the contribution of women to the academ
ic analysis of political science and other subjects.

In the constitution, management and administration of ideal state women’s role is almost absent. The guardian class devotes the time and energy to the cause of ideal state and it is capable of doing this because this class is completely relieved of the day-to-day drudgery of earning livelihood and this is performed by slaves, women and workers.

Thus we see that the ideal state is built upon the wisdom of guardian class consisting of men only. But the common sense knowledge teaches us that the wealth, intellect and prosperity of the ideal state could not be built sans the hard labour of women. Aristotle made a compromise between private life and public life by subordinating the former to the latter.

Men will enjoy freedom and leisure so that they can pursue political and intellectual activities and women are the providers of leisure and freedom. Middle Ages could not produce any remarkable political scientist.

But, however, all sorts of political activities were dominated by men. In Middle Ages politics was controlled by religion and religion was controlled by men. In Machiavelli’s The Prince we find the same thing. Women were subordinated to men. Rousseau and other thinkers did not make any concession for women.

A Change in Attitude is Necessary:

If we look at the history of Western political thought we shall come across two clear opposite trends. Firstly, political theory is by and large dominated by the thoughts and ideas expanded by male political scientists which may lead one to think that women have no contribution. The other trend is that there have been challenges to this notion. Political theory and political affairs cannot be the exclusive domains of male thinkers.

There are a very good number of political scientists of the women category. But the tragedy is that their contribution has failed to draw attention and proper recognition. Women are quite capable of thinking political theory in a befitting manner and they can also participate in political affairs.

For the proper recognition of women’s contribution it is essential that males must change their attitude. Everywhere the common term “individual” is used. But individual includes both men and women and to reach this goal men must change their attitude. In today’s democracy the unitary concept prevails. But a real democracy is of a federal character.

It is managed and flourished by both men and women. In a real democracy there is no place of sexual difference. The patriarchal character of modern society deliberately ignores the importance of women. This outlook must change out and out. There are physiological differences between man and woman which have nothing to do with the political theory.

Recent Trends:

There have been occurred some encouraging trends in recent years. They have taken place in large scale in industrialised societies of West and in a smaller scale in the developing societies of the Third World. One trend is qualified and able women are participating in administration which was previously a male domain.

It has been found that women have all ‘the good qualities required for running and managing administration. Another trend is in almost all the spheres of public life women have entered into the keen competition with men. These two spectacular trends have enormously strengthened the position of women in the academic sphere. Even many male academicians have persuasively argued that women are at par with men in so far as their intellect is concerned.

All combinedly have encouraged women to come forward with their intellects and ideas and they have considerably enriched political thought. Women’s participation in political affairs, in compared with earlier ages, has also increased.

This makes democracy participatory in its true sense. Many states of both West and East are making concessions to women so that they can compete with men in all spheres. In spite of all these the cause of the women is still a neglected domain and women are variously battered by the patriarchal structure of society.

Conclusion:

In almost all the states of the Third World women are deprived of basic rights and privileges. Their role in policy-making and management is far below the expectation. Only a very few women win elections and happen to be law-makers. In academic fields the number of women is rising but here again the number is not up to the desirable limit.

In family and social affairs they are not at par with men. The rate of the progress of women in the developing nations is so slow that it can reasonably be called a frustration. Because of this, it is alleged, women’s cause, ideas ad intellect are not duly reflected in the policies and decisions.

Even the academic outputs in different disciplines are not satisfactory at all. In family, in society, in politics and in the affairs of the state women are subject to exploitation. There must be an end to all kinds of exploitation.

Upload and Share Your Article:

[PDF] Nozick’s Theory of Libertarianism (Several Aspects)

Libertarianism and Liberalism:

Hayek’s theory of liberalism shows that he has defended classical liberalism but not unconditionally. He makes certain modifications which are in tune with the prevailing circumstances. We shall now focus our attention on Nozick’s theory of libertarianism. Before that we, however, like to clear one point—is there any difference between liberalism and libertarianism? We have defined and analysed liberalism. Now we shall see what is libertarianism.

In the opinion of COD libertarianism is an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens. This dictionary meaning has been fully endorsed by the political scientists and political philosophers. A recent critic’s (Andrew Heywood) definition may be quoted here: “Libertarianism refers to a range of theories that give strict priority to liberty over other values such as authority, tradition and equality. Libertarians thus seek to maximising the realm of individual freedom and minimise the scope of public authority, typically seeing the state as the principal threat to liberty”.

Apparently there is no distinction between libertarianism and liberalism but a close scrutiny of these two concepts reveals that there is a difference. Libertarianism, it is being held by many, is an extreme form of liberalism. Libertarianism views liberty in negative sense. It offers a long list of “dos” and “do nots” on the part of the state and, needless to say, that the latter far exceeds the former.

Thus libertarianism makes the state almost a puppet political organisation. Even libertarianism does not recognise the place or influence of social order. Human freedom, according to libertarianism, is the last word about any political organisation and its relation to individuals.

Libertarianism not only gives priority to individual freedom but it demands that it should be protected and flourished at any cost. If the individuals are allowed to protect and enjoy their liberty in a maximum way the power and authority of the state should be minimised. It thus appears to us that in view of libertarianism the individuals shall enjoy maximum liberty and the stable shall have minimum power. All the social and political organisations shall be restructured in such a way as to achieve this goal.

But libertarianism cannot be equated with anarchism. The latter pronounces the idea of winding-up the state because it is unnecessary. On the other hand, libertarianism advocates the utility of state, but that utility is minimum. On this consideration, libertarians have argued for a minimal state theory.

Robert Nozick (1938-2002) is a great apostle of libertarianism. Dr. Amartya Sen in his recent work, Development as Freedom (2000) points out that Nozick has given priority to rights which is a demanding version of libertarianism. But in his latter years he has been found to support a type of liberalism which is slightly different from libertarianism.

Several Aspects of Libertarianism:

The State and Libertarianism:

We have just now concluded an analysis which throws briefly some light on libertarianism and in this background we shall see Nozick’s theory of libertarianism. An important aspect of his libertarianism is the theory of minimal state. Earlier we referred to night watchman state which implies that the chief task of the state is confined to providing security and taking measures against violence, theft and fraud. It is also its duty to enforce contract and laws that are designed to achieve above aims.

Beyond these specifications the state will have nothing to do and if it makes any attempt to cross this limitation liberties and rights of the individuals will face challenge. In Nozick’s book we find: “…a minimal state limited to the narrow functions ….. is justified,…. that any more extensive state will violate person’s rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is justified, and the minimal state is inspiring as well as right”.

From this statement of Nozick we can draw few conclusions:

(1) A minimal state is one which tries to satisfy itself by discharging minimum functions. Nozick does not think that beyond this the state has anything to do.

(2) Like the classical liberals, Nozick assumes that the individuals are rational and reasonable and capable to safeguard their rights and liberties. If the individuals fails to protect their rights then and then only the state’s responsibility arises; otherwise the state will maintain its neutrality.

There is a very common argument that for the purpose of general welfare the state should interfere with the freedom of the individual. It is not surprising that Nozick has rejected this argument outright. He says: “the state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection”.

Nozick claims that he has taken the anarchist view of state at least partially. Anarchist thinkers oppose tooth and nail the power or coercive power of state. Although Nozick does not subscribe to the view of anarchists he admits that there are reasons in anarchism. He says that by imposing its decisions upon the citizens or forcing them to do something the state will violate the rights of the individuals and this act of the state is immoral.

The anarchists also called the application of monopoly power by the state immoral. The difference between anarchist and Nozick is that the latter allows minimum use of power. Nozick apprehends that if anarchist theory of state is strictly adhered to ultimately people’s liberty may face problem. There will be none to check fraud or violence. So in his views minimal state and libertarianism are both compatible conceptions.

Ultra-minimal State and Libertarianism:

Nozick has devised another concept of state and it is ultra-minimal state. He defines: “we can imagine at least one social arrangement intermediate between the scheme of private protective associations and the night watchman state. Since the night watchman state is often called minimal state we call this other arrangement the ultra-minimal state. An ultra-minimal state maintains a monopoly over all the use of force …….. but it provides protection and enforcement services only to those who purchase its protection and enforcement policies”.

In the scheme of ultra-minimal state some people enter into contract with the protective agency or the agency of the ultra-minimal state for the purchase of protection. Some people pay extra funds for the protection they get from the ultra-minimal state authority. Here some people will receive the protection of rights in exchange of money they spend. But, at the same time, other’s rights get violated.

Nozick’s observatism is, A proponent of ultra-minimal state may seem to occupy an inconsistent position…….. Greatly concerned to protect rights against violation, he makes this the legitimate function of the state, and he protests that all other functions are illegitimate because they themselves involve the violation of rights. Since he accords paramount place to the protection of rights how can he support the ultra-minimal state which would leave some persons’ rights unprotected”.

Inviolability and Libertarianism:

An important aspect of libertarianism explained and illustrated by Nozick is that he has emphasised the inviolability of individuals which also indicates inviolability of individuals’ rights and liberties. In this connection he refers to Kant’s (1724-1804) famous words—individuals
are ends and not merely means.

The means or tool is something other than the individuals. Most of the philosophers treat the state as a tool and the individual as ends. This denotes individuals cannot be used and sacrificed for the attainment of the objectives of others. If the question of sacrifice arises, the consent of the concerned individuals shall be obtained.

This is the exact situation. Robert Nozick impresses on us that liberty or consent of the individuals is of prime importance and that cannot be ignored. John Locke said the same thing—on every sphere of body politic beginning from its formation right up to the day-to-day administration the consent of the individuals must be sought and Nozick has endorsed Locke’s argument. Some have argued that for the sake of social good some persons may be asked to make sacrifice for others. But Nozick refuses to buy this argument.

His argument is that “there is no social entity with a good that undergoes some sacrifice for its own good”. He concludes that there is no justified sacrifice of some of us for others” (emphsis added). To summarise the argument one individual cannot be sacrificed for another—he and his rights are inviolable.

Entitlement and Libertarianism:

The most important part of Nozick’s theory of libertarianism is his theory of entitlement. Dr. Amartya Sen in his recent book (Freedom as Development) says, “I return to the issue of complete priority of rights including property rights in the more demanding versions of libertarian theory. For example, in Nozick’s theory, the entitlements that people have through the exercise of these rights cannot, in general, be overweighed because of their results”. Dr. Sen calls the rights described by Nozick as the “uncompromising priority of libertarian rights”. Nozick’s theory of libertarianism is, in fact, based (largely) on his theory of entitlement—entitlement to property.

The right to property or the entitlement to property can be traced to Locke. If we thoroughly study the arguments advanced by Nozick we shall find that he is definitely uncompromising towards the enjoyment of rights, particularly right to property.

The right of individuals to property is inviolable which means that this right cannot be aggressed upon by others. For this reason Prof. Sen calls it “uncompromising priority”. According to Nozick entitlement to property is based on acquisition. This may be of three different types. One is original acquisition. It means that people acquire property or holding through the process of acquiring un-held property or things.

This most probably relates to the holdings of the state of nature discussed by Locke. When the people abandoned the state of nature and laid the foundation of civil society there was large amount of un-held property which people acquired and their rights upon the property were firmly established.

The right of the original acquirer cannot be violated. Property can again be acquired through transfer. One can transfer his property to his next generation or to any owner person and if this is legally done the transfer is also legal and the owner of the property has complete right over this property. This right cannot be violated.

On the issue of the transfer of property and the establishment of right on it Nozick’s analysis covers several aspects and most important of them are theory of justice, theory of right and the theory of libertarianism. Once a man’s right on property or holding is completely established, he is fully entitled to right—the right to have property and to use it for his personal purposes and he will even have the right to bequeath it to anybody.

Nozick claims that the entitlement theory has far reaching implications. It not only establishes the right of the individual to property, it also justifies the liberty to use the holding according to his wishes. If an individual receives a just holding in the just way then the right and liberty will be uncompromising— this is libertarianism.

Libertarianism and Utopia:

For the proper functioning and development of libertarianism Nozick has devised three types of state because only in a state there can exist libertarianism. The first type is minimal state. The second type is ultra-minimal state which is to some extent extensive state, and finally the Utopian state.

According to Nozick the minimal state is legitimate and justified because the rights and liberties of the individuals are not generally violated. The state (minimal) has not been given any power to intervene the rights and liberties. But the extensive state cannot be justified. He argues that extensive state is morally justified, but it violates the rights of the individuals.

Finally, there remains a state which fulfills the aspiration of Utopian in nature. There is a “morally favoured state, the only morally legitimate state, the only morally tolerable state is the one that best realises the Utopian aspirations of untold dreamers and visionaries”.

In the light of Nozick’s analysis we can hold the view that only in a utopia libertarianism can flourish. Nozick is very cautious and he proceeds very cautiously. The concept of Utopian state, though used in a restricted sense, can best serve the aspirations and imaginations of citizens.

In the last chapter of his book Anarchy, State and Utopia he has elaborated the scheme and practical working of the Utopia. This concept of Nozick is highly provocative but not above criticism. A large number of critics disagree with Nozick because they do not believe that a utopia can be in conformity with the protection of liberty.

Routes to Utopia:

Nozick in unambiguous term has stated that if we actively consider the multiplicity of individuals’ behaviour, attitude, aspirations and fascinations, we shall find that only a state reorganised on the model of utopia can serve our purpose. Hence Utopia is the final word so far as libertarianism is concerned. Now the problem is how to make the utopia a reality?

Nozick suggests different routes to Utopia:

(1) The first has been stated by Nozick in the following way. The first solution is Meta-utopia. “Utopia is a meta-utopia. The environment in which Utopian experiments may be tried out, the environment in which people are free to do their own thing, the environment which must, to a great extent, be realised first if more particular Utopian visions are to be realised stably”.

The fact is that within the vast compass of meta-utopia people will have enough opportunities and freedoms and this meta-utopia will be considerably suitable for all sections of people having different outlooks, attitudes etc. They will also have scope to make experiments on various issues.

In the second place, there shall be provision of several communities and the individuals shall have freedom to select any one of the communities which will be in conformity with their values and ideas. There shall exist no command system and all the communities will peacefully coexist.

John Gray, interpreting Nozick’s views, calls these communities institutions. Nozick calls this arrangements as smorgasbord conception of utopia. Smorgasbord means a range of open sandwiches and savory delicacies. We can summarily say that Nozick’s proposed utopia is unique and it is capable of meeting all sorts of demands of all individuals or most of them.

“The third route to the framework for utopia is based on the fact that people are complex”. Nozick has drawn our attention to the numerous diverse characteristics of men. It is as complex as webs. Nozick makes the following observation: “Given the enormous complexity of man his many desires, aspirations, impulses, talents, mistakes, loves, silliness, given the thickness of his intertwined and interrelated levels, facets, relationshi
ps and given the complexity of interpersonal institutions and relationships and the complexity of coordination of actions of many people, it is enormously unlikely that it could be arrived at in this a priori fashion”.

Nozick wants to emphasise that any modern state is very complex and there is no way to eliminate these multiple characters of men. It is practically impossible to build up a utopia embracing all these diverse features. But there is no scope to wipe out all these features. Nozick’s moot point is that a libertarian society is to be structured admitting them.

Meta-utopia:

We have already referred to the idea of meta-utopia floated by Nozick. People will make Utopian experiments and after adopting the process of elimination they will decide on the utopia which will suit their temperament, attitude, talents, impulses, aspirations etc. He calls the process of elimination filtering process. There are several alternatives and out of them the most appropriate alternative will be selected by the people.

In the method of selection the people will take the assistance of their past experience and acquired knowledge. Here by alternatives we mean different societies. People will scan various aspects of these societies, they may criticise some and finally select one which they think most suitable for them. An important precondition of structuring an appropriate Utopia is there must exist many communities with various structures and aims.

In the process of selection and restructure of community, Nozick says, people will have abundant freedom; they will have sufficient knowledge about their aim and the working of the communities. Nozick has made a detailed analysis about several aspects of the formation of utopia. Our point is by suggesting a utopia and its administration Nozick has placed himself at the front row of libertarian or at the top position. He is really an uncompromising libertarian and we can say this stand makes him an impractical libertarian.

Upload and Share Your Article:

[PDF] Theory of Liberal State: Definition, Features and Development

Meaning and Definition of Liberal State:

Whether the theory is liberal or conservative that is not our prime concern, concern is if the state is liberal —to what extent and in which fashion the state adopts liberal methods and processes for the administration and enactment of laws. Liberalism, in a sense, means to shun conservativeness or avoid restrictions in policy making, enactment and admin­istration of state.

How shall we explain the liberal state? It is not easy to give a precise definition of “liberal” because in different periods of history the term has been used in different senses and no one sense/meaning is final. Very often “neo”, “classical”, “modern” are prefixed before liberal and this process changes the meaning of liberal. The liberal state is, however, one that adopts liberal principles, policies and methods.

The idea is still not clear. What are liberal and illiberal principles and policies? It means that to take or adopt a liberal attitude towards the rights, privileges, functions and various other things of the citizens. It has been assumed that the restrictions or any type of conservativeness adopted by the government will curb the liberty and, simulta­neously, the spontaneity of the individuals leading to the slow-down of growth of man’s personality individuality and inherent qualities.

So, a liberal state denotes a limited government or limited state. It can also be called a theory of limited state introduced by a number of thinkers. The term limited state may be confusing. It exactly means limited functions and role of the state or non-intervention of state.

The concept of liberal state can also be explained from another standpoint. It has been maintained by a recent critic that all strands of liberal era confer certain rights and privileges upon persons and these must be protected at any cost. So a liberal state is one which gives priority to the cause of the individuals. In the controversy ‘individual vs state’ liberal state always favours the interest/cause of individuals.

The liberal state is, thus, opposite to conservative, authoritarian and totalitarian state. The dictionary meaning of liberal is—respectful and accepting of behaviour or opinions, different from others. A state is liberal when it acknowledges the opinions, attitudes and behaviour of individuals and does not think these as a threat to the existence and administration of state.

There are differences among the political philosophers and political scientists as to the functions of liberal state, but there is a common strand among them all—and it is that individuals must have maximum freedom so that their free development does not receive any setback due to state policy or action.

Features of the Liberal State:

A liberal state can easily be distinguished from an authoritarian or totalitarian state and this is because of certain unique features of such a state:

1. A liberal state always adopts a liberal attitude towards the rights of citizens. Mention has been made that the most vital precondition of individual’s development is granting of rights and privileges to all individuals equitably.

If any inequality or discrimination is to be followed that must be for the general interest of the body politic and to the least disadvantage of anybody. By resorting to this system the authority of the liberal state will be in a position to ensure the progress of the individuals. In precise term liberalism implies what is granted in the forms of rights and privileges to one shall also be granted to others.

2. Liberal state presupposes the existence of many groups and organisations and the characteristic feature of a liberal state is they are engaged in cooperation and conflict among themselves. These groups are termed in various ways such as “power elite” “ruling elite” etc. There are also many interest groups.

Under normal and peaceful conditions liberal state does not normally intend to impose restrictions upon their activities. In an authoritarian state the prevalence of such a situation cannot be imagined. Plurality of ideas and organisations is a forbidden fruit in such a state.

3. The liberal state maintains a neutrality among all these groups. Since multiplicity of groups and organisations and coexistence among them are the characteristic features of a liberal state any conflict or clash of interests can also be regarded as inevitable consequence. Here the question is: What would be the exact role of the state in this situation? The liberal state maintains utmost neutrality.

This is the claim of the votaries of a liberal state. The liberal state normally does not favour any particular class or elite group in the case of conflict. Though the state maintains neutrality the state is quite aware of clash of interests between classes and groups. As a provider of check and stability in the political system the state adopts reforms so that destabilization cannot occur.

A liberal state can reasonably be called a reformist state. Through frequent reforms a liberal state brings about changes in the political system. In fact, liberalism or liberal state is closely linked with reforms and in that sense it is based on reformism. It adopts liberal attitude to reforms.

4. The important feature of a liberal state is it is accountable to the citizenry which means that all its activities, decisions and policies are to be approved by the body politic. The consent and accountability is the twin ideas associated with the liberal state.

It means that the decision of the state is not final even though it is for the general welfare of the community. It is because what is welfare and what is not, is to be decided for whom it is meant. There is no scope of imposing anything upon the individuals against their will.

5. Liberal state is never a one-idea state; it embraces multiplicity of ideas, views and existence of numerous groups and parties. This finally indicates a competition among them. Competition involved seizure of political power through constitutional means, legal procedure and democratic ways, competition in views and ideas.

It is believed that the truth will emerge only from this struggle of words and ideas. That is why in a liberal state such a competition is always encouraged. J. S. Mill strong advocated for the competition among the different shades of views and ideas.

6. A liberal state cannot be imagined without political parties; and this is not all. In any liberal state there are number of ideas number of political parties and they struggle to capture power. Here lies a major difference between a liberal state and authoritarian state. A liberal state is sometimes called a pluralist state because of the plurality of ideas and organisations.

A competitive party system is a very important aspect of a liberal state. One party captures power, while the other party or parties sit in the opposition and in this way the change in power takes place which does not normally occur in dictatorial state. It has been maintained by a critic that modern parties are mass organisations with extra-parliamentary structure.

7. Separation of power is generally regarded as a feature. A liberal state means limited state and it again implies the three organs of the state will discharge this function keeping themselves within the confinement decided by law and constitution. When this is implemented no organ of the government will interfere with the functions and jurisdiction of another organ.

But the separation of powers need not be the only precondition of being liberal. For example, Britain is a liberal state but the separation of powers has failed to be an integral part of state machinery. But some forms of separation of power must exist in all liberal states. The separation of power of USA is different from that of
U.K.

8. A liberal state does not endorse the domination of a particular ideology, various opinions or ideologies work and exist side by side. It is a state of multiple ideas, ideals ideologies and views and all of them enjoy ample opportunities and atmosphere for work. In a non-liberal state such a situation is unimaginable.

In authoritarian regimes the state-sponsored ideology dominates over all other ideologies. Both fascism and communism fall in this category. The citizens are free to select any one idea or ideology and application of force is non-existent.

9. In all liberal states there are mainly two centres of power—one is economic and the other is political. But the interesting fact is that economic power-centre controls the political power. Marx emphasizes this aspect of liberal state.

From the study of history he came to know that the owners of the sources of production and the controllers of distribution in all possible means control the political power for the furtherance of the interest of the capitalist class. They control parties, pressure groups, send their own persons to represent people, the legislatures enact laws to safeguard the interests of the ruling class.

10. There is no fixed form of liberal state. For example, we find in Britain a constitutional monarchy. There is clear incongruity between monarchism and liberalism. But the mere fact is that Britain is a liberal state. On the other hand, United States is also a liberal state with constitutional republic in character.

The head of the state is President and if he exercises all his constitutional powers with a nefarious motive he can become a real dictator. France and Russia are also liberal states though the administrative machineries in these two states are different. With a different constitutional machinery, Switzerland is also a liberal state.

Development of Liberal State:

Hobbes:

The concept of liberal state is an old one. The exact emergence of a liberal state cannot be ascertained which can satisfy one and all. However, scholars are of opinion that hints about the liberal state can be found in the writings of social contract theoretician Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). In his two noted works De due (1642) and Leviathan (1651) he made certain statements and comments which lay the foundation of liberal thought or about the liberal state. Though the hints are not always explicit, the hints are undeniable. The basis of the state or civil society is the individuals who are free and equal. It implies that these free and equal individuals without being induced or forced by external authority or power decided to build up a civil society.

The state imagined by Hobbes is liberal because it is based on the consent of all the individuals. Hobbes’s individuals lived in an imaginary place called state of nature which was characterised by insecurity and in order to get rid of it they laid the foundation of state.

Hobbes also conceived of a state which would be based on rules and law. That is his state is a legitimate one. Today, when we talk of a liberal state, legitimation always occupies a major portion in our mind. Though Hobbes is normally depicted as an illiberal thinker who wanted an authoritarian government, his writings fore­shadow a limited government. He said that though the sovereignty is absolute he cannot prevent a person from taking food, medicine and take action against any assault.

Sovereign has no power to inflict any injury upon any individual. It cannot prevent anybody from practising religious acts and following particular faiths In simple language, Hobbes thought of a limited state which is a liberal state Of course his concepts about liberal state or liberalism are different from what we in the present day think.

Locke and Liberal State:

John Locke (1632-1704) is another thinker whose writings are the potential sources of liberal state. In fact, his entire Second Treatise (1690) is full of numerous statements and comments which show that he was a great apostle of liberal state.

Some points are stated below to enlighten the readers:

1. The civil society or body politic is the product of the contract which is based on the consent of all men. The consent is a basic element of any liberal state.

2. The state/body politic/civil society would be administered on the principle of majority opinion and this principle is followed very strictly in any modern liberal state.

3. The governors of the body politic must follow the terms and conditions laid down in the body of the contract and any failure will be followed by the removal of the governors from the authority and this would be done by people.

4. It is the primary function of the state to take necessary action for the protection of life, liberty and property. Today we call these rights basic and no responsible government can avoid the responsibility.

The protection of these basic rights imposes restrictions upon the governors of state. Locke came to the conclusion that people of the state of nature because of the non-existence of proper authority and clear law, could not enjoy the right to life, liberty and property and this encouraged them to form a state.

5. A very important element of liberal state is constitutionalism. It has been claimed by protagonists of liberalism that Locke is the father of constitutionalism. He fervently argued that the authority of the civil society must discharge its responsibility strictly in accordance with the constitution of law. It is the most powerful limitation on state.

6. Locke whole heartedly supported the revolution, bill of right and settlement of 1688. The purpose of all these was to impose constitutional limitations upon the authority of the Crown in England. He strongly objected the concept of Leviathan devised by Hobbes. It is to be noted here that Locke’s idea about revolution is different from what we think about it today. People will revolt if authority fails to act in accordance with, the terms of contract.

7. Locke’s state is a fiduciary trust and the core idea of trust is its powers are very limited by the terms contained in the trust. The persons in charge of the trust have no power to violate the rules.

In the same way we can say that a liberal state is to some extent a trust which performs certain duties. The state cannot do anything beyond what it has been asked to do. This point has been elaborated by J. C. McClelland in his History of Western Political Thought.

8. A significant element of liberal state is the concept of society vs the state. Locke conceived of a society which was pre-political but not pre-social. Locke’s society had no political colours or political function but it possessed all the social features. Some thinkers have concluded that Locke gave priority to society than the state.

Society was prior to state. Naturally society was more important than the state. In such a situation the state cannot be allowed to override the society. Today all the defenders of liberal state think in these terms. We therefore conclude that Locke’s is limited state which we today call liberal state and in this assertion there is no ambiguity.

Liberal State and Utilitarian Thinkers:

The three great utilitarian thinkers—Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), James Mill (1773-1836) and J.S. Mill (1806-1873) conceived of a state whose chief function would be to protect the democratic rights of the citizens and ensure, through the adoption of measures, the free functioning of democracy. It is the function of the state to protect the citizens from all sorts of oppression.

From the functions of different states we gather the impression that the citizens are subject to different forms of coercion, and oppressive measures and it is the duty of the state to pro
vide maximum protection to all of them. David Held in his noted work Models of Democracy has drawn our attention to this aspect of democracy. A liberal state cannot perform all types of functions; its main duty is to protect the democratic rights.

The utilitarian thinkers stridently argued that the individual is the ultimate determiner of the policy and decisions of the government. This he will do on the basis of utility which he expects to receive from the policy adopted by the state. The utilitarian philosophers have said that every piece of law or decision must be judged by its capacity to provide satisfaction. That is, to what extent the law is capable of fulfilling the demand of the citizens. The implication is very simple.

The state authority is deprived of the power to do anything or adopt any policy. The utility is a criterion which imposes restrictions upon the functions of the state. The utilitarian philosophers had no faith on social contract, natural rights and natural law. It is because all these do not deal with the utility or necessity of the individuals.

Bentham, James Mill and John Stuart Mill combinedly have provided in clearest terms the basis of liberal democratic state which will create congenial atmosphere for the implementation of democratic rights and liberties and the individuals will have ample scope to pursue their own interests effectively.

There shall not exist any arbitrary intervention of state, free market economy will operate without any state interference, the role of the state will be just like an umpire or a referee. The state will act in accordance with laws and the basic rules. Naturally the functions of the state are not unlimited.

The utilitarian philosophers did not contemplate of separation of powers in the line of Montesquieu (1689-1755) but they felt that concentration of powers in the hands of a single person or branch is harmful for the realisation of democratic principle.

In order to establish people’s right and the expansion of the scope of participation all of them forcefully advocated for periodic elections, granting liberty to press and other media, importance of public opinion etc. Not only the rights and interests of the individuals are to be protected but also the interests of the community in general are to be sustained.

Both Bentham and J. S. Mill believed that the representative form of government could be the real solution to all problems from which democracy/liberal state suffered. We thus see that liberal state was always active in the minds of the utilitarian philosophers.

Minimum State vs. Limited State:

Nozick and several others strongly favour the concept of minimal state which means that the powers of the state should be cut drastically in order to enable the individuals to enjoy maximum liberty. But this concept has not been widely supported by all political scientists on the grounds that the word “minimum” is full of ambiguity and the implementation of this idea will deprive the citizens of certain services which are essential.

It is claimed that the state has social responsibility and if the state wishes to carry out the functions should not be confined to the minimum level. Gray says: “Advocacy of the minimum state is, in any case, not to be found in most liberal writers. Most liberals, and all the classical liberals, acknowledge that the liberal state may have a range of service functions, going beyond rights. Protection and the upholding of justice and for this reason are not advocates of the minimum state but rather of limited government”. Many advocates of liberal state, today, do not seriously argue for the minimal state.

This has been replaced by the limited government. We knew that though the utilitarian philosophers enthusiastically supported the scheme of giving maximum liberty. J. S Mill, their chief spokesperson, in the latter years of his life, favoured the intervention of state for the sake of greater benefit and welfare of the individuals.

The role of the state took a new turn in the eighties of the nineteenth century. In spite of this J. S. Mill is regarded as the chief advocate of liberal state because he was in favour of limiting the powers of state.

Liberal State Modernised:

Effect of Industrial Revolution:

The role or the functions of the liberal state changed radically. The changes were perceptible during the eighties and nineties of the nineteenth century.

Several causes may be attributed to these changes:

1. Due to the industrial revolution that took place in the second half of the eighteenth century unprecedented growth took place in various sectors some of which were—setting up of new industries, amount of commodities produced, development in the transport sector, foreign trade etc. Producers harvested profit which was unimaginable in previous periods.

2. Workers left their village homes and crowded the towns and cities in search of jobs and all on a sudden the supply market of the workers increased considerably.

3. The demand for the workers at the initial stages of industrial development was upward moving and there was no problem of unemployment. But later on the demand for labour declined causing the fall in wage rate.

4. The large gap between demand and supply was fully exploited by the capitalists. They paid less wages to the workers and the latter were forced to accept the terms and conditions set by the capitalists. The scope of employment decreased tremen­dously. The capitalists had already established their stronghold in various sectors of government.

The above is the gist of picture that took place towards the end and at the beginning of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. What was the impact of the industrial revolution upon the life and living standard of workers and common people? There was widespread poverty. Only a very few persons gobbled the major part of benefits and profits of industrialisation.

The greater part of the population was virtually deprived of benefits and was subject to abject poverty, diseases etc. All the industrialised countries of Europe were the victims of industrial revolution. But the greatest victim perhaps was London. The industrial revolution in Europe appeared as a curse and this brought about a gloom in the minds of many people and particularly the idealist philosophers. T.H. Green was at the top position.

The Role of the State was Reconsidered:

Green and many philosophers started to think over the matter seriously. They wanted to save the “underfed denizen of a London Yard” and to take measures against moral degradation. That is, steps would be taken to arrest the poverty, miseries, and diseases, and, at the same time, to check the downward movement of morality. Without moral development society cannot develop. Green believed that all these could be done through the bold leadership of the state.

Sabine writes, “Accordingly for Green politics was essentially an agency for creating social conditions that make moral development possible”. What Green asserted is that the state has a positive role to play in the development of society and the term development includes both moral and physical conditions.

The state can never be a helpless onlooker of all incidents that were happening in its presence. If the state fails to do it, it will lose its credibility as a state. T. H. Green modernised the role of the state and also the concept of liberalism. At least Sabine thinks so.

Towards the end of the nineteenth century, it is clear from the above analysis, the liberal state was confronted with crisis of existence and crisis of credibility. Different external and internal forces in Europe were about to challenge the very foundation of several liberal states of Eur
ope. Particularly Marxism challenged the policies of liberal state.

The European states were involved among themselves in continuous or intermittent wars or armed struggle which posed threat to the liberal state. Under such circumstances the ardent defenders of liberal state were desirous to effect a compromise between liberal and “anti-liberal” forces. Anti-liberal in the sense that there arose a strong urge to give more power to the state so that it can fight poverty, inequalities and diseases.

But most of the liberal philosophers where reluctant to make the state leviathan. This dilemma between liberalism and the arguments against it demanded a compromise between the two. It was impossible for many to think of abandoning the liberal philosophy and, on the other hand, the same persons thought that the state should do something. This finally resulted in a reformulation of liberal state.

Sabine has observed that the state should perform several functions simultaneously:

(1) It will have to do those functions which could help to maintain free society.

(2) It must see that rights and liberties are properly protected.

(3) It must encourage the moral development.

(4) Basic requirements of the citizens are met.

(5) The state should launch welfare schemes.

(6) Coercion should be reduced to the minimum.

The functions suggested by Sabine are not innovative in nature. These emphasise that in order to prove its worthiness the state must do all these functions. These at the same time will protect the freedom of the individual which is the core concept of liberalism.

Mode of Function:

There is a very significant aspect of liberal state which can be stated in the following way. There are, in general terms, two ways to do the works stated briefly above. One is democratic or constitutional means such as legal ways, reforms approved by those for whom the reforms are made, and to do everything according to the wishes of the people.

There is another way and this is called coercive method. In the case of any slightest reluctance the state authority will proceed to apply coercive measures. Coercion forces the citizens to do work reluctantly. Coercion is the sine qua non of the government/state. In this respect a liberal state can reasonably be distinguished from an authoritarian state.

The liberal state always makes honest attempts to limit the application of coercive measures. Only in unavoidable circumstances a liberal state will try to resort to coercive measures. Unavoidable circumstances generally include when the state is aggressed upon by an external power or when the political stability is threatened by terrorist forces.

In all political systems there are many classes (and the term class is used here in Marxian sense) and liberal state is not an exception. But the authority of a liberal state has taken the existence of classes and the relations among them as the normal manifestation.

Conflict and cooperation among the classes are the normal features of any class society. A liberal state does not view the class relation in an antagonistic line. Naturally a liberal state does not think of class struggle or revolution as a means of abolishing the class structure.

A liberal state always encourages people’s participation in the affairs of the state. Only through participation people can think of translating their political dreams into a viable reality. In such a state, participation is never limited.

For participation the existence of parties, groups and organisations is essential and a liberal state has been found to take care of it. In a true liberal state there are multiple parties, groups and organisations and the government guarantee their free movement.

The institutions, organisations and parties of a liberal state are not isolated islands. All are interdependent and closely connected with each other. “The political and economic, instead of being distinct areas, are interlaced institutions which are certainly not independent of one another and which ought ideally both to contribute to the ethical purposes of liberal society”.

It is thus obvious to us that a liberal state is not a non-functioning state or an over enthusiastic state in all affairs of the individual. It occupies a middle position in between these two extremes. Such a state always maintains a balance between not doing and doing every theory.

While performing its duties the liberal state must see that the spontaneity of the individuals gets encouragement, morality is enhanced, rights and liberties are protected, and freedom of the society remains untouched. On the other hand, welfare is fully realised, progress is not adversely affected. It is the duty of the state to finance compulsory education, health care programmes. The liberal state must enact law for the better management and greater common good of society.

Economic Policy of the Liberal State:

In the background of economic crises such as the Great Depression in American economy during the thirties of the last century and the financial crises from which the West European capitalist countries frequently suffered, growing unemployment which was a very common feature of all capitalist countries of both hemispheres it was strongly felt that the state could never be a simple onlooker, it has certain roles to play to combat these crises.

The laissez faire doctrine of the classical liberals was not abandoned, but it received a thorough overhaul at the hands of a number of liberal philosophers who wanted to see the role of the state in economic affairs in a new garb. The state must adopt monetary policy which would be able to reduce the volume of unemployment, extent of poverty and ensure stability in the field of production.

Not only this, the state must see that the produced commodities are properly distributed among the persons who really require them. It was urged that the state cannot have monopoly power over the economy, but absolute free and competitive economy is neither desirable. It is the duty of the state to keep a vigil over both the money market and production market.

The individual entrepreneurs will have full freedom in economic affairs but that freedom shall be based on certain rules and regulations framed by government. Modern liberals or advocates of modern liberal state did not believe that laissez faire was the only solution to all evils from which economy suffered.

A compromise approach has been worked out by the neo- liberals. The state will have a positive role in the economic affairs but the market economy will have freedom of operation so that economy does not suffer.

Fall of Communism and Liberal State:

The collapse of Soviet Union and other East European states led a score of writers to rethink about communism and liberalism or liberal state. Before the fall of communism there were two main ideologies—communism and liberalism or commu­nist/totalitarian state and liberal state/ liberal democratic state.

The competition was never confined only to economic or political spheres but also to other spheres and after the fall of Soviet Union (1991) the competition disappeared making Western democracy the only dominant political ideology in the world. All the former communist states shifted their allegiance to liberalism and the state structure was remodelled in the line of liberal state.

The monopolistic role of the state in the field of economy at the same time underwent considerable changes. Free market economy was recognised, it was encouraged so that it could flourish. Francis Fukuyam, former deputy director of the American State Department, has enlightened this point in his recent work.

The End of History and Last Man (1992). Some of his points have been criticised by many. But on one point there is complete ag
reement and this point is the absence of ideological competition has injected new elixir into the body of liberal state. Today it is generally believed that though liberal state is not a panacea to all evils—social, economic and political—it is still an accepted mode of state formation and administration. Even China has been impelled to follow certain basic tenets of liberal state. There is a conflict between liberal and non-liberal policies and principles but tendency, towards liberalism is clear and prominent.

Upload and Share Your Article:

[PDF] Socrates: Life, Teachings and Political Ideas

Socrates: Life, Teachings and Political Ideas!

Life and Teachings of Socrates:

Socrates was the most celebrated philosopher and intellectual giant of pre-Plato Greece. He saw the light of this world on 469 B.C. and left this mortal world on 399 B.C. His philosophical, political and legal thoughts earned him a great fame. Even Karl Marx highly spoke of him. He came from a family of Athenian sculptors or stone masons.

Since his father was a sculptor, he devoted to the craft. But in his later life he seriously studied philosophy. His devotion to philosophy, historians say, was not abrupt. Socrates first studied, with all seriousness, physical sciences and this could not satisfy his urge for knowledge, because the physical sciences, in his opinion, contained only mechanical explanation about matter and phenomena.

He ardently desired to enter into the deep of everything and this urge led him to study philosophy. He found that physical sciences, says Barker, only gave a mechanical explanation of how things were made, and what he wanted was a teleological explanation, showing why they are and what is their raison d’ etre.

Socrates spent his entire life in the study of philosophical and political problems and related issues.

He discussed these problems with the ordinary members of society and tried to convince them of the inner meaning of various social and philosophical issues. Socrates was chiefly a philosopher. But at the same time he showed keen interest in the affairs of state, politics and law.

He was a man of great courage and never hesitated to defy the order of the tyrannical ruler. The then rulers of Athens thought his lessons harmful and he was prevented from preaching further and his lessons were banned.

Socrates was against the acceptance of financial remuneration in exchange for giving lessons. We know that the Sophists introduced this system. He thought that taking of fees for lessons was tantamount to prosti­tution. This indicates how selfless a man Socrates was. Socrates scrupulously adhered to this principle though his family was in great financial crisis.

Socrates was severely penalized for preaching and upholding progressive ideas. He was charged of “corrupting the youth” and impious. The indictment against him was “Socrates is guilty of refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state, and of introducing the other, new divinities. He is also guilty of corrupting the youth. The penalty demanded his death. The Athenian Court of 501 judges sentenced him to death penalty by a majority of 80 votes.”

Like many other Greek philosophers the views of Socrates are not available in written form. He talked with his pupils, friends and opponents. Which were later on noted by them in the form of notes? The best sources of Socrates’s ideas are Plato, Xenophon and Aristotle.

Political Ideas of Socrates:

Socrates, in his analysis of political and philosophical problems and issues, applied the method of dialectic, and in this respect he departed from the Sophists who arranged the different topics in a systematic way and then discussed them.

Socrates, on the other hand, adopted the question-answer method. Needless to say, his disciple Plato also followed him.

In the view of Socrates ethics and politics are closely connected with each other. Without politics ethics carries no value, and without ethics politics becomes harmful. “The highest of all virtues is the political art which includes statecraft and makes men good politicians and public officials.”

Almost similar opinion was made by Aristotle. In other words, Socrates thought that the purpose of politics was not to capture power, nor it was an art how to remain in power. Political ethics make good and proper citizens. Both public and private persons must learn the art of political ethics.

Socrates also discussed the concept of law. He divided law into unwritten divine law and written human law. He cautioned us by pointing out that there was no discrepancy between these two sets of laws.

Justice was the root of all the laws. If a law is not justified by justice, it is useless. If anything is not approved by justice it cannot be legal. To be precise, Socrates gave priority to justice in his thought system and in this respect Socrates followed his predecessors.

Socrates dealt with a popular and at the same time important concept of politics popularly known as allegiance to law. He devised the theory of concord which means the citizens must show allegiance and obedience to law. Interpreting Socrates’s allegiance to law, Xenophon, the most reliable interpreter of Socrates’s view, says—”A Republic that is obedient to laws is happy in peace and invincible in war. Moreover, you know that concord is a great happiness in a state.” Socrates admitted the diversities among the citizens and differences of opinion.

But notwith­standing they must unanimously obey the laws. He thought that without unquali­fied ‘obedience to law there could not be unity and integrity in the Republic. His exaltation of law-abidingness did not rule out the importance and necessity of criticism. Laws, not in conformity with justice, might invite criticism.

Socrates was a great supporter of philosopher-king. He did not like democracy, oligarchy, hereditary aristocracy and tyranny. Only a philosopher-king, he thought, could serve the purpose of the polis.

Socrates gave a brief classification of government which runs as follows. Rule of men over the unwilling mass was to him a tyranny. Property qualification for office was for him a plutocracy.

It was democracy when all people were allowed to participate in the government. Socrates recommended only the rule of the wise. All other forms of government, in his opinion, were unsuitable.

Socrates had viewed the concept of rule from a different angle. The purpose of the ruler should not be to acquire pleasure or to satisfy personal whims and wishes, but to ensure the welfare of the common people. The ruler must keep a watch upon the needs of the people and he should never try to fulfil his own needs.

If a ruler pays more attention to the furtherance of his own interests he should be punished. Ascendency to power, in the opinion of Socrates, is not automatic at all. The above noted qualifications must be satisfied.

Related with the concept of justice is equality and Socrates greatly emphasized it. Equality is a political virtue and it is the utmost duty of the wise ruler to ensure it. A polis must be based on equality.

Violation of equality would result in disorder, chaos and disruption of normal activities of the polis. Socrates’s equality is geometrical equality. “By geometrical equality Socrates means political justice and equity or right judgment in terms of political virtue as distinct from simple numerical or arithmetical equality”.

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle:

It is generally observed that the political thought of ancient Greece and particularly of Socrates created a positive and far-reaching impact upon the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle.

It is, therefore, necessary, to throw light on how Socrates influenced Plato and Aristotle in forming and propagating their philosophical and political concepts. Socrates (469-399 B.C.) “Is one of the most remarkable far-famed charac­ters in the intellectual history of mankind.

For over two and a half millennia there has been a ring of glory about his name and aura of enigma surrounding his personality” (V. S. Nersesyants—Political Thought of Ancient Greece, p. 93). This was Socrates. Even Karl Marx highly eulogised him.

Though Socrates was not chiefly a political thinker or politician he dealt with a number of subjects, which may conveniently be included into the subject-matter
of politics or political philosophy. His main concerns were law, justice and polis. His method of analysis was dialectic. Dialectic is question and answer form. The discussion about any subject could proceed until a final opinion was arrived at he held discussions with his disciples.

If we study the political ideas of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle we shall find that Socrates created a tremendous impact upon the latter two giants of Greek philoso­phy.

Maxey says ‘In Plato Socrates lived again. Not in the sense that the pupil was an unvarying facsimile of the master, not even in the sense that Plato was the literary and philosophic executor of the great querist, but rather in the sense that the mind and soul of Plato so completely absorbed in the thought and spirit of his teacher as to inspire his own soaring genius to create a sublimer Socrates than ever trod the bustling streets of Athens’ (p. 39). Tine writings, intellect, logic and above all the thought of Socrates created a great influence upon Plato. What we call the thought system of Plato is of “genuine Socratic origin”. Maxey also says that how much of Plato’s philosophy is original cannot be said assertively.

V. S. Nersesyants has written: “The ideas of Socrates, particularly his emphasis on the law as the criterion for classification of the forms of government, the contrast between monarchy and tyranny, and others exerted a considerable influence on the subsequent political theories of ancient thinkers, above all Plato, Aristotle and Polibius and through them various politico-legal doctrines of the Middle Ages and modern times.

Socrates’s views on democracy influenced both Plato and Aristotle. He did not consider democracy as a desirable form of government on the grounds that incompetent officials are appointed to run the administration of democratic state.

Another reason is common people have no ability to participate in the state affairs. Socrates also advocated the concept of Philosopher-King. Both these views of Socrates were accepted by Plato.

Socrates’s classification of government or constitution influenced Aristotle. Though Aristotle followed Socrates in classifying constitution his criteria were different from those of Socrates.

Socrates introduced a new concept which may be called ethical politics. We find its reappearance in Plato and Aristotle. Without ethics politics is bound to contami­nate the whole society. For an ideal or good and well-ordered state both ethics and politics must travel hand in hand. It may be ethical politics or political ethics. However, both Plato and Aristotle took this idea from Socrates.

The very foundation of their ideal state was ethics. Socrates and Plato both believed that officials of public services must be moral and ethical persons. Aristotle also held the same view.

These three persons were unanimous about that, without good and ideal politicians, citizens cannot be good and moral. “Socrates is traditionally regarded as the founder of theoretical ethics which paved the way for Plato’s and Aristotle’s logical and political conceptions” (Nersesyants).

Though Socrates’s thought and philosophy had a direct and positive influence upon Plato and Aristotle, it cannot be said that they were the carbon copies of Socrates. There is no doubt that both Plato and Aristotle were great and original thinkers.

These three great Greek philosophers built up the fabric of political philosophy with the help of the experience of Greek city-state, but the thought systems of Plato and Aristotle are really comprehensive.

Plato’s ideal state’s main concern is justice, but it deals with many other aspects which are not available in Socrates.

Aristotle borrowed his classification of government or constitution from Socrates. But there is a difference. His classification deals with the comparative aspect of politics which is still remembered by-students of political science. Aristotle’s views on revolution and polity still deserve special mention.

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were no doubt the great apostles of Greek philosophy. Socrates laid the foundation of many concepts especially dialectic and pitfalls of democracy. Even today these constitute important parts of political thought.

Upload and Share Your Article:

[PDF] Role of Opposition in Parliament | India

For a healthy Parliamentary democracy it is always considered essential that there should be a strong opposition, which should always be in a position to saddle itself in authority, as and when the milling party falters and fails to deliver the goods. But in India the position has been quite different. During freedom struggle Indian National Congress was the only party which stood as vanguard of freedom movement.

The Muslim League, which challenged its authority, lost much of its control and grip over the masses, with the partition of the country in 1947. Before proceeding further, it may be said that for quite some time it was believed that opposition’s role is only negative but with the passage of time it is appreciated all over, that it has positive role to play in national politics.

It is primarily because under our present day electoral system it is not always essential that the party which has been returned to power, must have majority of voters on its side. It is usually found that total percentage of votes polled by the opposition parties under multiple party system is higher than that of the ruling party, because the latter is benefited by the division of the votes of the former.

It is clear from the Table given below. It is the reason as to why the leader of the opposition in all Parliamentary democracies is provided all facilities, which are provided to a Cabinet Minister. In the words of Kaul and Shakdhar, “One of the biggest parliamentary achievements of the present century is that the role of the opposition has been formally recognised and given a due place in parliamentary system.”

Partywise Votes Percentages of Votes Polled

After the independence of India, Indian National Congress had great glamour and galaxy of great national leaders were in its fold, who enjoyed great respect and confidence of the people. It was difficult to dislodge them from authority. In fact, vast majority of population was not prepared to listen any criticism of Congress policies and these individual leaders.

Therefore, when first general elections were held m the country Congress under the leadership of Pt. Nehru swept polls both of the Centre as well as the States. At that time out of 489 elected members, as many as 364 belonged to this party in the Lok Sabha. By this time, however, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee founded Bhartiya Jana Sangh as an opposition party.

The Socialists under Ashok Mehta and the Communists also began to oppose the Congress party on its policies and programmes. But opposition was practically not a hindrance on the path of government, which did what it liked because it was in power both at the Centre as well as in the States.

But as the time passed opposition to Congress party considerably increased. In the general elections held in 1957, Communists could form government in Kerala, which in turn improved their image at the Centre.

Veteran leaders like C. Raja Gopalachari, Minoo Masani and many others, who did not see eye to eye with the Congress on important issues like nationalisation of private industries and use of co-operative farming of agriculture, decided to form Swatantra Party.

This party had something in common with Bhartiya Jana Sangh. But still the role of the opposition in the Parliament was not effective. During the elections held in 1957, out of 404 elected members of Lok Sabha 371 belonged to Congress Party.

Then came elections held in 1962. By this time the Communists, the Socialists, Swantantra Party and Bhartiya Jana Sangh had started making their dents. The people by now had started listening to them, though, out of 491 ejected seats in the Lok Sabha, the Congress still had 358.

Opposition after 1967:

But thereafter monolithic character of the party came under heavy strains and opposition became powerful and strong. The party had followed certain policies like Gold Control, Compulsory Deposit Scheme, etc., which were highly unpopular among the masses.

In 1962, the Congress ruling party faced nation wide criticism for India’s debacle in war against China. Many State Chief Ministers and even some central Cabinet Ministers were charged openly of corruption and they lost confidence of the people.

The people returned many opposition leaders to the Lok Sabha, who vehemently criticised government’s policies and programmes. At this juncture in 1964, Prime Minister Nehru died, who had been boldly facing the on slaught of the opposition.

The result of this was that in 1967 when elections were held in the country, the strength of die opposition very much increased. Out of 518 elected members of the Lok Sabha, the Congress had the reduced strength of only 284. Monolithic character of the party was shattered completely in many states. Communists formed government in Kerala.

Opposition parties combined together as United Front and Samyukta Vidhayak Dal formed governments in several states including, the state of Uttar Pradesh Main opposition parties at the Centre being Bhartiya Jan Sangh, C.P.I. (M), and Swatantra Party. The opposition became so powerful that it moved a vote of no-confidence against the government, not only once but several times, though no such motion could successfully be carried.

It was during this period that regional opposition parties also got roots on their soils. In Tamil Nadu DMK, in Punjab Akali Dal, in J&K, National Conference,, in Orissa Jharkhand and in U.P. Bhartiya Karanti Dal,, to mention a few, began to catch the imagination of the people. Their representatives in the Lok Sabha provided a formidable opposition to the ruling Congress at the Centre.

As if it was not sufficient the ruling party was much criticised over Jayanti Shipping Corporation affairs and India’s participation in the Muslim Summit held at Rabat, where India’s representative late Fakurddin Ali Ahmed, who subsequently became the President of India, was shabbily treated.

To make the situation worse in 1969. Congress party got split in itself into two parts. One was headed by Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi and other by Congress President K.Kamraj and many others including ex-Prime Minister Morarji Desai. This split made the opposition really strong and the group which separated itself from the ruling party was called Congress (O).

Next Lok Sabha elections which were due in 1972 were held a year earlier in 1971. This time the Prime Minister gave the slogan of Gans Hatao’. The Congress party headed by her had a land slide victory. In a House of 518, the party captured 350 seats.

The opposition, which was a house divided in itself, very badly suffered. In fact, it had to rebuild its image. But her policies of bank nationlisation, and abolition of Privy Purses became very controversial.

The Communists, Bhartiya Jan Sangh, AIADMK, Akali Dal, CPI (M) still continued to have hold in the House and launched movements outside the Parliament. Morarji Desai went on fast to get Gujarat state Assembly dissolved and ultimately succeeded in that.

But still there was no national opposition to the ruling Congress party. The opposition parties, however, several times obstructed the proceedings of the House and did not allow it to function smoothly.

In 1975, national emergency was declared in the country and many opposition leaders of each party were put behind the bars. There was then not effective opposition in either House of Parliament. But after 19 months of emergency in 1977 elections were again held in the country.

This time opposition under the able guidance of late Jai Parkash Narayan realised that in case opposition parties did not come together these shall be the sufferers.

Accordingly five national parties namely, the Bhartiya Jan Sangh, Congress (O
), Congress for Democracy (CFD) formed by Jagjiwan Ram after the separation from the Congress, the Socialist groups and Bhartiya Lok Dal headed by Charan Singh joined together to form a new party, called Janata Party.

The people of North India did not like some of the policies of the Congress government during emergency and due to press censorship, the government was not quite well aware of people’s resentment, with the result that ruling Congress was badly defeated and newly formed Janata party, which was a national alternative to Congress came out victorious.

In a House of 542, the Congress party got only 153 seats in the Lok Sabha. It was for the first time in the history of independent India that Congress was dislodged from power at the Centre.

Opposition after 1977:

But soon after coming to power, there were in-fights in the ruling Janata Party. Within 2.5 years, Janata party which had emerged as national alternative to Congress began to disintegrate.

In the party Lok Dal raised the issue of dual membership of RSS and Janata Party. In the opinion of the Dal, RSS was a political party and no member of Janata party should have any links with that party. But erstwhile Jan Sangh group did not agree with that.

The result was that Charan Singh, Raj Narain and their associates left the party, reducing it to minority. AIADMK which had been supporting the party too left that and so did H.N. Bahuguna. The House was dissolved after few months. At the end of 1979, elections were again held.

But before that the Congress opposition also had a split, when Dev Raj Urs and some other Congress stalwarts left the Congress resulting in the formation of a new party Congress (I) with Smt. Indira Gandhi, as its President.

Before election results were out there were speculations that no political party will get clear majority at the centre and that an era of coalition government at the Centre had ushered. But to the surprise of many political Pandits, Congress (I) had a sweeping majority and in a House of 542 the party had two-third majority by capturing 351 seats.

The chances of national alternative to ruling Congress were further reduced after 1980 election results. The Janata Party which had put forward Jagjiwan Ram as its leader, if returned to power, left the party on the issue of dual membership. He first formed Janata (J) claiming that it was real Janata party, but within next few days joined Congress party headed by Dev Raj Urs.

The earth while Jan Sangh group also left the party forming a new party called Bhartiya Janata Party with Atal Bihari Vajpayee as its Chairman. In the Janata (S) which was founded by Charan Singh and Raj Narain, there were frictions. A stage came when Party President Charan Singh expelled his party working President Raj Narain from the party. The latter founded a new party.

Upload and Share Your Article: