Category: Political Science Notes

Political Technology is a tool of activation of man by man. The holistic or generic concept of Political Technology includes all types of political technologies. Hundreds of political technologies have been utilized in the past, but they are neither known nor readily available. Having been used in different contexts and times, they may not be readily suited to the require­ments of each and every type of democracy. All political technologies have to be discovered and ‘identified’.

On the broad basis of the use of moral means, all such ‘identified’ political technologies can, at first level, be divided as (a) conventional political technologies, and, (b) Gandhian political technologies. First, we should take up conventional political technologies.

The conven­tional political technologies can further be classified as (i) non-coercive, and, (ii) coercion-dominating political technologies:

(i) Non-coercive Political Technologies (NCPTs):

Political leaders, in democracy, move and motivate other persons on grounds of:

(i) His personality;

(ii) His own or others’ needs and interests;

(iii) Gaining higher status, position, property and power;

(iv) Attainment of bliss, here and after, by living according to certain moral and spiritual values; and,

(v) Probable exercise of threat and coercion including force.

Accordingly, the conceptual scheme of political technologies involves levels from persuasion to force or coercion. Politics appears when there is need of generating compliance in a particular direction. People are made to act in a particular manner and volunteer compliance preferably on the basis of consent, partic­ipation and faith or legitimacy.

To practice them on a continuous basis, political leaders advance allurements and deprivations in many ways. All this involves, to a certain extent, mild exercise of threat and coercion. Political technologies operating within this arena are christened as ‘Non-coercive’.

During normal times, it is usually found that only political and Gandhian political technologies are put to use for solving many types of problems, including in dealing with opposition and other dissatisfied elements. In a democratic state, persons or political parties who take over power in terms of the periodically held free and fair popular elections and remain responsible to the people, use such technologies.

Till this condition is fulfilled, it is expected that individuals, groups and people would render obedience to those regimes. However, difficulties arise when some problems, issues and crises are not settled in normal ways, even by use of non-coercive political technologies. Some people do not accept norms or ‘rule of law’ of democracy. Such persons either do not permit the use and functioning of political technologies or oppose the verdict of elections or decisions of the legally appointed bodies and their officials.

(ii) Coercive Political Technologies (CPTs):

Generally, ‘technologies’ involving human control, influence or powers over others under milder form of coercion are considered ‘political’. A large number of people do render compliance on those grounds, but many others do not. In order to ensure compliance in important areas, greater amount of coercion is applied through legal provisions. At times, even the use of normal political technologies may not be allowed to operate or even tolerated.

The exercise of usual political technologies may prove void and may not render any result. The basic mechanism or values of the democratic system may be threatened or endangered. As it is the foremost duty of the political leaders to defend and protect the democratic system, they may be compelled to use coercive political technologies. They have to be willing and remain ready to defend the system, otherwise display their lack of commitment to have and save democracy.

During normal times, in democracies, political technologies are faced or responded to by political technologies only. However, when there is some fatal attack from non-democratic or undemocratic side, like, autocracy, dictatorship, rabid communalism, terrorism, internal subversion, or external aggression, a democratic system, under the present conceptual framework of ‘political technology’ is bound to counter it by effective coercive political technologies.

Almost all democracies in their constitutions enshrine provisions for handling such difficult situations and emergencies. When their existence is at stake, democracies are equipped with the extraordinary rights to use coercive means and methods. In all democratic political systems, under critical circumstances, exhausting all political, legal and non-coercive avenues, sometime even before their actual occurrence, the use of force of power, i.e., coercive political technologies (CPTs) is permissible within the parameters of the democratic system.

It may be pointed out that coercive political technologies can be used both by a democracy and an authoritarian system. Main difference between the two uses lies in goal or value. In the past, monarchies, autocracies, and dictatorial rulers have been using them against other States at will, and even against their own people, with the sole objective of maintaining and upholding their personal rule. Democracies too use them, but they do so after exhausting all forms of legal, political and non-coercive means.

Similarly, the Gandhian political technologies too have many forms and styles.

(b) Gandhian (Moral) Political Technologies (GPTs):

There are many peculiarities of Gandhian Political Technologies (GPTs). First of all, they were used in pre-independence era and were never known before. Secondly, they were largely based on Gandhiji’s own personality – his understanding of metaphysics and his sense of morality, which, in sum, was his own way of attaining ultimate salvation. In this sense, his technol­ogies to a person like him would appear ‘apolitical’ or ‘non-political’. They, in fact, were the means (satyagraha, non-violence or Ahimsa) to realise the Truth (God or Satya).

Thirdly, notwithstanding the spiritual and moral basis of the Gandhian technologies, their immediate and ultimate goal was political, e.g., attainment of Swaraj (Self-government) for the people of India against the British Rule through change of heart by undergoing self-suffering. Therefore, all the Gandhian methods are put here under the category of’ political technologies’. Using them, Gandhi was able to mobilise millions of the people under his leadership to fight for India’s independence.

Upload and Share Your Article:

1. Development of Science and Technology:

There cannot be two opinions in this respect that the development of science and technology play a major role m the process of modernisation. Due to this factor a mad race is going in various countries of the world for development of science and technology.

If some latest development takes place in the field of science and technology in nuclear or space field just like Star Wars, then it becomes a prestigious question for the U.S.S.K- also. China first of all was not recognised by U.S.A. as a great power but when China developed nuclear device, then Mr. Nixon, President of U.S.A. went himself to seek the hand of friendship of China.

India also exploded her first nuclear device on the 18 May, 1974 at Pokhran in Rajasthan m order to prove to the world that she does not lag behind the other countries in this respect. Thus India entered as six in member of nuclear club.

In the field of technology, China has caught up with U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. She has developed intermediate range ballistic missiles. In the air, she has now developed inter-continental ballistic missiles capable of delivery at longer distance. India is also going ahead with its research programme in space with a greater speed.

India shot her first satellite in space known as Arya Bhatta. Then it threw into space Apple. After that it sent into space Insat-A and Insat-B. These satellites have helped India a lot in gathering information especially about coming rains and gathering storms in the sea.

India is still making progress by leaps and bounds in the field of technology by using computers, but at the same time we cannot overlook this factor that while plenty of labour is available in our country, there is a scarcity of capital. Therefore the technology has to be different in India.

As Mahatma Gandhi once put it, what is needed in developing societies is production by the masses rather than mass production, for which it may be more necessary to develop what has been variously called “intermediate technology”, “self-help technology” or “appropriate technology “a technology which is appropriate to the requirement of the developing countries. Therefore the economy may be provided to the labourers and the educated youths.

2. Development of Industrial Civilisation:

It is most important to industrialise a backward country in order to lead it on the path of modernisation. That is the reason Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first, Prime Minister of India established many steel plants in the public sector. He started a factory for making railway coaches at Perambur (Tamil Nadu).

He started Chittaranjan Locomotive Works. He established Bhopal Heavy Electricals. He built many dams in order to” provide more facilities for irrigation and generate electricity. Like U.S.S.R., India has also launched many Five Year Plans in order to accelerate the growth of economy.

Therefore whatever political system may prevail in any country, it cannot afford to ignore the industrial development because it brings economic prosperity in the country. Consequently, we see that England, France, West Germany, Japan, U.S.S.R. and China are highly industrialised countries.

3. Successful Working of Democratic Institutions:

Democracy is regarded one of the best means to modernise a country. England, France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, West Germany, U.S.A., Japan and India have modernised themselves in this way. The Westerners believe in this institution thoroughly and they regard it as the key to modernisation but the communists regard this political democracy as the rule of few bourgeoisie and though there is dictatorship of the Communist Party in U.S.S.R., East European countries, (Finland, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and East Germany), China, Vietnam, North Korea etc., yet they consider it a socialist democracy.

Dictatorship of the Communist Party in these countries has in turn become a dictatorship of the politbureau or General Secretary in these countries. It is altogether a different thing whether we may agree with this political system or the other political system but it is true that these communist countries have also modernised themselves to a great extent and compare favourably with the industrialised countries of the West.

So far India is concerned, it has adopted democratic system and through its Five Year Plans, it has made rapid strides in economic development and marching ahead with a terrific speed towards modernisation but in spite of that about 40% people live below poverty line. This situation must be remedied by means of equal distribution of wealth.

Upload and Share Your Article:

One Man, One Vote system is in vogue today, which means each person should have the right to one vote. However, in the nineteenth century John Stuart Mill criticized this system. Sedgwick also supported Mill’s viewpoint. They are of the view that the people, who are more educated, pay more taxes and are advanced in age, should be given more votes than those who are younger in age, who are illiterate and who do not pay any tax. Taine also said that, “Votes should not be counted, they should be weighted.” These thinkers consider education, property and age as basis for the grant of more votes.

According to this view two systems are used:

(1) Plural Voting:

According to this system the same person is given right of separate voting for paying taxes at one place, for having property at another place and for being educated at the third place.

(2) Weighted Voting:

According to this system more educated, more tax­payers and elderly people are continuously given the right to plural voting against those who are poor and younger. According to the amended Constitution, this system was introduced in Belgium in 1833. But after the First World War (1914-18) the Communist Party staged a big demonstration against it. Consequently, in 1921 when the Constitution was again amended, the Weighted Voting system was completely abolished.

Merits of this System:

In this system the merits of Universal Adult Suffrage have been included, but its drawbacks have been removed. It means that in this system everybody has been given one vote. Besides the provision for giving more votes to the learned, the aged and the property-owners, against the illiterate, the young and the non-tax paying peoples, has been made, so that the government is not run only by incapable and uneducated persons.

Demerits of this system:

(1) This system is against democracy and the rich people have more influence in it.

(2) It is difficult to fix the standard for granting the plural voting right.

(3) It is not desirable to discriminate on the basis of property.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Arguments against International Law:

(1) International Law is a mere collection of Principles of Morality:

Is International Law really a law or not, is a question that has raised a good deal of controversy in the literature of Political Science. Many arguments have been given against the International Law. Political thinkers argue that the International Law is nothing but a mere collection of moral principles because it is a binding on every sovereign state. Hobbes, Bentham, Austin, Professor Holland, Lord Salisbury, Hitler, Mussolini did not regard International Law a law.

Lord Salisbury, while addressing the House of Lords, once said, “I think my Lords, we are misled in this matter by the facility with which we use the phrase International Law. International Law has not any existence in the sense in which the term law is usually understood. It depends generally on the prejudices of the writers of the text books. It can be enforced by no tribunal and, therefore, to apply it to the phrase Law is to some extent misleading”.

(2) British Courts do not recognise it:

While giving judgment in the West Land Gold Mining Company vs. Rex Case, the British Court decided not to recognise any principle of International Law till it is included in the national laws by the British Cabinet. Similarly, Lord Coleridge observed in the Queen vs. Keyn (1876): “Strictly speaking, international law is an inexact expression and it is apt to mislead if its inexactness is not kept in mind. Law implies a law-giver and a tribunal capable of enforcing it and coercing its transgressors. But there is no common law­giver to sovereign states and no tribunal has the power to bind them by decree or coerce them if they transgress.

(3) It is not the law of some sovereign international state:

It is also argued against the international law that it is not the law of some sovereign International state. There is no sovereign international state nor is there any sovereign international government.

Gettell has very rightly observed: “If the legalistic theory by adopted that laws are always commands given and enforced by a definite political sovereign, then international law is not law properly, since that would imply world unity and world sovereignty”.

The term “international law thereby involves a contradiction. If it is international, it is not law, since there is no single sovereign to make or enforce it, if it is law; it is not international but the law of a World state”.

Gettel further observes: “International law is not concerned with the relations of political inferiors, it is not the expression of a supreme will, but the result of the interplay of a number of legally independent powers”.

(4) No punishment if the International Law is violated:

The opponents of International Law argue that the national laws are violated, the law-breakers are punished by the nation. But there is no such provision for punishment in International law. If International Law is violated, no such punishment is given.

(5) There is neither any legislature to make the International Law, nor any executive to enforce it, nor any judiciary to interpret it:

The opponents of International Law argue that International Law cannot enjoy the status of a law because it is not framed by any international legislature, nor is it enforced by any international executive, nor is it interpreted by any international judiciary it is opposed to national laws. National laws are framed by the legislature they are enforced by the executive and are interpreted by judiciary.

(6) International Law is not definite:

The opponents of International Law argue that International Law is not definite as it is passing through the process of continuous development. National laws are just opposed to it because they are quite definite, hence, international Law cannot be regarded as law.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Post-Behavioural Revolution: It’s Nature!

Prelude:

The longevity of behaviouralism was just of two decades. After the Second World War it surfaced in the American continent and one of its exponents was David Easton. Towards the close of the sixties another revolutionary thought engulfed political science and it was (as captioned by Easton) post-behavioural revolution. It would be a misconception to regard post-behavioural revolution as quite different from behaviouralism; rather, post-behavioural revolution can aptly be said as a continua­tion.

Easton and other exponents of behaviouralism were of the view that the situation had arisen to revise the behaviouralism to meet the challenges that arose in the sixties. Easton and some of his followers were convinced that time had arisen to revise some of the basic tenets of behaviouralism. If behaviouralism is a revolution, post-behaviouralism is also a revolution because ideas contained in this new concept carried with it revolutionary views.

Post-Behaviouralism Defined:

Easton believed that in the thirties and forties the prevailing situation inspired him and some others to propound a doctrine which is called behaviouralism. Similarly, from the S. W. W. right up to the end of sixties new situation arose which could not be tackled by behaviouralism. Hence, there arose the need for a new ideology and this was post-behavioural revolution.

It has aptly been observed by Easton that if behaviouralism could be regarded as the product of dissatisfaction with traditional research, post-behaviouralism was itself a sign of mounting discontent with important aspects of the behavioural revolution. The purpose of post-behavioural revolution was to improve the acceptability and reliability of political understanding and explanation about the prevailing situation.

The post-behavioural revolution went out in search of new methods and techniques which would be able to explain the new problems and situation and make recommendations. The transition from behaviouralism to post- behaviouralism was not merely an eyewash or a showcase. The very subject matter of post-behaviouralism underwent remarkable changes as well as the methods of analysis.

Easton writes: “many post behaviouralists are turning from the problematic of methods to unsetting questions about the subject matter of research and from the quest for explanation to doubts about the uses of political knowledge. Priorities for research are being reassessed without behavioural objectives necessarily being abandoned”.

David Easton has said that political science is a subject which is enriched by continuous research and behaviouralism is a sub-subject in that continuous process. Again, post-behaviouralism is again a state of that continuity. It is linked with the earlier stage. Easton calls both behaviouralism and post-behavioural revolution as profoundly connected with each other. It is an evolutionary discipline. Post-behavioural revolution only denotes a “change in emphasis”. But Easton avoids what would be the exact degree of emphasis.

Factors Contributing to Emergence:

1. Several factors have contributed to the emergence of post-behaviouralism and one such factor is the change in interest of behaviouralists. Easton, in his article has said that, like the behaviouralists, the post-behaviouralists also took active interests in voting behaviour of individuals, formation of political opinion, activities of legislature and judiciary etc. But the range of interests expanded several times in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

In the sixties and seventies new problems and issues arose in the U.S.A and in other parts of the globe. The outside issues created clear impact upon politics and economics of the USA. The behaviouralists could not keep themselves away from all these problems and issues and they began to respond academically to all these which resulted in the emergence of a new doctrine known as post- behaviouralism.

Some of the issues are the emergence of Cold War and its collapse, the rise of turbulent situation in the USA in the wake of Vietnam War, the break­up of former Soviet Union and the formation of a dozen independent republics in its place, premature collapse of communism in Soviet Union and eastern European states, revolt of the black people against the whites, emergence of femininism, rapprochement between USA and Russia. All these political—and to some extent non- political—issues stirred American internal political condition.

2. The intellect and academic interests of a large number of political scientists were inspired by the new conditions and many of them were determined to face the situation. Sub-group and caucus were formed. From the history of the development of behaviouralism we came to know that American Political Science Association (APSA) took the leading part in propagating the doctrine of behaviouralism.

In changed circumstances a sizeable section of the APSA readers and organisers fought vigorously to accommodate themselves to the new situation and they ardently desired to revise behaviouralism. This group formed a caucus. The caucus clearly announced that the purpose of political science would be to take steps for the alleviation of poverty and oppression, improvement of the living condition of common people and help the under-privileged and not to propagate doctrine or to indoctrinate general public.

The behaviouralism failed to achieve this objective and neobehaviouralists turned their attention to the above-noted objective. Not only the caucus, a large number of political scientists believed that political science must have noble objectives without which it cannot survive and flourish at all.

3. In the first few decades of the twentieth century Marxism made a strident appeal to a sizeable section of intellectual community and this created a panic in the minds of many Americans. They were in search of an alternative doctrine which could successfully combat Marxism.

The most opportune moment appeared with the onset of demise, or temporary collapse of Marxism in erstwhile Soviet Union and some other countries. Behaviouralism, along with other liberal political doctrines, were vigorously advocated and that favourable atmosphere provided potentialities for the blossoming of behaviouralism which came to be known as -post-behaviouralism.

Easton observes: “With the dissolution of the USSR and the collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe, the viability of Marxism as a philosophy and analytic approach has come into more serious question than ever before”.

4. Though Marx and Engels throughout their life stridently advocated for the withering away of state the implementation of Marxism in Russia taught us a different lesson. In Russia and some other socialist states the state became so powerful that individuals and various organisations were forced to be perpetrated at the altar of the state. The behaviouralists of the seventies strongly felt the need to change it.

There must exist a state but not in the Marxian sense. The state is a useful actor, but the individuals must have precedence over it. The importance of the state declined. The post-behaviouralists were not also content with the term “state”. Several new terms were circulated and some of them are political system, interest articulation, interest aggregation, elitism etc. “The result is that post-behaviouralism differs from behavioural stage in its general tone”.

5. In the 1970s democracy, in the USA, came to be viewed with a new outlook. The behaviouralists started their analysis about voters’ behaviour and people’s interest on the issues about which decisions have been taken. But some political scientists began to analyse democracy in a new way and it is not enough to discuss the issues a
bout which decisions have been taken.

But there are numerous issues on which no decisions have been taken. Even the executive organ of the government has not taken them seriously. A good and future oriented democracy badly needs the comprehension of all of them into its fold. There are many problems and issues which remain outside the purview of authority. The behaviouralists of the 1970s were not apathetic to them.

For future development of society and solution of peoples problems all of them should be properly dealt with. This approach changed the whole panorama of democracy, society and the outlook of political scientists. Docks were cleared for the arrival of a new political doctrine and it is post-behaviouralism.

6. Counter-cultural movement can be designated as another cause of the rise of post-behaviouralism. Counter-cultural movement found an important place in political science and this sizeably changed the mood of many. “In one sense” says Easton, “the counter-cultural movement achieved many of its goals. It brought about fundamental reorientations in worldwide perceptions of important issues. Environmen­tal pollution, poverty, sexual equality, feminist perspectives, freedom in forms of personal dress and appearance, the new so called style or non-material issues came to the political fore-ground”.

The issues were popular and very catchy. Many top ranking political scientists could not overlook the importance of all these issues. They wanted to include them into their analyses and in this way post- behaviouralism earned the status of reality. In summary form, the post-behaviouralism can reasonably be called a consequence of the various burning issues that tormented the mind and actions of people.

7. The concepts like values, justice, equality, freedom earned new meaning and importance in the seventies. Adherence to the old dogmas (propounded by behaviouralism) could not serve any fruitful purpose. Serious political scientists must devote their energy and intellect to these time-old concepts and their fructification. The political scientists cannot ignore their responsibility. Values and value judgment, justice, idealism may not constitute the core of behaviouralism but their disregard may create problems for the acceptability for a well defined theory.

The post-behaviouralists realised from experience that new political concepts or revision of any political idea must embrace values, ideas and justice. In this way post- behaviouralism, keeping the tradition of behaviouralism, augured a new age and tradition. At least David Easton believed in that line. He has said that for a future-oriented society post-behaviouralism is most suitable. Post-behaviouralism can be called a marriage between basic concepts of behaviouralism based on empiricism and idealism, values and justice.

Nature of Post-Behavioural Revolution:

David Easton has enumerated some basic features of post-behaviouralism. In the first place, according to Easton, as behaviouralism was the outcome of dissatisfaction against traditionalism, post-behaviouralism also denotes “deep dissatisfaction with political research and teaching”.

Post-behaviouralism strives to convert political science into a rigorous scientific discipline. It must be based on solid foundation so that it can cope with the emergent issues that were plaguing American society. While behaviouralism heavily emphasised the methods and techniques and neglected many burning questions of the present-day society.

In the second place, post-behavioural revolution chalks out a scheme for the ‘ future and in that sense it is future-oriented. The chief objective of this approach is to provide a new direction for political science. What the subject wants to do in the coming years post-behaviouralism wants to emphasise that.

It has no intention to go back to an imaginary golden age of political science and research. Dealing with post- behaviouralism as a revolution Easton makes the following observation: “Post- behaviouralism seeks to propel political science in new directions…. This new deve­lopment is then a genuine revolution, not a reaction, a becoming, not a preservation, a reform and not a counter-reformation”. So we find that post-behaviouralism never makes any attempt to look backwards, it is not willing to remain satisfied with what has happened. Its motto is to go ahead.”

Thirdly, post-behaviouralism is both a movement and an intellectual tendency. We have already noted that post-behaviouralism is future-oriented; it has an ambition and wants to lead political science to a particular direction. In order to achieve this ambitious goal, post-behaviouralism must be converted into a movement. Here the word movement is a misnomer.

Movement does not mean agitation made by some political parties or groups. Continuous and serious efforts are to be made for the realisation of goals. Again, according to Easton, it is an intellectual tendency. Research methods, adopted by post-behaviouralists include rigorous scientific and statistical methods.

The appeal of post-behaviouralists is not to those persons who are disinterested in the subject or those who are the common people. Its appeal is to young graduated political scientists or old members of the profession. Ordinary people may not be interested in what we call post-behaviouralism or behaviouralism.

Even the members of other professions are not supposed to take interest in post- behaviouralism. Easton has further claimed that post-behaviouralism is a genuine revolution and not a reaction. It does not deny the importance of traditionalism or past heritage. It respectfully recollects the past, the contribution of past political scientists. It chiefly wants to say that society is undergoing constant changes and a suitable political research must comprehend them.

Credo of Relevance:

David Easton has already enumerated eight characteristics of behaviouralism and we have earlier explained them. Now, being impelled by new circumstances, he has shifted his attention from behaviouralism to post-behaviouralism and here he wants to convince us that this new concept carries with it sufficient amount of relevance which he calls credo of relevance. Credo means a statement of a person’s beliefs.

Why does he believe in post-behaviouralism has been clarified:

1. According to Easton, the first credo is substance must be given priority over technique. There is immense utility and importance of sophisticated techniques shall be allowed to overshadow the substance or purpose of political science. That is why Easton has said, “Substance must precede technique”.

The importance and relevance of this credo has been stated by Easton in the following words: “For the aphorism of science that it is better to be wrong than vague, post-behaviouralism would subs­titute a new dictum that it is better to be vague than non-relevantly precise”.

2. Earlier behaviouralism was criticised on the ground that it aims at maintaining the status quo of the existing structure of society. But post-behaviouralism has turned away its attention from this perception. This new doctrine has no intention to proceed empirically to protect the conservativeness.

The purpose of post-behaviouralism is to accelerate the social change. Of course post-behaviouralism here will apply improved scientific methods. “To confine oneself exclusively to the description and analysis of facts in their broadest context. As a result empirical political science must lend its support to the maintenance of the very factual conditions it explores. It unwittingly purveys an ideology of social conservatism tempered by modest incremental change”.

3. Easton admits that behaviouralism committed a blunder by not giving any recognition to the brute realities of society. The result was that both the approach and conclusion of behaviouralism was
characterised by unreality. Post-behaviouralism wants to rectify this blunder by giving proper recognition to the real situation which Easton calls “Brute reality”. “The task of post-behaviouralism is to break the barriers of silence that behavioural language necessarily has created and to help political science reach out to the real needs of mankind in a time of crisis”.

4. Behaviouralism paid excessive emphasis on scientific methods and value-free analysis and this resulted in a biased view of political science. But for a proper and balanced analysis it is essential that both empirical and scientific research as well as value added analysis shall be combined together. Behaviouralists made a grave injustice to political science by keeping a way value judgment from its purview. Post- behaviouralism does not wish to repeat it.

5. Dealing with the credo of relevance Easton has placed before us an explosive issue—the exact role of the intellectuals. The duty of the intellectuals is to formulate principles and build up fabric of an academic disciple and while doing so they must “protect the human values of civilisation”. The failure to achieve this coveted goal will bring them at par with the technician and mechanics. But intellectuals and technicians are not of the same category. To protect the value of civilisation is the unique task and obligation of the intellectuals.

If the intellectuals fail to do this task there will occur gross dereliction of duty on their part. The primary obligation of an intellectual to the society is to protect the values of civilisation and to find out the ways which will meet the basic needs of the people. Thus the responsibility of an intellectual is immense. Intellectual must enjoy sufficient freedom of inquiry and that shall be employed for social change and development.

6. Easton reminds the intellectuals of another big responsibility. It is the duty of the intellectuals to know and study the problems. Then his next step shall be to find out the ways for the solution of the problems. Thirdly, to be involved into action. Action should be chanellised for changing society.

Easton observes, “To know is to bear the responsibility for acting and to act is to engage in reshaping society.” Easton views intellectuals from separate standpoint. Intellectuals are scientists and the task of the scientists is to recommend the scientific ways of social change. Therefore the intellectuals must study the social issues and problems in the proper perspective with a scientific outlook. The slogan of the post-behaviouralism is action science—an action must be based on science or scientific methods.

7. Finally, Easton has drawn our attention to another important aspect of post- behaviouralism. If it is the duty of the intellectuals to implement the knowledge they have gathered; then the institutions with which they are associated are also parts of the implementation of policy. In other words, Easton wants to emphasise that the intellectuals, scientists and all the institutions disseminating academic principles are all directly involved in the gigantic task of social upliftment.

Easton concludes that if so “Politicisation of the professions is inescapable as well as desirable”. The post-behaviouralists, scientists, the intellectuals all are actors of the social change. Also the state or political system is part of the process. He is of opinion that all the post- behaviouralists may not agree with all the credo of relevance. But the doctrine of post- behavioural revolution appears to embrace the above-noted crucial features of post- behaviouralism. “As such the credo brings out most of the salient features of post- behavioural revolution as it appears to be taking shape today”.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Revolution and Socialism:

Importance of Revolution:

There developed an impression that the evils of uncontrolled concentration of wealth and cut-throat competition among the producers of goods and articles could be ended only by means of a revolution or number of revolutions. “The Revolution was the greatest emancipatory event in European history. It profoundly effected the future of the socialist movement but it was not in itself socialist.”

From history we come to know that both in France and in America the revolutionaries laid abnormally great faith on the revolutionary tactics for the attainment of objectives. Though critics (Specially Marx and Engels) are of opinion that the revolution in France could not overthrow the oppressors and capitalists from the power, there occurred a revolution against the establishment. The American Revolution was not of socialist revolution, it was a war of independence.

But the revolutionaries were united to overthrow the colonial rulers and finally they succeeded in installing their own rulers to power. In fact, the importance of revolution was being felt since French Revolution. Tocqueville once said: “The French Revolution was then a political Revolution which in its operation and aspect resembled a religious one. It had every peculiar and characteristic feature of a religious movement, it not only spread to foreign countries, but it was carried thither by preaching and by propaganda”.

Socialism through Revolution:

Without revolution, it was the firm belief of many socialists; socialist society could not be set up. This belief spread its roots in the minds of many in the early years of nineteenth century. A forerunner of this conviction was the French Socialist Louis Auguste Blanqui (1805-1881). Louis Blanqui had no faith on parliamentary process as a means of radical change of society.

He even ridiculed parliamentary methods or constitutional techniques. Before Blanqui, Babeuf and his followers were strong advocates of resurectionary means for change of society. Blanquism was subsequently bequeathed to Marx, Engels and Lenin. All the revolutionaries were the followers of a general principle which was a very small organised dedicated person would shoulder the responsibility of organising a revolution. Of course, without the large scale participation of the masses the success in revolution would never be achieved.

Thus it means that the leadership would be vested in the hands of few men and the common people would bear the brunt of revolution. Though Marx and Engels could not provide us a detailed analysis of revolutionary tactics and means Lenin did not fail.

In fact, revolution as a potential force of setting up socialism was first applied by Lenin in Russia. Since Lenin’s time we have come to be acquainted with the concept revolutionary socialism which denotes socialism through revolution. Method other them revolution has no relevance.

Reasons:

We have just now stated that the socialists, in general, have laid great stress on revolution. Now time is ripe to investigate the reasons of this preference.

Few reasons are stated below:

1. The economic and political history of the post-industrialization starkly reveals that the wealth generated by industrialization was so much unequally distributed among different classes of people that it resulted in gross injustice and it crossed maximum limit of toleration.

Rectification of this injustice and overhauling the whole system were strongly felt by more or less all sections of society and it was also fact that sporadic methods or reforms were fully inadequate, a revolutionary method was necessary.

2. Reforms, parliamentary methods, democratic tactics could not help the common people. There was practically no scope for the workers to participate in political affairs of the state. Democratic methods and franchise were limited to the affluent persons. Naturally participation in democratic methods was not seriously thought of by general public. Revolution was to them the last resort.

Moreover, it was felt that the heartless autocratic rulers of Russia and several other states of Europe could not be managed and controlled by parliamentary means.

3. The autocratic rulers had large force of military and police at their disposal and in order to counteract reforms and democratic procedures. Only revolution could be relied upon. Even a liberal state from military point of view was very powerful.

Reforms vs Revolution:

The revolutionaries were faced with a dilemma—reform vs revolution. A section of the socialists had certain amount of weakness in mind. But majority rejected reforms. It was felt that for a radical change of society (radical change means a thorough change in political and economic fields) reforms were insufficient. Reforms could simply ensure a change of power from one group of persons to another group or one party to another party.

But for the complete emancipation of men this type of change could do nothing. The capacity of reforms was so much limited that economic fate of the masses of men even after the implementation of reform would remain same. For this very reason there was a great demand for revolution in some countries, specifically in Russia. Piecemeal change could be effected by the introduc­tion of reforms.

In some capitalist countries some reforms were introduced as response to the increasing demands of men. But these reforms could not change the economic and political structure of state. The proletarians (to use Marx’s term) were fully class conscious and the bourgeoisie and the proletariat were in direct conflict with each other and in such a situation there was hardly any scope to implement the reforms for the radical change of economic and political fate.

Moreover, the common men had no power to implement the reforms. So for a change of society the seizure of the state power was essential and without revolution this could not be done. So far as reforms vs revolution is concerned the demand was in favour of the latter.

Revolution in Practice:

In a number of countries revolution succeeded in bringing about an end of autocratic rule. V. I. Lenin (1870-1924) is first among them. Under the leadership of Lenin the Bolsheviks overthrew the Czarist rulers and established communist rule in Russia which took the name of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. He not only established a new regime in USSR, but also he showed the world the success could come through revolution. He is regarded by many as the father of revolutionary struggle.

He also introduced organisation of party and revolutionary tactics. Revolution as a method of changing society and setting up of socialism was also used by Mao Ze Dong the great Chinese revolutionary. Mao (1893-1976) blended his own thought about revolution and the role of party in revolution with those of Marx and Lenin and all these took a new name, popularly known as Mao’s thought.

However, in all his revolutionary activities Mao never departed from the basic tenets of revolution. Similarly in Cuba and Vietnam we witness the grand success of revolution. Fidel Castro (born 1926) was the undisputed leader of Cuban revolution and to his revolutionary tactics the USA, the most powerful capitalist country in the world, was forced to admit defeat. His revolution also defeated the Batista regime in Cuba. USA led a prolonged war (more than a decade) in Vietnam to defeat the Vietnamese revolu­tionaries but finally was forced to accept defeat of imperialism and victory of revolution.

In many countries of Asia and Africa we encounter the frequency of revolution and ma
ny of the revolutions could not finally succeed. To conclude, the success or failure of revolution could not seal the process of revolution. In almost all the countries of the world revolutions in numerous forms are always taking place. But all of them are not in Marxian form.

Conditions for Success:

The contribution of revolution to revamping the social, economic and political structures of state is immense no doubt. But the revolution will not fall from the sky. Men are to organise revolution and for that purpose the workers and common men must form party and its members must be revolutionary-minded.

It has been recommended by many hardcore socialists that the leadership of the party and the revolution shall be vested in a small group of persons. Another condition for the success of a revolution is revolutionaries or persons participating in revolutions must be prepared to make any sort of hardship and sacrifice. In China, Vietnam and some other parts of the world the revolutionary process was a prolonged one and mainly because of that people’s sacrifice was also prolonged.

Our point is they must be prepared for it. Another condition is success of a revolution depends considerably upon the selection of strategy which includes to be quite aware of the weak points of the opposite force. The objective of the revolutionary would be to strike the iron while it is red. It is generally suggested that there is no master key which the revolutionaries can use at will.

The selection of strategy or tactics shall be chosen by applying a good deal of acumen. Almost all the top revolutionaries have suggested that workers must be aware of the extent of exploitation and they must be determined to free themselves from exploitation. For this is required spread of knowledge about revolution and also the necessity of revolution. Lenin and Fabian Socialists resorted to this practice. Even after the establishment of socialism people must be prepared to protect it.

Alternative to Revolution:

The past incidents as well as the success and failures of the revolutions that occurred in several countries have taught the lesson that only a revolution cannot be the weapon for constructing a socialist society. There are other methods. This idea has been expressed by F. Engels in his famous Introduction to Marx’s Class Struggle in France.

In their Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels stridently advocated for armed struggle or revolution as means of setting up socialism. In those days (in the first-half of the nineteenth century) Marx and Engles felt that revolution had no alternative. But towards the end of the nineteenth century the situation in many countries of Europe had undergone rapid changes and the sharpness of revolution was not so prominent.

Engels wrote this Introduction in 1895. In this Introduction he wrote “the conditions of the struggle had essentially changed. Robellion in the old style, street fighting with the barricades which decided the issue everywhere up to 1848 was to a considerable extent obsolete”.

While Engels was writing this Introduction Marx was no more. After the death of Marx in 1883 Engels got 12 years to study the political, economic and other conditions that prevailed in those 12 years. His main concern was how to win a battle against the bourgeois. Before 1848 their (Marx and Engels) concerns were selection of tactics and victory in revolution. After about half a century Engles focused his attention on the victory. If he keeps himself preoccupied with strategy problem will arise.

Different Alternatives:

Engels in the above-noted Introduction has suggested few alternatives to revolution. In the first place, Engles says that, universal suffrage is a very powerful weapon to fight the capitalist exploiters. After every three or four years the workers by exercising the right to vote can elect representatives to legislature and they will in turn control the government. Engels suggested this method on the ground that to seize political power was not an easy task and the exercise of franchise can at least partially serve the purpose of revolution.

In the second place, election in capitalist state also provides another scope to the working class. In such states elections are frequently held (frequently means after fixed duration) and common people get the opportunity to participate in such elections. Elections are also vehicles through which electorate can ventilate its opinions.

Thirdly, in every capitalist state there are various types of institutions and organisations who have enough freedom to work freely. The organisations of the proletarians can fully and effectively utilise these institutions as weapons of their struggle.

Fourthly, people have certain political rights which the proletarians can use against the bourgeois rule and oppression.

There are also other democratic means to fight the bourgeois and reactionary forces. The workers and common people must decide that. Engels has observed that insurrection, surprise attack, revolutions carried by small minority militancy all are techniques of past epoch. But this does not mean that the importance of all these does not exist at all. The point is—time has changed.

Evolutionary Socialism:

Definition and Causes:

In the last section we have discussed socialism through revolution which may also mean violent methods. But the suitability of violent methods in all situations raises questions. Many people began to doubt about the applicability of revolution.

Their main argument was violence or armed struggle might bring temporary success but this has no permanent value. For all practical purposes and for all situations it is better to suggest that by gradualism or step by step socialist goals can be achieved. This is called socialism through evolutionary methods. It is also known as evolutionary socialism.

A number of factors have contributed to the growth of this belief:

(1) Towards the end of seventies of the nineteenth century the nature of capitalism began to change specially its attitude towards the legitimate demands of workers. Most of the genuine demands were accepted by the capitalists and this discouraged the workers to launch agitation.

(2) Expansion of colonialism in Africa and Asia helped capitalists to accumulate more and more profit and wealth and with it they met the demand for higher wages of workers.

(3) The consciousness of the workers increased immensely and they formed organisations and unions. All these in turn protected the interests of workers.

(4) The capitalists appeared more pragmatic. They eschewed the path of con­frontation with the workers. By displeasing the workers they could not earn profit and manage industry.

(5) Democratic feeling and consciousness began to spread rapidly among all sections and on the face of it the capitalists hesitated to continue the earlier methods of exploitation.

Upload and Share Your Article: