Category: Political Science Notes

The problem of values is a key factor in the determination and growth of political theory. Some of them want to see Political Science as a pure ‘science’ keeping values at a distance. Others are in favour of giving a proper place to values. Thus, there are two groups or academic cultures on methodological perspectives from the viewpoint of values in the study of politics.

A comprehensive and general theory is yet to emerge. Till then, scholars have to bear with available traditional theories, and engage themselves in building up a new empirical theory. Political scientists badly suffer on account of non-existence of modern political theory for the 21st century: lack of coherence, direction, comparison, and empiricism in the discipline. Absence of a scientific theory hurts the status and self-respect of the academic community.

English-speaking people have stopped their efforts to build a theory and live in their dead past like ghosts. Because of several constraints, it could not grow in past and present communist countries. Scholars elsewhere are unable to identify it. At many other places, some do not feel any need to develop it, rather oppose it.

There are a large number of theoretical formulations masquerading as a general political theory, but none of them deals with the political system, both micro and macro, as a whole. Number of approaches is increasing and can be regarded as a sign of growing, health of the discipline. But some protagonists of these approaches, advocating them as ‘theory’, display rigid orthodoxy, conser­vatism, and parochialism.

They fail to adopt an integrative and constructivist attitude. In fact, there is a great dearth of political scientists having interdisciplinary outlook, multi-methodologism, and commitment to empirical research. All this requires intensive education, training, and facil­ities. A good number of scholars would have to work like Easton in the field.

Another difficulty in making the discipline autonomous and its study a ‘science’ is to determine the nature of politics, and find out its proper relationship with other areas of knowledge. Often its subject-matter is subordinated to ethics, religion, philosophy, sociology and economics. After committing such a mistake, it becomes almost impossible to develop viable political theory. The subject carries a long-standing boundary problem. Others trespass, meanwhile inmates of the discipline quarrel among themselves to own or disown their own field.

The problem of values is a key factor in the determination and growth of political theory. Some of them want to see Political Science as a pure ‘science’ keeping values at a distance. Others like Easton, Dahl, etc., are in favour of giving a proper place to values. Thus, there are two groups or academic cultures on methodological perspectives from the viewpoint of values in the study of politics. However, a synthetic view is also emerging. Karl W. Deutsch has supported this synthesis.

Some methodological problems have also put new challenges to the growth of advanced modern political theory. They pose the problem of generality versus validity, and holism versus reductionism. When a political theory is general, it usually has less amount of validity or closeness to empirical facts. If it is more factual, empirical or observational, it suffers from lack of generality.

Easton’s systems theory and Herbert Simon’s decision-making theory illustrate this difficulty. Similarly, generalisa­tions/conclusions derived from the study of a large entity or collectivity like a national political party cannot be easily applied to a small political entity or group.

A micro-theory remains unable to tell anything about a macro-problem. In the same way, the society or a particular collectivity wants solution of emergent problems and crises from the community of political and other social scientists. But, it cannot be reliably advanced unless some long-term basic research is undertaken which requires investment of huge manpower, finance, and energy.

Still the scholars as citizens and social beings have to devote central attention to the critical problems like war and peace, development of backward societies, elimination of hunger, poverty, illiteracy, parochialism, and disease, abolition of tyranny and racism, reduction of arms race etc. A little inattention or neglect can plunge humanity into darkness. Survival and existence of human beings is at stake.

Every discipline and Political Science in particular, has to renovate its concept regarding man and his behaviour – individual and social. But it cannot be done unless all disciplines come closer and develop interdisciplinary perspective. One single scholar, even an Aristotle, having that enormous knowledge may not be available.

If we collect scholars belonging to different disciplines, the problem of coordi­nation, accommodation and reconciliation remains unsolved. Within Political Science itself, political theorists have evolved their own peculiar jargon which obstructs communication even among themselves. Borrowings from other disciplines make the problem more difficult and beyond compre­hension of average scholars.

The greatest difficulty is with regard to the changing, ephemeral, ambiguous, subtle, and coercive nature of politics. It cannot be compre­hended easily by ordinary and even advanced minds. A political theory which once was regarded empirical and ‘scientific’ becomes unrealistic, historical and fanciful today. Political theories of today can meet the same fate tomorrow or a day after. In other words, every time, like armament industry, political theory would need constant renovation and rejuvenation. Political theory as such cannot be made only for the exclusive use of academics.

Apart from gaining knowledge or knowing political reality, it has to be used for applied purposes. Otherwise, it would become an inhuman academic activity or a fossilised piece museum. For this purpose, the theorist, besides his own observation, has to come closer to political actors and activists, the movers and shakers of that knowledge. Still, close cooper­ation between the two – doers and theorisers, experience-holders and generalisers, is not easy and trouble-free. For the politicians political matters are directly involved with their existence.

These are secretative and confidential by nature being related to power, influence and manoeuvring, and may not be divulged even to dispassionate academics. Even if it is told, many things remain untold, and only a naive would confide in them. Whatever be the stature and experience of a political scientist or a political theorist, he cannot substitute the actual experience of a grossly involved political actor.

Still, the vision of theorists can be greater, wider, and more fruitful. It is desirable that both of them live together and develop mutual understanding and confidence. But the theorist has to escape from the prejudices and vested interests of power-wielders and their opponents.

Sometimes, even dispassionate political theorists appear dangerous to the power-holders. If the political scientists actively stand opposed to the ideology of a ruling class, they would certainly be dragged before a firing squad or maimed by the mafia. In this area, both can play the sea-saw game of deceit, hypocrisy, and melodrama.

However, in the absence of resources, power and support, a devoted votary of political theory has to fight his war unarmed and single-handed like a Christ or Socrates. Obviously, the solution of the above problems lies only with such scholars, whatever be the cost. In fact, there is no way out. If humanity has to be saved in advanced countries, and sub-humanity of developing societies has to be upgraded to human level, those who have some concern for man, have to come forward, and enjoy this masochistic adventure.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Some of the most important purpose preformed by the state in modern times are as follows:

(1) Public Welfare:

Since the ancient times, Indian and foreign philosophers had been emphasizing the fact that the aim of the state was public welfare. As a matter of fact the state was organised for the common welfare. For example, books like ‘Manusmriti’, ‘Mahabharata’ and ‘Kautilya’s Arthshastra’ give a solid support to the fact that in ancient times there was no state in India, but later on when mutual disputes arose among the people and life became unbearable, the state came into existence.

The aim of the state was to maintain law and order and promote common welfare. People elected Manu as their leader on the condition that he would try his best for promoting their welfare and in return he would get from the people the one- sixth of land-revenue, a few commodities and he would impose a few taxes on the people.

Plato and Aristotle also maintained that the aim of the state was public good and moral welfare. After that almost all the political thinkers have been supporting this view. Thus, the aim of the state is to promote the public welfare.

(2) Maintenance of Law and Order:

In most parts of the world it has been the aim of the state to protect the individuals, to ensure the security of their life and to maintain law and order among them. Books like ‘Mahabharata’ and ‘Kautilya’s Arthshastra’ give a solid support to this fact that state was organised for maintaining law and order.

Thus, from the very beginning it has been the sole aim of the nation to maintain law and order. The Mahabharata supports the view that people cannot live in the absence of the state or the government. They cannot live because their life and property are insecure in the absence of the state. The individuals and the socialists also supports this view.

(3) Social Welfare:

The aim of the state is not confined to the maintenance of law or order alone but it lies in promoting the social and economic welfare of the people also. These days the state aims at eliminating almost all the evils of society, n order to produce good citizens, the state introduces finer educational system and wants its individuals to come out as better organs of society.

Almost all the states are making progress in this respect. For example, many laws were framed by the government in order to eliminate such evils of society as child-marriages, dowry-system and untouchability, etc. Measures are being adopted to eliminate illiteracy. Thus, it is quite clear that it is also the aim of the state to promote the common welfare of the people in socio-economic field.

(4) Establishment of Justice:

For the smooth running of society establishment of justice is essential. Otherwise, the doctrine of “Might is right” will prevail and everybody’s life and property will be in peril. The state frames the laws for the security of the life and property of the people. The law-breakers are tried and punished by the Judiciary and due protection is given to citizens of the state.

(5) Economic Welfare:

The modern state adopts measures for eliminating poverty. For example, in India Five Year Plans and Community Development Projects have been introduced. This led to the increase in national income and to the rise of the standard of living.

(6) Political Welfare:

The state also aims at the political welfare of the people. For this purpose the state gives some fundamental rights to the people. The same has been done in India. In India all the citizens enjoy the right to vote. And every Indian citizen of twenty-five years of age has the right to contest the election either for Legislature or for Parliament.

(7) Necessity of State:

The points, discussed above,show us very well the urgency of the state. The state is badly needed for the public good, maintenance of law and order, social welfare, establishment of justice, economic and political welfare of the people. In the absence of the state anarchy will prevail and there will be chaos and confusion in society.

Besides this, the progress of the individual is not possible in the absence of the state. Development of human personality is possible only in the well-ordered life. The individual cannot even think of his progress in the condition of threatening danger to his life.

In such conditions, the advancement of culture and civilization is not possible. And, therefore, the state is badly needed for the smooth-running of human life. The state not only aims at the maintenance of law and order but also provides the individuals with the opportunity of making progress.

The state aims at imparting justice and protects the weak against the strong. Thus, it is quite clear that the state is badly needed for the overall advancement of the individual. In the absence of the state, human life will be unbearable and people will degenerate into that terrible state of nature which has been described by Hobbes.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Both as concept and practice, ‘terrorism’ is wider than ‘terror’. It is ideology, ethos, practice, planning, strategy and politics motivating the operations of terror.

Inclusive of the elements of ‘terror’ and the ‘terrorist’, making of terrorism (see diagram below) can be explained as follows:

Perfect, Fighting and Proselytising Religion/Ideology:

As Terrorism is extreme and strategic form of launching Religious Funda­mentalism, it builds on the foundation a Perfect, Fighting and Proselytising Religion/Ideology. Terrorists believe in a religion (jehadi) or an ideology (Maoist or Naxalism) fanatically. They entertain the idea that God has made revelation, given commands and directions to them either directly or through some Prophet or Messenger. As such, they have to be obeyed by all persons irrespective of time and place.

All non-believers and renegades have to be brought to that faith, by all means. Everyone can attain Bliss, Grace, Heaven or Divine Favour when he himself acts on and compels others to follow these tenets. The believer is assured of all pleasures here and hereafter.

Those who do not obey are, in larger interest, liable to be punished by them. Their faith or ideology demands complete faith, total surrender and strict adherence. It requires undivided loyalty to it. It has to be accepted by all irrespective of differences of race, caste, colour, social status, language and culture. To give a concrete reality to their faith, use of force or violence is taught in various type of terrorist camps

Strong History, Large Community, and Local Support:

Usually terrorism carries a very strong past in which their forefathers have been rulers of vast territories and possessed robust cultures.’ Their number is usually over millions and millions inhabiting many states and countries/ On this basis they are able to establish links, where the terrorists commit acts of terrorism, with the local people, get support, intelligence, and infor­mation from fellow-believers. Elements of some Islamic governments and their armies also help and direct them.

Religious/Ideological Call and Training:

There must be abundance of human resources. Availability of a large number of persons, particularly young, poverty-stricken and illiterate is necessary.’ They should be willing to undergo training in terrorism. This training is imparted as part of religion or ideology. It is actually conducted under the cover of religion. Senior terrorists, actually militiamen train the youngsters in various madarsas, training camps and institutions to die for the (cause) religion or mission. Preachers train non-believers and elements hostile to their religion or ideology. Senior leaders are authorised to shoot immediately any hesitant, renegade or disobedient terrorist.

No person is permitted to seek shelter of a guru, prophet or preacher from any other different religion. If someone so dares he can be killed on the spot. Every terrorist is taught to consider it as his prime duty to kill the person raising doubt or objection in their goals, guidance and training. Overwhelmed by such feelings the terrorist unhesitatingly engages him in the job of killings. Osama bin Laden found him ordained by the Holy Quran to target even the citizens. Being the taxpayers of a particular tyrannical government he considers them as potential combatants.

Terrorism as Ultimate and Best Strategy:

Use of terror or terrorism is now the only strategy available to the religious fundamentalists. It is the only alternative available to the fundamentalist people and governments. They cannot exercise religious fundamentalism in old ways. They resort to terrorism as they find themselves to be incapable, constrained and ill equipped to launch an ‘open’ war for the cause of religion.

Extremists among them do not have big armies, heavy weapons, legitimacy to rule, and sources to engage the enemy in the battlefield. The world community, under international law does not permit them to launch fighting.

They are also constrained by their own governments if they operate for them. Such governments for various reasons and as a matter of policy avoid direct confrontation or war with the enemy, which may be a nation, state or community living in adjacent area. Supporting governments of such terrorists either lack resources or avoid using WMDs for fear of sanctions from international community. In place of conducting a full-fledged war, they find use of terrorists and terrorism much cheaper, easier, more effective and efficient in outcome.

Political Goals:

In all acts of terror, the perpetrators, also known as militants and jehadis, kill innocent persons who are totally unknown to the havoc being inflicted on them. Innocent people are killed, their public or private property destroyed, women and girls raped and buildings blasted. All these acts are considered by the political leaders and administrators as simple ‘killing’ of innocent people. But the use of term ‘terror’ for such heinous acts is deceptive as it creates confusion and deceit.

It hides the failure and irresponsibility of persons, the security force and rulers in not protecting the victims of terrorism. These terrorists, therefore, must be clearly and openly called as murderers and killers, arsonists, vandals and the like. They are criminals of the first order, and need an outright condemnation and elimination.

Their acts are not simply acts of ‘terror’ or of violence, but in fact, by proxy, are political acts and war. Theirs are ‘heinous crimes’ operated by the political leaders or their military commanders through the terrorists to realise specific goals. The terrorists kill men, women and children not out of grievance against them but to warn the attacked people or their government that they have to do what the terrorists want and demand, or leave their people, territory, and governance to them.

Through the acts of terror, they make attempt to compel enemy-governments to change policy, planning, disrupt economy, and cause communal riots and bloodshed. The ‘govern­ment’ includes local, provincial or central governments, including their security agencies, police, and military and civil officers. These terrorists are supported, prompted and helped by their governments, communities, groups, and organisations. The people who live in neighbouring and other countries, but submit to their ideology, religion and nationality give intelli­gence, financial, and material support to the terrorist outfits. They also get recruits from them.

Non-state Actors: Beyond the Purview of UN:

Mostly the terrorists are non-state actors spread over in different parts of the world. Before the world community the governments sheltering, guiding and protecting them refuse to accept the responsibility for their heinous acts, even their presence or residence in their territory. Links or connections with them are kept secret. Funds, material, weapons, etc. are made available to them through covert agencies. The terrorists make use of the most sophis­ticated weapons.

In fact, they are in search of nuclear bombs and WMDs. Some of the governments like Iran are on the verge of making them, and the other like Pakistan, is already in possession of them with mindset to use them. Obviously, no people or their army can fight against this type of terror: the human bomb. Timing, place, mode of attack and type of weapons being used are not known beforehand. One cannot prepare oneself in advance. Islamic diehards residing almost everywhere render sympathy, shelter, and help to them.

Guidance from Fraternal Governmen
t, Intelligence Agencies and the Army:

The terrorists are supported, guided and protected by the ambitious political leaders and military rulers. The latter operate the wires of terrorism. They manage to send them to kill innocent people, set their houses on fire, cause disturbance, spread communal tension and the like. The terrorists are asked to do so at times in the name of freedom or avenge some injustice or in the national interest.

Their government manages to dispatch them as infil­trators, human bombs, fifth columnists and terrorists. In view of the worldwide call to fight against terrorism, it is not possible for them to enter into an “open, large-scale and all out war. Islamic governments or organisa­tions often use terrorism as a political weapon. Under international pressure, ambitious political leaders and military rulers resort to it under the cover of defending religion, seeking Justice or realising Freedom.

At home, when the mission of terrorism is realised, the terrorists are given a warm welcome and treated like heroes and martyrs. They are given blessings that they would be rewarded with entry in heaven. Verses from the Holy Books are recited to support and boost their deeds in large gatherings.

Financial Sources for Use of Sophisticated Weapons:

The terrorists are not short of funds, weapons or manpower. They get recruits from all over the world’ Terrorism is fully motivated and taught by preachers of ‘Terror’, and, practiced by the terrorists. Islamic terrorism, earlier, was financed by are three Saudi princes, seven banks and eight charitable groups. Some of the charitable groups are the International Islamic Relief Organisation, the Muslim World League, the SAAR Foundation and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth. Bin Laden has prepared an encyclopaedia for the terrorists of Al Queda to fight the holy war by spreading terrorism and use all means.

Bin Laden claims Islamic rights over Pak N-bombs also:

“We supported the Pakistani people and congratulated them when God was gracious enough to enable them to acquire the nuclear weapon. We regard this as one of our rights, our Muslim rights.” He is actively looking to pile up more nuclear weapons as well as chemical and biological weapons. His intended targets usually are the US, Britain and Israel. In fact, all states, openly or clandestinely, using Terrorism, are engaged in this venture. A few of them do not even fear or care for total annihilation, as they consider it divinely ordained. The terrorists now claim to be ready to repeat many 9/11 blasts in US, UK, and many European countries. India has been their victim several times.

Youth, Poverty and Ignorance:

After profiling more than 50 Muslim suicide bombers, serving in the Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jehad, Ariel Merari, a Tel Aviv University psychologist concluded that there is no single psychological or demographic profile of suicide terrorists. “Intense struggles produce several types of people with the potential willingness to sacrifice themselves for a cause. Their motives range from religion, patriotism, hatred of the enemy to a profound sense of victimisation.”

A BBC report states that suicide bombers are typically unmarried men in their late teens and 20s. They act on the belief that they will go straight to paradise after the deed is over. Recruits are picked from mosques, schools and religious institutions and are reassured that their families will be looked after. The mentors of Terrorism exploit utter poverty, ignorance and fanatic faith of the youth and downtrodden people of Muslim communities.

Exploitation of Public Grievances, Legal Flaws and Ineffective Judicial Process:

An another requisite and source of Terrorism is abundance of Public Griev­ances, Legal Flaws and ineffective, expensive and dilatory Judicial Process in the enemy country. The ordinary common laws of a country provide ample opportunity for conducting war of terrorism. It is very difficult to apprehend the terrorists, both before and after they commit the crime of terrorism. Their methods are slow, dilatory, costly and ineffective.

By the time the case is decided the terrorist may commit several fresh terrorist acts. After a few years of judicial proceedings, one terrorist might be sentenced to death. But before that happens, his accomplices would have killed hundreds of innocent men, women and children. Loopholes of ordinary law are fully exploited by the terrorist links.

September 11 bomb attacks terrorised the American mind and changed the country forever. Terrorism is able to play havoc because of weaknesses and malfunctioning of democratic govern­ments. Countries like India often like to wait and wait, and owing to lack of courage or fear of Muslim reaction avoid taking action.

They have infor­mation and sources to deal with it but refrain from taking action in right direction. Both war against terrorism and implementation of ordinary laws and human rights as means to prevent it hardly go together. Containment of terrorism demands full or partial sacrifice of some rights, conveniences and privileges in varying degrees.

Terrorists already know the inability of some states to govern their societies, handle their security and military measures, and protect their territories from serving as sanctuary to terrorists and criminal organisations.

At the international level, even legal action becomes more difficult in view of absence of extradition treaties, sovereignty of states, administrative incapability and lack of cooperation from concerned governments. The terrorists know all these weaknesses of national and international communities, and exploit them fully.

Upload and Share Your Article:

The concept of ‘end of ideology’ debate implies that at the advanced stage of industrial growth, a country’s social-economic organisation is determined by the level of its development, and not by any political ideology. Edward Shils reported it as ‘The End of Ideology’.’ This has been argued on two occasions. The first occasion was in the 1950s when an argument was put forward as the ‘end-of-ideology’ thesis. The second occasion has produced the ‘end-of-history’ thesis which first appeared in 1989, and is still the subject of fierce debate.

The best known proponents of ‘end-of-ideology’ thesis are: Seymour Martin Lipset (1922-) (Political Man, 1959) and Daniel Bell (The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties, i960) For the first time, Lipset offered the version of ‘end-of-ideology’ thesis that was later espoused by Daniel Bell, Edward Shils, and Raymond Aron.

For Lipset, post-war societies in the West eliminate the functional need for ideologies since they have solved the fundamental political problems of the industrial revolution that generated these ideologies. Daniel Bell pointed out that in the Western World ‘there is today rough consensus among intellectuals on political issues: the acceptance of a Welfare State; the desirability of decentralised power; a system of mixed economy and of political pluralism. In that sense to the ideological age has ended.’ Ralph Dahrendorf found that formerly capitalist societies have become ‘post-capitalist societies’.

In these societies conflicts are confined within the borders of their proper realm, and do not influence politics and other spheres of social life. Daniel Bell in his The End of Ideology (i960) asserted that they are prone to similar development irrespective of their ideological difference. In his Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (i960) Seymour M. Lipset observed that ‘democracy is not only even primarily a means through which different groups can attain their ends or seek the good society; it is the good society itself in operation’. Intellectuals now realise that they no longer need ideologies or Utopias to motivate them to political action.

W.W. Rostow, in his The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-communist Manifesto (1960) built a unidimensional model of economic growth which was applicable to all countries irrespective of their political ideologies. J.K. Galbraith, in his The New Industrial State (1967), identified certain characteristics of advanced industrial societies which corresponded to the thesis of end of ideology.

These are: centralisation, bureaucratisation, professionalisation and techno-cratisation. Every country’s techno-economic structure is shaped by the level of its industrialisation. The bureaucratic and technocratic elite have merged in the advanced industrial societies.

In some advanced countries, politics is boring. Politics seemed to have been transformed from vivid clash over ideology to dull technical discussion about means for promoting goals questioned by none.’ This process is often referred to as “the end of ideology” or as depoliticisation of politics.

Depoliticisation implies a transformation of political ideologies into a set of more or less distinct administrative technologies based on a widespread consensus as to what kind of goals one should try to attain. Even if ideological differences are de-emphasised in a depoliticised political community. Idea of depoliticisation was spread by Herbert Tingsten between 1946-1960. Whether depoliticisation prevails in a country depends upon a clear-cut notion of ideology.

Within a few years, with the advent of the New Left, the theory looked doubtful. There was no more revival of ideology, but the most well-off and privileged youth of the richest Western countries demanded an end of materialism which was the essence ‘end-of-ideology’ thesis.

The modern version of the end-of-ideology thesis does not argue that all ideology had come to an end, but claims that one ideology, the ‘right’ one, has finally, absolutely and permanently, won the conflict of ideas and would dominate human thinking in perpetuity. This view is known as the ‘end-of-history’ thesis. It has been put forwarded by Francis Fukuyama (The End of History and the Last Man, 1992).

Upload and Share Your Article:

The term ‘development’ should be distinguished from ‘progress’. Progress is concerned with moral judgement applied on normative criteria. Devel­opment is a process in which a system or institution is transformed into stronger, more organised, more efficient and more effective form. It implies a conscious effort for the attainment of a specific goal. For J.H. Mittelman, it is ‘the increasing capacity to make rational use of natural and human resources for social ends.’

There are other definitions of development which try to compound all types of changes into one. Accordingly, it is a major social change from one state of national being to another more valued state. It involves a complex of mutually related economic, social and political changes. Economic factors are only one aspect of the total process. Changes are the result of both past history and current’ experience, and in turn provide the basis of further changes.

Scholars mix up development with growth: social and cultural change with economic growth. The former presenting qualitative and the latter quantitative changes. Riggs unnecessarily regards the two as distinct and separate. Development, according to him, is not merely quantitative. He refers to changes in the basic structural arrangements of a society and economy, not the degree to which these structures are productive or non-productive.

The term ‘growth’ can be used for a different variable from ‘development’. According to Esman, development denotes a major social transformation, a change in system-states, along with the continuum from peasant and pastoral to industrial organisation. The assimilation and institutionalisation of modern physical and social technology are crucial ingredients. The qualitative changes affect values, behaviour, social structure, economic organisation and political process.

Development, broadly, is a combination of both techno-economic and socio-political changes. Bendix explores it as:

(i) A change for better;

(ii) Never-ending process of change;

(iii) Gradual change;

(iv) A combination of qualitative and quantitative changes;

(v) Change in all spheres – political, social, economic, etc.; and

(vi) Not necessarily a copy of the ‘western’ countries.

Development takes place when an index of what is deemed desirable and relatively preferable, increases in magnitude. It is increasing the ability of a system to shape or reshape its environment: ability to make decisions.

According to Riggs, the central variable in ‘development’ is increasing differentiation of structures rather than any particular consequence of that differentiation, whether it be productivity, capital formation, income distri­bution, personal security, or some associated political, social, or administrative variables. He invents a technical term ‘differaction’ for development, which can be both negative and positive. Development is not a natural process. It is a planned and induced change. It is a change which is positive, all-round, balanced, qualitative, and contributes towards making the life of man.

Unplanned changes can also contribute to ‘development’. But in order to avoid waste of resources, particularly in developing societies, planned changes or induced development is always desirable. At this juncture, it can also be explained as a state of mind, a tendency, a direction. Without it, no change can be initiated or realised properly. All this, to political scientists, means modernisation, which is regarded as an antecedent to development. Still the two concepts or processes should be analysed in a specific manner, at least for analytical purposes.

Upload and Share Your Article:

With the help of ten categories of Human Rights under the Declaration, a ‘scale’ can be proposed hypothetically to measure quantum or extent of protecting Human Rights in a culture or polity. These categories can be treated as variables also.

The number of these categories can further be increased in the present context. Each proposed category has been allotted here value of 20 marks. However, a particular category owing to its greater importance can be allotted marks from 20 to 50. As such, it makes up a scale of 200 marks. It is proposed to measure Human Rights found in different systems, organisations and ideologies. A ‘guidelines for measuring Human Rights Cluster or Human Rightism’ is proposed hereunder.

Such a Scale of Measuring Human Rightism would be useful in knowing span of Human Rightism found in a particular political system, political party, government, organisation or community. The scale may be applied to know the extent of Human Rightism prevailing in the whole world or any part or region thereof. This scale can be applied to measure Human Rightism irrespective of particular ideology, structural system, faith or religion. It can be done so on the basis of the concept of ‘minimal good life’ to be brought about by Human Rights.

One can, thus, neglect the preference of the West and the US for making civic and political rights compulsory and the Eastern societies upholding requirements of society as a whole. The scale of Human Rightism, overriding them both, can evaluate them. The proposed scale can give an estimate of Human Rightism found in an ideology, religion or school of thought. With its help, one can find out the gap or extent of difference between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ of Human Rightism claimed by a particular political party, system, organisation or institution.

It can report as well as compare the quantum of Human Rightism found in different political systems, cultures and ideologies during a particular century, historical stage or era. It can be done so both horizontally as well as vertically: Human Rightism existing in different states during medieval period or in Hindu states for the last two centuries.

Each type of comparison, analysis, or evaluation can predict guidelines to increase Human Rightism further. After ascertaining guidelines, one can formulate programme of reform, agitation and struggle to realise the needed quantum of Human Rightism, and arrive at an estimate of the cost, in terms of men, money and material, to be incurred for launching that programme.

This cost can be reduced by resorting to peaceful means like generating consensus, procuring consent, seeking mutual cooperation, and entering into friendly deliberation. The leaders or managers can divide their programme into several segments and stages. Some separate board, commission, corporate body, tribunal, bureau or organisation can be consti­tuted for the purpose of its proper implementation and reporting of the programme.

Every society, community, caste or group can determine its own path of human progress from minimum to maximum Human Rightism, One can also anticipate the hurdles, difficulties and challenges coming in the way of survival or existence of a system struggling to increase Human Rightism.

However, it may be concluded that Human Rights do not stand on strong footing of their own. They depend on care and mercy of the nation-states and the UN bodies, and ultimately on the might of dominating powers. Recourse to them is not very safe for man. Nowhere and none of the human rights provide strength to man to overcome effectively the forces, organisation and jehadi teachings to forgo their claim to practice violence openly against innocent persons, security forces and peace loving persons.

There are Human Rights bodies like Amnesty International (1961), Human Rights Watch (1978) and so on that stand by the victims of human rights violation, but lack courage, skill, aptitude and manpower to stop violence of the violators of Human Rights: Extremists, Fundamentalists and Terrorists.

Upload and Share Your Article: