Category: Political Science Notes

Definition of Anarchism:

Coker says, “Anarchism is the doctrine that political authority, in any of its forms, is unnecessary and undesirable”. According to Prince Kropotkin, “Anarchism is principle or theory of the conduct under which society is conceived without a government-harmony in such a society being obtained not by submission to law or by obedience to an authority but by free agreements conducted between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being”.

Huxley says, “Anarchism is a state of society in which the rule of each individual by himself is the only government”. According to G.D.H. Cole, “Anarchism as a philosophic doctrine sets out from a root and branch opposition to all forms of society which rest on the basis of coercive authority. Anarchism, as an ideal, means a free society from which the coercive elements have disappeared”.

On the basis of the definitions given above, the state and government will not be there in any form of Anarchism. A free society will be established in Anarchism, which will be based on co-operation. All the people will lead a life based on mutual love and there will be no exploitation in this society.

The Theories of Anarchism:

Anarchism means the absence of government or state in any form. Anarchists say that state is a capitalist institution and it is based OB force. State always sides with the capitalists. It is an unnecessary evil. Thus, it should be completely eliminated and in its place voluntary institutions should be formed. These institutions would perform all functions with mutual co-operation.

There will be a social control over land and the means of production. The abolition of state would mean the abolition of all political limits. The anarchists also oppose religion and private property. Anarchists contend that there is no fear of anarchy even after the abolition of the state, because the motive for all crimes is the unequal decision of property.

With the abolition of the institution of private property, equality, liberty and fraternity would be established, and the occurrence of crimes would automatically be stopped. With the spread of education, there would be no crimes and a feeling of co-operation would be inculcated in the minds of the people.

Supporters of this theory:

The supporters of this theory are: William Godwin (1756-1836), Thomas Hodgskin (1787-1869), Proudhan (1809-1865), Henry Thoreau (1817-1862), Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876), Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910) and Prince Kropotkin (1842-1921).

Joseph Proudhan (1809-1865) was probably the first philosopher who called himself an anarchist. His first book ‘What is Property’? His reply was that it is a theft. He criticised the state because this institution came into being with the system of private property.

He also criticised the state, because in the state there was an influence of passion and justice and intelligence. It destroyed individual liberty. He bitterly criticised the exploitation and tyranny and said, “Government of many and by many was in every form an oppression. The highest perfection of society is found in the union of order and anarchy”.

Proudhan also made an assumption of a society which would be based on mutual co-operation and there would be no place for the state or any type of exploitation in it. Institutions established on voluntary basis would increase production.

Thoreau (1817-1862) also opposed the state. He said that the individual is wise. Therefore, it is proper to leave him free. Thoreau says, “That government is the best which governs not at all”.

Bakunin (1814-1876) bitterly opposed the state, private property and capitalism, because all these are the causes of the exploitation of the workers. Bakunin said that the state was based on force and it provided shelter to private property.

Therefore, it should not be tolerated in any form. Private property is a bad institution, because it creates economic inequality and the labourers are exploited. He also criticised religion because it is the supporter of both the state and private property.

Bakunin also proposed the future set-up after the abolition of the state. He gave his new social set-up the name of federalism. According to it, “there will be free union of individuals into communes, of communes into provinces, of provinces into nation and finally of nation into the United States of Europe and later of the whole World”. In this federalism the entire work will depend on mutual will and the individual will not be compelled for any work.

Kropotkin (1842-1921) was also a Russian Communist who expanded the views of Bakunin and presented then in a systematic manner. He criticised the state and said that it had no natural or historical justification. It is against the co­operative feeling of human beings and it is based on the theory that the nature of man is not social and there is always a competition among them.

The laws are either dangerous or useless. Kropotkin said that the state was unnecessary from historical point of view because it can neither protect the labourers and farmers from the exploitation by the capitalists and big landlords, nor could it create jobs for the poor and the labourers. Private property was an evil, because it created economic disparity. Most of the wealth of the country was concentrated in the hands of a few persons and majority of people starved.

What would be the set-up of the society after the abolition of the state? Kropotkin’s outlines are similar to those to Bakunin. He said that after the abolition of the state, the people would live in society, but they would be free from any control of the government.

Autonomous institutions shall exist and they will be based on voluntary agreements. The people, who do not perform their duties towards the society, will be boycotted. The disputes will be settled by voluntary courts.

The number of disputes will be reduced, because the evils of capitalism will come to an end, proper education will spread in the society. From the economic point of view, the new set-up shall be of complete communism. Like Bakunin, Kropotkin was against religion.

Means of Anarchists:

There were two kinds of anarchists-philosophical and revolutionary. Anarchists like Tolstoy were philosophical anarchists, who were in favour of adopting non-violent means, while others like Kropotkin were ready to adopt violent means for the achievement of their aim.

Criticism of Anarchism:

Anarchism has been criticised for the following reasons:

(1) Anarchism has considered the state an unnecessary evil and criticised it bitterly. But this is totally wrong because today the state has become a welfare institution;

(2) The anarchists have a blind faith in the goodness of human nature. Most of the people are selfish and they do not care for the interests of the society;

(3) The Anarchists believe that in a stateless and classless society there will be an end to the crimes and all the functions will be performed on the basis of mutual co-­operation, but this does not seem to be practical;

(4) The anarchists are in favour of adopting violent means in order to achieve their aims, which is to be condemned;

(5) The anarchists have given much importance to the voluntary institutions after the abolition of the state, but they will not be able to perform all the functions of the state efficiently;

(6) The abolition of the state will not solve all the problems; on the contrary, many new problems will crop up;

(7) The anarchists’ viewpoint t
hat each law is made for the protection of the rights of the individual is wrong. In modern age, many laws are made for the welfare of the labourers;

(8) After the abolition of the state, the plan of the anarchists will not be practicable.

Bertrand Russell writes, “The anarchist ideal for a community in which no acts are forbidden by laws is not, at any rate for the present, compatible with the stability of such a world as the anarchist’s desire. The state in some form, whatever may be said in criticism of its mistakes, its inefficiency and its abuse of power, is and always will be an absolute necessity among civilised men”.

Importance:

Though the anarchists have been bitterly criticised, yet they have condemned the capitalist system and private property. Their arguments are not wholly devoid of truth.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Meaning of Imperialism:

Before going into a detailed discussion of Imperialism, it is necessary to know its meaning.

For this purpose we give the definitions of certain famous writers:

(1) Prof. Schuman has defined imperialism as, “control over non-white races by western national states by force”.

(2) Mortiz Julius Bonn, in Encyclopaedia of Social Science writes, “Imperialism is a policy which aims at creating, organising and maintaining an empire, that is, a state of vast size composed of various more or less distinct national units and subject to a single centralized will”.

(3) C.D. Burns says, “Imperialism is a name given to a single system of law and government in many different lands and races”.

(4) According to H.G. Wells, “All our modern imperialism are thus, the more less conscious efforts of one nation-state to become world-wide”.

(5) Prof. Hawking says, “Imperialism is the ethics of severity”.

(6) Sir George Cornwall Louis says, “Under a sovereign administration many states are generally called imperialism”.

On the basis of these definitions we can say that following are the main features of imperialism:

(1) The scope of imperialism should not be narrow but it should be wide.

(2) It is essential that imperialism should comprise of many races and nationalities. It people of one nationality reside in a state, it cannot be called imperialism.

(3) All the organs of imperialism should be under one central control.

(4) As Imperialist country looks after its own interests only, and it exploits the countries under it. Schuman has clearly said, “It is no more the purpose of the imperialism to confer benefits upon its victims than to confer benefits upon home country”.

Parkar Moon also says, “The reason why the British entered India, the primary reason why they remained there was not to benefit India but to benefit Great Britain”. It is, therefore, clear the white races may say that God has deputed them to make the black races civilized and for this purpose they conquered countries of Asia and Africa, but they talk of charity only to deceive others.

(5) In imperialism, the ruling country prospers and the dependent country declines. Its dependence upon the ruling country increases because the imperialists use the countries under their subjugation as markets for raw material or goods.

It means that they convert raw material of those countries into finished products in their own factories and make huge profits by selling them in the dependent countries. The English, the French, the Portuguese, the Japanese, the Russians the Germans, the Spaniards, the Dutch and the Belgians have been doing this in the countries under their authoritative control.

(6) Imperialists use all types of tactics to enhance their interests.

The features mentioned above are of political imperialism. America and certain other countries are following the policy of economic imperialism. It means that they give economic assistance to many big or small countries and through that assistance they influence the policies of those countries. In this way they try to increase the area of their influence. China is following this policy in some countries of Africa.

Development of Imperialism:

Ancient Empires:

In ancient times the strong tribes had a tendency to rule over the weak tribes. Because of this tendency, the city states in Greece came to an end and under the leadership of Alexander the Great a vast empire was established.

In India too, in the early ages, the kings had the tendency to establish Paramount (Chakrawarti) empires. Therefore, there were many conflicts and clashes among them for power, which eliminated small states and led to the establishment of vast empires.

During Ajat Satru’s reign, the elevation of Magadha was the result of this tendency. Thus due to this tendency of imperialism many vast empires rose and fell in India, China, Assyria, Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and Rome in ancient times.

Empires of the middle Ages:

In Europe, after the decline of Roman Empire, many big and small feudal states were established but imperialist’s tendency also seen in them. Charlemagne tried to re-establish a vast empire. In India, after the decline of Gupta Empire, kings like Harsh Vardhana, Pulkesin II, and Mahipal, after conquering a large part of India, tried to establish a vast empire.

Later, Turks, Pathans and Mughals continued this tendency and All-ud-Din Khilji, Akbar and Aurangzeb established their empires. In the eighth century, the Arabs established their vast empire from Spain to Sindh. During the tenth century, the Turks established a vast empire over Central Asia and Afghanistan.

During the twelfth century, the Mongols rose into power and they established their vast empires in China, Central Asia and Russia. In the sixteenth century, the Mongols or Moughals lost their influence in other countries but they established a vast empire in India under the leadership of Babar which was consolidated by Akbar but declined rapidly after the death of Aurangzeb.

Beginning of new Imperialism by European races:

The beginning of the new imperialism is considered from sixteenth century, when European countries expansion of their trade and colonies in Asia and America, Columbus and Vasco de Gama explored far off countries and their governments started trade with these countries. Later, they established their colonies there and tried to expand their influence. Portugal and Spain occupied first place in this race and after becoming prosperous in trade, they established their empires in South America or Latin America.

Portugal also tried to establish its empire in India. The Dutch,-the English, the French, the Belgians, the Germans, the Italians, the Russians and the Japanese also followed suit. The British, the French, the Germans, the Italians and the Belgians established their colonies in Africa and gradually established their empires.

The English and the French, tried to establish their empires in India. The French did not succeed and except in Chandarnagar, Pondicherry, Yenam and Mahe, they could not establish their empire anywhere else.

However, the English established their empire all over India. During the nineteenth century, Russia established her empire at far off places in Central Asia. Japan extended her empire up to certain parts of China and Korea. Italy conquered Ethiopia.

The main reason for the establishment of empires by European races in Asia, Latin America and Africa was that they possessed better arms and ammunition and their war tactics were superior to the conquered races.

During the twentieth century, two World Wars took place among these imperialist powers, because their interests mutually clashed. Because of these wars and the spread of the movement of nationalism, the colonies of Asia, Africa and South America were successful in getting themselves rid of the imperialist powers.

After the Second World War, India, Sri Lanka, Burma, Israel, Syria, Egypt, Ghana, Cyprus, Algeria, Morocco, Zimbabwe and many other African countries became independent. At present there is a sharp reaction in the minds of the people against imperialism.

Thus the influence of imperialism is vanishing and the countries which are still under foreign yoke in the world would be free in the near future. But the economic imperialism is still continuing in different forms. The U.S.A. is influencing the foreign policy of many countries by giving them economic aid. Though, India is receiving aid from the U.S.A., yet she is not ready to accept any of its conditions and, thus India’s foreign policy is quite independent.

Upload and Share Your Article:

(1) Clarity or Definiteness:

By clarity and definiteness we mean that every clause of the constitution should be written such a simple language, as should express its meaning clearly.

(2) Brevity:

The constitution should not be lengthy. It should contain only important things and unimportant things should be left out.

(3) Comprehensiveness:

It means that the constitution should be applicable to the whole country or besides the central government, there should be mention of the structure and powers of state or provincial governments. Mention should also be made about the important matters relating to the rights and duties of the government and the citizens.

(4) Flexibility:

The constitution should not be too rigid to hinder the process of amendment when needed.

(5) Declaration of rights:

A good constitution must contain the fundamental rights of the people. In the constitutions of countries like India, Soviet Union, China, France, America, Japan and Italy such types of declarations have been made.

(6) Independence of Judiciary:

Independence of Judiciary is another quality of a good constitution. The judiciary should not be under the control of the executive and it should function freely and act as the guardian of the Fundamental Rights of the people without favour or fear.

(7) Directive Principles of State Policy:

In a good constitution mention must be made of the Directive Principles of State Policy, because it helps in the establishment of a welfare state. These principles also serve as a beacon for the government. Though these principles have been mentioned in a few constitutions of the world, yet it is useful and not harmful to mention them. These principles have been included in the Constitution of India and Ireland.

Most of the qualities mentioned above are available in the Constitution of India. It contains the declaration of the Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State policy. Independence of Judiciary, etc. Till22nd June, 1986 has been amended 52 times. It is thus clear that Constitution of India is not quite rigid.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Some of the major sources of international law are as follows:

(1) Roman Law:

Roman law formed a complete and general code of dealings —the Jus gentium. Jus gentium was applied to the dealings of citizens belonging to different nations. From this general code most of the Continental Countries in Europe derived their legal principles.

Roman law provided a positive basis for International Law in two ways:

(a) By the idea of the law of nations;

(b) By contributing the notion of the equality of citizens before the law. This notion extended to the equality of sovereign states of International Law.

(2) Treaties and Alliances:

Treaties, Alliances, Conventions and Compacts either for commercial or for political purpose are an important source of International Law. They have helped a lot in the development of International Law. They define pre-existing rules or modify them. They may affirm existing rules or modify them.

The most important treaties which have helped a lot in the development of International Law are the Peace of Westphalia (1648), Treaty of Utrecht (1713), Treaty of Paris (1763 and 1856), Gevena Convention (1864), Brussels Conference (1890) and Treaty of Versailles (1783 and 1919). These treaties, alliances and conventions and conferences have played a vital role in the development of International Law.

(3) Customs and Conventions:

Customs and Conventions form another source of International Law. As a matter of fact, International Law is customary. The dealings of Ancient and Medieval States depended on customs and conventions. Certain usages and practices which were adopted by particular states became customs and conventions. These customs and conventions later on took the shape of a body of rules, generally accepted by all. The judgement of U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Packet Havana is worth-noting.

(4) Municipal Laws (State Laws):

Municipal Laws (State Laws) also form a source of International Law. The germs of International Law can be found in the Municipal Laws of a State. The statutes of Municipal Law of every State affect international relations.

Every State has some of its Municipal Laws which help a lot in the development of International Law. For example, the rules and regulations of Citizenship, Naturalisation, Nationalisation, Neutrality, and Extradition are some of the rules and regulations which have international bearings.

The rules and regulations affecting the exchange of ambassadors and envoys who represent one State in another State also have international bearings. These rules and regulations nave helped a lot in the development of International Laws.

(5) Works of Eminent Jurists:

Many eminent jurists have expressed their Views on International Law. Every International Court of Law attaches due importance to their views. Their views are taken into consideration before the declaration of the judgment and while cross-examining the international issues. For example, Hugo Grotius’s famous book, “On the Law of War and Peace” was published in 1625. Now this book is regarded as the Chief source of International Law. His book gave the theoretical foundation of International Law.

Likewise, in his famous book “Law of Nature and Nations” (1672) Pufendorf and in his “Diplomatic Code of the Law of Nations” (1693-1700) Zaibniz gave theoretical foundation of International Law. Bynker Shoek (I673-I743) who first dealt with navigation law.

Wolf (1679-1754) and Vattel (1714-1767) are the names of important writers of authority who have helped a lot in the development of International Law. Kent, Wheaton, Manning, Woolsey, Westlake, Lawrence and Hall are known as modern authorities on International Law.

(6) Decisions in International Cases:

Now it has become a custom with the states to refer to international courts, tribunal and conferences for adjudication. In modern times, the Hague and Washington Conferences have played a vital role in the development of International Law. The U.N. Charter also lays stress on the fact that the states engaged in disputes will not wage the war before arbitration. These days’ international disputes are resolved by the U.N. in a peaceful mannerer.

(7) History of War and Diplomacy:

History of war and diplomacy also forms a source of International Law. History of wars, of negotiations and conclusions of treaties as contained in protocols and manifestoes and all international transactions prove fruitful for the development of International Law. The declarations, made by several states during the war-period, like the Atlantic Charter and Potsdam Agreement also help a lot in the development of International Law.

(8) Opinions of Diplomats and Statesmen:

The written opinions of statesmen and lawyers contained in state papers and diplomatic correspondence in the Foreign Offices of States have helped much in the growth and development of International Law. These opinions are often confidential but in Democracy there is a greater tendency to publish them.

The important portions of these opinions are published in England and U.S.A. Despite this, state issue instructions for the guidance of their foreign service representatives and commanders of armed forces. These instructions also play a vital role in the growth and development of International Law.

(9) Decisions of League of Nations and United Nations Organisations:

League of Nations and United Nations Organisation have been very important international institutions of twentieth century. The U.N. lays stress on Direct Negotiations, Mediation, Arbitration and International Court of Justice at Hague. Decisions of International Court at Hague, and the resolutions passed by the U.N. have proved very fruitful in the growth and development of International Law.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Definitions of Behaviouralism?

Though it is not an easy task to define behaviouralism or political behaviour in a very precise way, attempts, during the last several decades, have been made to define it.

One definition of behaviouralism runs as follows:

“It is a movement in political science which insists on analysing only observable behaviour of political actors”.

In this definition there are two things which demand mention. It is a movement, and behaviouralism is based on the observable behaviour of individuals who are regarded as political actors. Behaviouralism starts an in-depth analysis by scrutinising the political behaviour of individuals.

There is another definition which is different from the standpoint of language but not conceptually. Behaviouralism is a belief which insists that social theory can be and should be constructed only on the basis of observable behaviours because only such behaviour provides measurable or quantifiable data for research.

Both these definitions have a common plank and thus a social/political theory can be constructed with the help of measurable data provided by the behaviour of individuals. The exponents of behaviouralism have built up a conviction that neglecting the behaviour of individuals—who are the real actors of social and political events— a plausible political social or political theory cannot be constructed.

Behaviouralism asserts that for an acceptable scientific theory of social science it is essential that the political behaviour of individuals is to be studied and not the units and organisations which deal with political questions and principles. It is because the political behaviour of actors constitutes the central aspects of politics.

Behavioural approach to politics or behaviouralism (both the terms are used in the same sense) denotes that it is an “attempt to improve our understanding of politics by seeking to explain the empirical aspects of political life by means of methods, theories and criteria of proof that are acceptable according to the canons, conventions and assumption of modern empirical science.”

David Truman, in his famous essay published in 1951, defined behaviouralism in the following words: Defined generally the term political behaviour comprehends those actions and interactions of men and groups which are involved in the process of governing.

In a more broader way the concept has been explained by David Truman another noted exponent of behaviouralism. He says that it is not a special field of social science; it is not even a field of political science. It denotes all the phenomena of government in terms of observed and observable behaviour of men.

Origin and Development:

Though it is generally held that behaviouralism or political behaviour or behaviouralism in politics is the product of Second World War turmoil, its true origin can be traced further back to the First World War. It has been asserted that after the First World War number of political scientists of the USA were inclined to analyse political behaviour empirically and for that purpose they adopted advanced scientific methods which ultimately led to a new concept called behaviouralism.

The first methodological approach received a better treatment in the hands of Frank Kent who was not a political scientist but a journalist. He wrote a book with a long tittle— Political Behaviour, the Heretofore the Unwritten Laws, Customs, and Principles of Politics as Practised in the United States.

Kent’s long association with the real world and his ability to study the mind and behaviour of people enabled him to be well- acquainted with the reality. He arrived at the conclusion that the fabric of political concepts was built upon wrong notions. A fruitful analysis of political science must take note of political behaviour demonstrated by citizens.

Kent’s book was published in 1928. After nine years, that is in 1937, Herbert Tingsten wrote a book which was entitled Political Behaviour, Studies in Election Statistics. Tingsten’s book is more direct and deals with advanced analysis of political behaviour.

Tingsten wrote his book in the background of European elections but it had sufficient relevance to the political behaviour of American voters and some political scientists of America treated his book as the basis for the analysis of political behaviours. Tingsten provided a great impetus for detailed and advanced analysis of behaviouralism in USA. The mental and psychological atmosphere was also quite favourable.

Bernard Crick (The American Science of Politics: Its Origin and Conditions) says that due to the very nature of American people behaviouralism flourished in that country and the nature of Americans relates to their culture, fact-findingness, confidence in science and pragmatic nature.

Number of American political scientists devoted their energy and intellect to the cause of investigating the subject in a new light. The traditional way of analysing the subject earned its importance and they felt that it should be jettisoned. New sophisticated methods were liberally used to study the subject. The main purpose was to update and upgrade the subject.

Charles Merriam was another renowned exponent whose appearance considerably enriched the analysis of political science. He predicted that in near future political science will receive better treatment. All this he said towards the mid-twenties of last century: During the thirties Charles Merriam provided a bold leadership for a comprehensive investigation of political science in the perspective of empirical analysis.

But Charles Merriam was not alone. Large number of scholars who established themselves as top political scientists were closely associated with the research of political science and some of them were Harold Lasswell, V. O. Key, and Gabriel Almond.

They were under the direct influence of Charles Merriam. While Merriam was at the University of Chicago Lasswell, Key and Almond were the students of the Chicago University and they could not avoid the influence of Charles Merriam. We can therefore say that in the process of the growth of behaviouralism Merriam had a very important role to play.

Behind the growth of behaviouralism in USA there lies remarkable contribution of a large number of European scholars. In the nineteen thirties many German political scientists and sociologists migrated to the USA due to the autocratic administration and inhuman torture of Hitler.

The scholars carried with them the intellectual wealth and renewed their research in the liberal atmosphere of the American academic circles. All of them emphisised the relevance of sociological, psychological, empirical and scientific methods for the study of political science. All of them strongly felt that only large scale application of empirical methods to the study of politics can make it worthy.

The impact of S. W. W. was perhaps most important so far as the growth of behaviouralism was concerned. This war had an unostentatious impact upon the analysis of political science. Social Science Research Council was set up in USA and researchers both from Europe and America joined the research centre. New approach was encouraged and the old tradition was thought to be irrelevant for new.

The old tradition was thought to be irrelevant for new and challenging situation. Researchers started to analyse the political bebaviour of individuals and in order to arrive at acceptable and plausible conclusions they applied new and mathematical techniques.

After the S. W. W. in USA a committee named Political Behaviour was set up whose sole purpose was to study the political behaviour of voters and persons from various standpoints and to construct conclusions. The researchers admitted that there were defects and inconsistencies in the behaviour of voters but i
n spite of this their behaviour could provide important guidelines for the researchers.

In the field of the development of behaviouralism the contribution of certain financial institutions must be recognised because without financial assistance the research workers could not continue their work. In many European countries researchers show keen interest in behaviouralism but could not proceed satisfactorily due to the lack of funds. On the other hand, USA was far advanced. This was due to the liberal contribution made by the philanthropic organisations and capitalists.

In the fifties and sixties David Easton, Gabriel Almond, Harold Lasswell and many others devised new and improved schemes for the analysis of political science. These schemes were based on theoretical innovations and empiricism. All these radically transformed the very fabric of political theory in particular and political science in general. Their approach divided the subject into few sub-fields.

The general impact is that students of political science began to view it with a new outlook. The attention was diverted from the traditional approach such as to view politics in the light of institutions and organisations to in-depth analysis assisted by new methods. As a result of the rapid growth of research and interest behaviouralism assumed new dimensions. Some people began to call themselves as theoretical behaviouralists and others preferred the term positive behaviouralists.

In the nineteen seventies scholars of Europe took interests in the concept. They persuasively asserted that social science ought to be analysed in the light of what is, rather than what ought to be. This approach was based on the data and facts derived from the field study.

This tendency was prominent even in the sixties. But in the seventies scholars of Europe joined the army of behavioural researchers. Today behaviouralism is not only an important theoretical concept of political science; it constitutes a very important aspect. It is a fact that in the seventies, it was faced with new challenges and situations which the researchers could not imagine. Today many serious scholars argue that the data and facts collected from the political behaviour of voters cannot be highly relied upon.

There is validity in the argument no doubt but political science cannot be fruitfully analysed without facts and data. There may be imperfection or inconsistency in any data or facts, but such a lacuna can be found in any event or behaviour. It is the duty of behaviouralists to select appropriate or relevant data and then start an analysis.

The researchers were guided by an indomitable zeal to free political science from the bondage of traditional analysis. At present counter—arguments against behaviouralism are being advanced but no serious behaviouralist can contemplate rejecting the concept.

Notwithstanding the imperfec­tion it is believed that behaviouralism highlights a new tendency to study political science in the proper perspective. Added to it, David Easton himself has made bold attempt to add new arguments and revisions to the body of behaviouralism. We shall now turn to the analysis of the main features of behaviouralism.

Credo of Behaviouralism:

Easton in his famous work A Framework for Political Analysis (1965) has said that the assumptions and objectives of behaviouralism lay the intellectual foundation- stones for political analysis. This claim is not without reason. Behaviouralism as a protest movement revolutionised the thought system of political science in the nineteen forties and fifties. These intellectual foundation-stones are called credo. He has discussed this credo in his above-noted book in detail. The credo can also be described as assumptions of behaviouralism.

According to David Easton, there are seven assumptions:

1. Regularities:

It means that observable uniformities have been found in behaviour of individuals. Though individuals behave differently under different circumstances, uniformities can be discovered in their political behaviour. People uniformly react to circumstances. The consequence is certain general conclusions can be framed on the basis of uniform observable behaviour.

2. Verification:

Second assumption or credo is that generalisations can be verified in reference to the behaviour. Political behaviouralists collect data and facts about individuals’ political behaviour and then test the conclusion drawn by them or other Behaviouralists.

3. Techniques:

The behaviouralists collect and interpret data not in a haphazard way or indiscriminately but in a methodological and scientific way that is by adopting improved techniques borrowing from other sciences. In other words, the behaviouralists do not take any data or fact as granted. They adopt cautious steps so that any mistake or misconceptions cannot crop up.

4. Quantification:

Data and facts are processed in a scientific way. But in the entire process everything is measured and quantified.

5. Values:

In analysing political behaviour and collecting data behaviouralists cautiously proceed. They observe that empirical judgment and value judgment are not mixed together. In earlier days, political behaviour was associated with normative judgment—that is, everything was judged in the perspective of values and norms.

But Easton observes that these two approaches are quite distinct and the distinction must be maintained. Otherwise, political analysis of individuals’ behaviour will not be able to face the proper test.

6. Systematisation:

The researcher of political behaviour must proceed in his analysis quite systematically which means that the purpose of research is to arrive at truth or to build up general principles. All these will, in turn, supply materials for building up a structure of theory. If behaviouralists fail to act systematically they will not succeed. Of course, systematisation is not the sole property of behaviouralists, it is found in every science — physical or social. Researchers must see that their work must be theory-oriented and theory-directed.

From the beginning to the end the behaviouralists shall proceed orderly or systematically. The failure of the researcher to be systematic will put him in problems such as success will be in troubles. Collection of data and facts, research, analysis, building up conclusions and everything else are closely related. This is systematisation.

7. Pure Science:

The behaviouralists claim that their approach as well as conclusions is based on the principles of pure science. Even their research conforms to the basic principles of pure science.

In every step they adopt the methods and techniques of pure science. Naturally, they attach great importance to research and to the conclusions built up by them. The behaviouralists claim that their dependence on pure science has enhanced the acceptability and prestige of their conclusions.

There is another assumption of behaviouralism and, according to many, it is integration. It can be interpreted in various ways. One such way is that the method applied by behaviouralists has automatically integrated political science with other branches of social science. The behaviouralists want to say that political science cannot be separated from economics, sociology, anthropology etc.

This is due to the fact that man is a social being and his behaviour is considerably influenced by the events and incidents which occur in other segments of society. Naturally, political science cannot be separated from other social sciences.

Even there is a relationship between political science and physical science. W
hat we call political behaviour is not a solitary incident. On experience it has been found that the political behaviour of voters/individuals is the result of social, economic, and cultural incidents and circumstances. Nobody can come out of the social milieu and build up his own decision and conclusion.

He must react to the incidents and phenomena that take place around him. Behaviouralists claim that if we want to study the political phenomena or the political behaviour of individuals we must have clear and broad knowledge about all the aspects of society. Here is the real importance of integration.

This analysis should not lead one to conclude that political behaviouralism, as a result of its intimate relation with other disciplines, will lose it identity. No behaviouralists says this. The approach and objective of behaviouralism in politics are quite distinct from those of other disciplines. The moot point is that behaviouralism borrows techniques from others and admits its relation with them.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Democratic Socialism: Definition, Nature, Methods and Tenets!

Definition:

In the simplest language democratic socialism means the blending of socialist and democratic methods together in order to build up an acceptable and viable political and economic structure. To put it in other words, to arrive at socialist goals through democratic means. It also denotes that as an ideology socialism is preferable to any other form such as capitalism or communism.

But though socialism is the supreme goal its realisation is to some extent polemical because at different times different people suggest different methods for setting up a socialist society and in these methods priority is generally given to revolutionary methods, specifically the class struggle or armed conflict. Because it is believed (by some) that only resort to armed struggle can bring about socialism.

But democratic socialism lays no importance to revolu­tionary tactics. So if socialism remains a covetable goal only alternative that remains before its supporters is peaceful and legal procedures which include parliamentary and democratic methods. Thus democratic socialism firmly stands on the conception that democratic methods (parliamentary, legal and constitutional) shall be the only methods for setting up a society based on the principles of socialism.

This democratic socialism includes both democracy and socialism and here democracy not in formal sense but in an operative sense. Formal sense means democracy has been interpreted by the theoreticians in their own ways. We refer how it works.

Origin and Development:

1. Evils of Capitalism:

Maturity of industrialism travelled along with the strengthening position of capitalism in the economic systems of Western European countries. Capitalism brought with it or facilitated the discovery of new scientific inventions and their implementation to practice. This helped the development of science and technology.

But capitalism, at the same time, created numerous problems or evils which appeared to be curse for the majority people of the society. The rapid progress of capitalist economy replaced the individual ownership and production system that prevailed in the pre-capitalist era. It destroyed the old cottage and small scale production system and in that place set up large scale production.

Financial and production system was centralised and the decentralisation was replaced. Wealth and profit were centralised in the hands of a few persons. In the pre-capitalist epoch there was the system of the worker-owner-producer-manager. That is, the same person performed all the activities.

Naturally there was no scope of worker-manager relation and tension became the characteristic feature of the capitalist system of production. “The old middle classes of independent entrepreneurs were gradually replaced by the new middle classes of dependent managers, executives and lower echelons of the white collar salariat”. In a word, capitalism produced tension and conflict ridden social, political and economic system.

2. Capitalism Encouraged its Rise:

From the history of Western political thought we come to know that in the medieval period rationalism, independent thought, penchant for ideology had no scope to .thrive. But the advent and growth of capitalism provided potential fillip to these virtues and these virtues gradually strengthened the foundation of capitalism and stimulated its expansion. But it was found that subsequently capitalism was about to kill these virtues and this it did to serve its own purpose.

Ebenstein observes, “The same spirit of critical rationalism later turned against capitalism itself by refusing to accept private property in the means of production on the basis of unquestioning loyalty and mere legal authority”. At the initial stages capitalism in various ways encouraged the individual liberty in economic and political fields. It supported a liberal system of education and economy.

It encouraged liberalism in political sphere. But when the progress of capitalism eroded all these people began to use the weapons provided by capitalism. People used these weapons in self-defence and unfortunately capitalism had nothing to do. Common men raised their arms against the growing miseries and impoverishment which they believed were the consequences of capi­talism.

Capitalism created contradiction and this, in turn, forced people to criticise capitalism. A large number of men began to blame capitalism for all the evil effects of industrialism. In short, the role of capitalism worked as a Frankenstein monster.

3. Democratic Socialism was Thought more Suitable:

In the middle of the nineteenth century the birth of a new ideology, the Marxian socialism, created new hopes and aspiration in the minds of numerous men who were quite eager to save people from poverty and squalor of life. But the high hopes were destroyed by the support of armed revolution, class struggle and emergence of totalitarianism.

We have already noted that a large section of population practically had no faith in armed revolution and this firmly rooted disbelief led them to search an alternative way to set of socialist society and this was found in the structure of democratic methods. It was finally concluded that armed revolution could be a means of socialism but it was also a destroyer of democracy and constitutional government.

These people began to ponder over a compromise between democracy and Marxian socialism. After good deal of consideration they decided to set up a socialist society by applying democratic means. They also thought that totalitarianism could never be the alternative to capitalism. Capitalism, no doubt, created certain evils, but functioning of totalitarian system was more dangerous.

Democratic socialism promised to follow dogmas but at the same time it promised to be more pragmatic. It never gives to adhere to the dogmas without considering the practical situation. We find a relevant comment in Ebenstein’s writing: “Democratic socialism cannot afford to follow dogmas for dogmas’ sake but must prove pragmatically through actual accomplishments”.

Nature of Democratic Socialism:

1. Democratic socialism is not a complete departure from Marxian socialism. Democratic socialism cannot be treated as a complete departure from Marxian socialism. It attempts to compromise between Marxian socialism and the long cherished ideas and principles of democracy.

But this compromise cannot be regarded as a sacrifice of the basic tenets of Marxian socialism. Democratic socialism strictly adheres to the fundamen­tal principles of Marxian socialism. To use Bernard Crick’s phrase “it is at least an equally authentic popular tradition of Marxism”. It was created in the tradition and intellectual environment of Marxian socialism.

Naturally it is supposed that Marxian socialism will have tremendous influence upon this ideology. (Many scholars do not intend to call it an ideology). It is not a departure from Marxian socialism is evident from the fact that many principles of democratic socialism are derived from the Marxian socialism.

Both blame the capitalist development as the chief factor of the growing miseries of the common people, both strongly argue for nationalisations of means of production, both support control of capitalism etc.

2. “Democratic socialism is a child of modern society. It struggles against the evils that flow from private property, yet realises that all forms of private property are not necessarily evil”. This observation of Crick clea
rly shows that, like most of the ideologies and doctrines, democratic socialism can be regarded as the product of contemporary events. The contemporary events demanded the restriction or control of authority upon the capitalist system of production.

3. Democratic socialism demands reformulation of economic and political liberties. During the different phases of capitalist development the chief protagonists of this system stridently argued for the expansion of rights and liberties of economic and political categories because such rights and liberties could free the individual from the bondage of state authority.

The argument of this type gained sufficient weight during the period of absolute monarchy. But subsequently people’s voice against excessive emphasis on rights and liberties gathered storm. It was felt that certain amount of state control over the rights and liberties in economic sphere was necessary.

But there was hardly any scope of curtailment of rights and economic liberties in capitalist system. Because it was thought (and to some extent correctly) that it would lead to the loss of capitalists’ freedom to pursue economic activities. Reformulation of economic liberties was demanded on pragmatic reasons.

The unbridled activities of capitalists were creating heaps of evils and problems which required solution. It was believed that solution lay in the restrictions imposed upon the capitalists. The democratic socialists selected the method of controlling.

4. Ebenstein says that revolutionary communism (many call it revolutionary socialism) and democratic socialism are used interchangeably and this tendency is unjustified. There are two important differences between the two. The revolutionary communism (or socialism) is committed to the principle of public ownership of the means of production and all forms of private property whereas democratic socialism does not advocate complete nationalisation of all properties.

Its principle relates to selected nationalisation. Another difference has been stated by Ebenstein in the following words: “To the democratic socialists the freedom of the individual is so all-important that he puts it above everything else”. But, on the other hand revolutionary socialism regards the freedom of the individual important but does not intend to award supreme importance to it. In capitalist society all the organs are biased and freedom is misused.

5. Democratic socialism is based on relative concepts. Democratic socialism is viewed relatively. Democratic socialism is not pure capitalism nor pure socialism. It is the blend of two, if not more. It opposes capitalism but does not want its complete abolition, because it does not think capitalism out and out dangerous. A democratic socialist society is constructed within the framework of capitalism.

Democratic socialism is viewed as the combination of all (or most of the) advantages of both capitalism and socialism. There is a place of revolution in democratic socialism but this is not to be termed in the light of Marxian revolution. Democratic socialism envisages of a revolution in the attitude, behaviour, outlook and social structure. If men’s minds are not revolutionised, if there is no revolutionary change in their thought system, if common people are not prepared to welcome changes, no reconstruction of society is possible.

Though democratic socialism is predominantly concerned with economic restructuring of society its link with politics and other aspects of society cannot be forgotten. Considering all these points one can say that democratic socialism is not pure, it is relative, relative in respect to capitalism.

Methods of Democratic Socialism:

1. Since democratic socialism falls in the category of evolutionary socialism it avoids in all probable ways the techniques of armed struggle or revolution. In its account force or coercion is associated with revolution and, therefore, it should not be used. There are many peaceful ways which can be applied for “reaching the goals of socialism. Moreover, coercion means the abduction of freedom of the individuals and such course of action is to be avoided at any cost.

2. The most important peaceful way is the reforms. The democratic socialists want to build up socialism within the main structure of capitalism and because of this they argue for introducing reforms. They believe that if reforms are successfully implemented they can produce the results which revolutionary socialism promises to bring forth.

3. To proceed step by step is another method which has an important place in this form of socialism. This is also called gradualism. Gradualism cannot be separated from (in strict sense) reformism. Both rule out abrupt change. The implication of gradualism is it helps people to realise the importance of socialism. It is the belief of the democratic socialists that socialism is not something which can be imposed upon the people; they must be prepared to accept it physically and mentally. The former means there shall exist a physical environment which is favourable to welcome socialism. People must also be mentally prepared.

4. Economic planning, introduced to streamline production and distribution in a planned way, is an important method of democratic socialism. The management of production and the distribution of produced commodities is performed through planning. Planning in democratic socialist state plays a very crucial role. Because of planning the management of economy proceeds in a definite and scientific way and this assures the attainment of promised goals, especially the proper distribution of wealth, and in this way the reduction of inequalities is possible.

The proponents of democratic socialism claim that one of the great curses of capitalism is the great inequality in income and wealth and this curse is the product of unplanned economy. Democratic socialism wants to save the society from this curse and because of this reason it forcefully advocates the introduction of planning. By planning we mean to take decision in a scientific way and then to implement it decisively.

There is hardly any scope of intervention of imagination and orthodoxy in the field of economy. There is another aspect of planning in democratic socialism. Participation of people in planning activities at various stages is ascertained so that people of all walks of life can have first-hand knowledge about the performance of economy.

The technique of planning was first introduced by erstwhile Soviet Union in the thirties of the last century and later on it was emulated by other countries specially the countries professing socialism as their goals. After the Second World War the Labour Party government in U.K. introduced planning in some cases.

5. Along with planning the democratic socialism adopts a very pragmatic step and this is preparation of schemes and projects and to adopt a right way and right time for implementation of the schemes and projects. Needless to say that planning and this technique are closely related. Planning envisages of taking action in a calculated way so that unforeseen incidents cannot disrupt the functioning of the economy.

For the proper preparation of planning and its implementation schemes and projects are prepared in a calculated way so that the planners can reach the goals uninterruptedly. Future is reflected in the schemes and projects and this makes the functioning of economy smooth.

6. Mention has been made about the fact that democratic socialism is largely based on compromise. It accepts nothing as final and absolute. There is very little scope of dogmatism in democratic socialism. It tries to proceed in a balanced and calculated way. In our analysis of democratic socialism as a relative concept we have portrayed the nature of democratic socialism.

We have noted that this concept has not completely rejected either capitalism or socialism. It retains capitalist state minus its coercive nature and ex
ploitative function. It, at the same time, accepts the socialism minus revolutionary methods. Ebenstein says, “All successful democratic government is a compromise between public control, efficiency and private initiative. It will take effort and thought to work it out”. It attempts to avoid hasty judgment and undigested suggestions.

Tenets of Democratic Socialism:

Based on Cluster of Values:

A close analysis of the different principles of democratic socialism and various aspects of its functioning reveal that the whole doctrine (it is also called a political ideology) is based on certain cluster of values or principles and if these are taken away the whole fabric will be a hollow one. One such principle (or tenet as many call) is the concept asserts a strong and deep-rooted relationship among various sections and segments of people and social structure.

Let us quote a lengthy passage from Crick’s small book Socialism:

“The theory is that the rise and fall and the cohesion of societies is best explained not by the experience and perpetuation of elites, … nor by the initiative and inventions of competitive individuals, … but by the relationship to the ownership and control of the means of production of the primary producers of wealth—in an industrial society, the skilled manual worker.

The doctrine asserts the primacy and mutual dependence of the values of liberty, equality and fraternity and it draws on the theory to believe that greater equality will lead to more cooperation than competition, that this will, in turn, enhance fraternity and hence liberate from inhibition, restriction and exploitation both individual personality and the full produc­tive potential of society”. In this passage Bernard Crick has briefly stated the theoretical foundation “of democratic socialism.

These are the principles and basic tenets of the concept:

1. Democratic socialism is a cohesive system or it purports to be one. It is claimed by the democratic socialists that a pervasive cooperation is built up in a socialist society on the basis of planning, participation and cohesion. It has been asserted that democratic socialism gives primacy to planning. Through it participation and decentralisation are realised. Everyone gets full opportunity to take part in the economic and political affairs of the state.

There develops a strong feeling of cooperation among all people. Adherents of this doctrine assume that this process goes to ensure good relation among all sections of community, which other doctrines lack perceptively. Since sources of production and methods of distribution are owned by the society, people are not divided into owners and non-owners—and this is a great step towards unity and good relationship.

In capitalist state institutions are formed to further the interests and financial benefits of the capitalists. But in a democratic socialist state this process is abandoned. All the institutions and organisations are meant for the acceleration of the general interests of the body politic. When people are free from economic bondage goodwill and friendship find scope to flourish.

Suspicion and ill-feeling take back seat in the arena of social relationship. But cooperation and good relationship cannot be achieved in a society whose members are deprived of basic educational facilities and that is why it has been suggested that basic education must be available to all people. The goal, however, remains the same.

2. Democratic socialism is committed to more liberty. In our analysis of liberty we have elaborately discussed the positive and negative aspects of liberty. It is the positive nature that is predominant in political theory. It means that political scientists prefer positive to negative meaning. If so, for the proper realisation of positive liberty the intervention of state is essential.

The most disadvantaged and the wretched individuals must be lifted from their ignoble condition and this can be done by the state. Democratic socialism says that the doors of liberty shall be opened to all and not to few. Only the socialist methods based on democratic principles can do this. Bourgeois concept of freedom revolves around the notion that non-interference of state is the best way to protect liberty.

But when this principle is implemented the result has been that very few persons get to reap the fruits of liberty. In the core area of democratic socialism lies the idea that society will be restructured in such a manner that everyone gets the opportunities to enjoy liberty and the democratic and socialist methods are the only highways to reach this ambitious goal.

It is loudly claimed by the democratic socialists that allowance of scope to everyone for the enjoyment of liberty will finally open the way for overall participation in the processes of state. This we can call maximisation of liberty. It is further asserted that a socialist and democratic structure of political system can ensure this.

When liberty in its full form is realised the participatory democracy finds its proper meaning and worth. Along with liberty, social justice receives better treatment in a democratic socialist society. We thus see that justice and liberty form a basic tenet of this doctrine.

3. Every democratic socialist claims that equality is a very important value or principle.  In a socialist society based on democratic values and principles everyone will have the opportunity to enjoy equality. In other words, unjustified or unreasonable differences cannot be allowed to rule the society. Equality also means the absence of special privileges.

In a capitalist society the glaring economic differences among people vitiate the normal relations among them; these also deprive them to have an access to the opportunities created by the state. To establish equality is an important value of democratic socialism. Through constructive efforts and adoption of clear principles/decision the state proceeds continuously to realise the principles of equality.

It is the goal of democratic socialism to bring the chief sources of production under the authority of state and to give due share to labour. It is believed that only socialism can do this. There are, however, different versions of equality- based society. Some are of opinion egalitarian society is better than equal society. The democratic socialists are, of course, very alert about the drawbacks of equality. It does not mean sameness.

There is a suspicion as to its implementation. Equality in the allotment of opportunities cannot be made a reality because of the fact that there are practical difficulties. Many socialists do not agree with the Rawlsian theory of equality. There are also other notorious difficulties.

4. Fraternity is the final value of democratic socialism. Bernard Crick defines it in this way: “Fraternity is an attitude of mind and one associated with activity Fraternity is not radiating an abstract love of humanity, it arises from people actually working together towards common ends”. Like other values (liberty and equality) fraternity is also closely related to democratic socialism.

Rather, it is an important part of socialism based on democracy. In the definition noted above we have said that when fraternity reigns in society all or majority people work together and there exists a common end. The agreement advanced by the democratic socialists is that when a society is free from all types of exploitation and the whole society is the owner of wealth, there emerges an atmosphere of fraternity, then people will develop the feeling of brotherhood. There will not be an artificial discrimination among people, all will work together.

Crick writes: “Fraternity must involve common tasks and activities and an exultant recognition of diversity of character. Fraternity implies individuality, not sameness, but like socialist ethic
s in general it is also concerned with how individuals can work together and contribute to the common task of a reforming society”. This is the broad meaning of fraternity.

People must work unitedly and must contribute to the social progress unitedly. All must cherish a feeling of unity. There shall exist an atmosphere of harmony. The socialists assert that they strive relentlessly to create that situation. Fraternity will be fully realised when a society will be able to make for its citizens the following goal: “From each according to his ability to each according to his needs”.

Democratic Socialism Assessed:

1. Democratic socialism is better than collectivism and capitalism. Reviewing F. A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom Orwell said: “Capitalism leads to dole-quakes the scramble for markets and war collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader- worship and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with freedom of intellect”. Although Orwell does not directly refer to democratic socialism he indirectly refers to it and this is clear from his statement. Both collectivism and capitalism are associated with notorious difficulties.

They are the most powerful usurpers of individual freedom. Particularly collectivism does not give any recognition to freedom of the individuals. Personality cult, statism and unconditional obligation to state authority are the declared principles. Though capitalism openly promises to protect liberty and rights in practice all these are meant for elites or who are the owners of property.

Naturally, the only alternative that remains is democratic socialism. Even Marxian socialism is treated by many as a variant of collectivism. Joad thinks it in that light. All liberals and democratic-minded people love both freedom and absense of exploitation. After the Second World War, particularly from the mid-fifties of the last century, it was being pondered over that an alternative to collectivism and capitalism must be found out.

In Britain political scientists, statesmen and politicians heavily leaned to the democratic form of socialism. It has been estimated (at least by Crick) that so far as freedom is concerned it is superior to capitalism and collectivism.

2. Democratic socialism is a contradiction in terms. Edward Burns draws our attention to another shortcoming of democratic socialism. In his estimate the concept is almost a contradiction in terms. Democracy and socialism are opposite terms and they can be achieved separately not combinedly.

If there is socialism the basic democratic values and principles are to be sacrificed and vice-versa. Peaceful coexistence between the two is just like a daydream. Socialism entails a drastic economic and political transformation of society and in that situation democratic lives, principles and values are completely disrupted.

Some socialists argue that this disruption is temporary and may be later on restored. But opponents of socialism do not agree with this. The disruption is, however, a fait accompli and restoration is quite uncertain. If so how can we say that both are attainable simultaneously?

3. In democratic socialism there is how much socialism and how much democracy is a matter of great doubt and the concept is followed by a big question mark. Even strenuous efforts cannot remove this question mark. People may seriously try to get both but it is not possible in practice. In former Soviet Union, it is claimed by her supporters, there was socialism.

Even if it is admitted that (for the sake of argument) there was perfect socialism, we must say that (and our assessment is based on facts) there was hardly any democracy. People’s participation in the governmental process was quite negligible, top party leaders, in reality, decided everything and the decisions were imposed upon the mass. This was the real picture.

4. Bureaucracy is all powerful. The authority of a democratic socialist state becomes increasingly dependent on bureaucracy. This is not a concocted charge, but a reflection of the real situation. Party leaders have no experience in administration.

For smooth administration/management of state technical hands and persons having special knowledge are required and only bureaucracy can provide this. This results in an increasing dependence of party and different agencies upon the bureaucracy.

The bureaucratic administration of capitalist system finds its repetition in socialist states and, it is observed, democratic socialism is not an exception.

5. A socialist state based on democratic values, principles and structure is not free from the evils of class-divided society such as USA. (All the capitalist states are divided by classes). In other words, it becomes the victim of the evils of class society. In one form or other different classes are formed such as bureaucratic class, technicians’ class, white collar workers’ class.

These classes may not be in full conformity with the classes defined by Marx and subsequently explained and elaborated by Lenin (The Beginning). The simple fact is that even the so-called democratic socialist or simply socialist states are swallowed by classes and class divisions.

Once the classes appear and tend to dominate all the evils of class society surface. Several critics of former Soviet system have drawn our attention to this drawback. Though there are multiple reasons of the collapse of the Soviet system class conflict is regarded as one reason.

6. A very grave charge leveled against democratic socialism is since it is the product of capitalism; it is not possible for it to get rid of all evils, of capitalism. We have noted earlier that democratic socialism makes compromises with many of the values and principles (such as existence of state, institute of private property etc.) of capitalism. This type of compromise will notoriously affect democratic socialism.

It has been observed by Ralph Miliband that though the people of democratic socialist state get comparatively more liberty and rights these are less than the adequate quantity. This is due to the predominance (in some fields) of capitalist principle. Observers are of opinion that this is unavoidable.

A socialist society in order to be perfect must be built upon the ashes of capitalism which means that capitalism is to be destroyed at first and then socialism will be set up. In a democratic socialist state capitalist forces will be quite active and they will go on influencing the functioning of the state system in a clandestine way.

Miliband and many others support this view. So we can say that the very scheme to build up socialism in the capitalist structure is building a castle in the air. In such a system people will never have full control over the means of production and methods of distribution. Either the reactionary or capitalist forces will do the job. To sum up, democratic socialism cannot be the real prophylactic device to the ills of capitalism.

Market Liberalism, Freedom and Democratic Socialism:

A point which has been emphasised many a time is that there is no conflict between socialism and democracy; rather it is a fact that one is incomplete without the other. But there are several stalwarts of political science who bring home the point that socialist measures initiated by government on behalf of the entire society are sufficient to erode political freedom and also spontaneity of individuals—a potential factor of social progress.

Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom was published in 1962 and this work is treated by many as a classic work in defence of free market liberalism which ensures maximum freedom to individuals both in political and economic spheres.

Friedman, in this book, has argued that for the maximisation of freedom the government should be allowed to handle only those matters wh
ich cannot be handled through the market at all or can be handled at so great a cost that the use of political channels may be preferable.

We know that there are several facets of democracy and one such facet is to give maximum freedom to all its individuals. Milton Friedman in his Capitalism and Freedom says that democracy and state interference are both antagonistic terms. Democratic socialism, in its simplest form, indicates that for larger benefit of citizens and to combat pernicious effects of industrial absolutism the government must check the free competition among the private entrepreneurs and fortify its own control over the economy.

Friedman has challenged this notion by saying that free market liberalism or competitive capitalism is the most powerful component of political freedom and also of economic freedom. Regulatory measures are to be reduced to the minimum.

Friedman has observed that political freedom in the Western World clearly came along with the free market and the development of capitalist institutions. History suggests this is a necessary condition for political freedom.

Friedman has argued that whenever the government has proceeded to interfere with the economic activities of individuals that has appeared as a serious hindrance to the exercise and development of freedom.

On the contrary, the setting up of capitalist institutions has acted for further freedom. Hence it is an unnecessary and harmful attempt in the guise of bringing about welfare to restrict liberty. Friedman has concluded that so-called socialist measures must be stopped.

C. B. Macpherson in his Democratic Theory:

Essays in Retrieval have strongly refuted the argument of Milton Friedman. “The liberal state which had, by the mid ninetieth century in England, established the political freedom needed to facilitate capitalism, was not democratic: that is it had not extended political freedom to the bulk of the people. When later, it did so; it began to abridge market freedom. The more extensive the political freedom, the less extensive the economic freedom became”. The historical development of political freedom, therefore, suggests that the free market liberalism is not closely connected with political freedom.

Friedman has discovered a link between economic organisation and political freedom. He observes “the kind of economic organisation that provides economic freedom directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other”.

The concentration of economic power, Friedman thinks, is the negation of political freedom. Whereas socialism strongly advocates for accumulation of economic power or the transfer of management of sources of production to the authority of state.

Again if the state authority enjoys exclusive power over production and distribution affairs that will invariably invite coercion and indiscriminate use of physical force. Friedman says that the strong arm of physical coercion extends to both economic and political fields and drastically curtails both freedoms. Hence, in his judgment, state should never be allowed to control economic affairs.

But C. B. Macpherson is of opinion that Friedman is quite wrong. In competitive capitalism, the economic power fully controls the political power. Not only this, who will be the elements of political power that will be decided by the holders of economic power. The picture of a capitalist welfare state was so much active in the mind of Milton Friedman that he failed to consider the general character and functioning of capitalism or capitalist states.

It has been emphasised that in democratic socialism there is less of democracy or no trace of democracy. The whole system is tilted to socialism and in Friedman’s view socialism does not create any congenial atmosphere for the thrive of political freedom.

The socialist model of state politics and economics is found in societies which are underdeveloped. The developed and industrialised societies have vehemently opposed the introduction of socialism, because they always give utmost importance to political and economic freedom. This indicates that socialism or any of its variations cannot be encouraged to spread roots in liberal democratic societies.

It has been noticed that socialism generally comes out of revolution and revolution means the destruction or disruption of normal democratic procedures and values and incapacitation of democratic institutions. Sometimes socialism is preceded by civil war and this again endangers political freedom.

The fundamental premise of the liberal democrat is quite wrong. The concentration of economic powers in the hands of few does not mean the expansion of political freedom. Political freedom without an emancipation from economic bondage is meaningless and today many liberals admit that emancipation can be achieved only through socialisation process.

Socialist process, again, cannot be allowed to erode the democratic values and cripple democratic institutions and for the attainment of this lofty ideal democracy is to be made a companion of socialism. There is no conflict or animosity between the two.

Upload and Share Your Article: