Category: Political Science Notes

1. Sufficient and Adequate for Men:

As far as ‘man and his family’ is concerned, the ideology of Human Rights appears sufficient and adequate. It takes all aspects of man as man in view and stands by him. It stops at human concerns, and does not attempt to propose restructuring state and UN systems. At levels above the concerns of man, they may adopt any ideology, prefer a form of structure suitable for them.

2. Dominance of State Sovereignty:

The concept of state sovereignty hangs heavily over UDHR. Human Rights cannot claim to override state sovereignty. Owing to their attitude, both China and United States were not voted onto the UN Human Rights Commission in 2002. US had refused to vote for the landmine restriction and withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol of global warming. China’s record of human rights was poor on the Thianamen Square massacre of 1989.

3. Lack of Universalism:

Human rights so far appear more on paper, and look more theoretical. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) remains sacrosanct and a document of veneration. At many places, its articles are conflicting and lack precision. Genocide, ethnic conflicts, exploitation, casteism, child labour, atrocities on women etc. prevail that shows lack of universalism in the acceptance of human rights.

4. Arrogance of Religions:

Human rights are often challenged by religions like Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and the like. They often mix up state and religion. State is subordinate to demands of religion. Maintaining their religion as ultimate Message of God, they subordinate human rights to their teachings.

They stand for the otherworldly goals, and neglect the demands of present life. The individual is only a tool and an instrument of religion. Equality is applied only to their followers. Hardly do they permit liberty to the individual. Individual rights undercut Confucius ethics. In Asian societies, community, society and law and order are regarded superior to human rights.

5. Counter-ideologies of Ultra Nationalism and Fundamentalism:

Human rights are often identified with Western cultural imperialism. It is challenged by ultra-nationalism emerging in many developing countries. It has so happened in Yugoslavia, Rawanda, Sri Lanka, Serbia, and others.

There is rise of religious fundamentalism or Islamism, particularly, in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey, Sudan, Indonesia, etc. People there are segregated as damned and saved. The damned part of population is hated, tortured and killed. There is ethnic cleansing in many parts of the world.

Despite dubious, fuzzy and indeterminate status of UDHR, Human Rights is definitely a ‘move forward’ in the field of culture, political devel­opment, world peace and progress of mankind. It shall have a penetrating impact like that of the theory of natural rights.

Its realisation remains incomplete. But even in its incomplete form it would ‘revolutionise’ every walk of individual and community life. In due course of time, most of the bonds, inhuman laws and traditions, inequalities, disparities etc. would be done away with.

Man would become an end and instrument unto himself, as a result of gaining capacities at par with each other. Human Rights would bring about total democratic and liberal change in form of polities. Univer­sality of Human Rights would rationalise the operations of Liberalisation, Privatisation, and Globalisation (LPG) ushered in the Twenty-first Century. It is expected that its understanding and application would incarnate new culture and civilisation of Humanity. For some applications of Human Rights, it would be a turning point towards humanism if a scale for measurement of Human Rights is devised.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Political influence is the power sought for by politically active persons like legislators, ministers, leaders, etc. For some persons it is a source of enjoyment for its own sake, while for others it may be a means to determine or affect a policy.

Power is the capacity to produce intended behavior. This capacity can be exercised on the basis of coercive or non-coercive sanctions. Force is based on coercive sanctions. Influence is related to non-coercive sanctions. Both are the two main forms of power. However, some regard power as a form of influence, and other treat influence as a form of power. They appear different when power is identified with force, and influence as unrelated to power. Influence and force, both are treated as variants of power.

Influence is persuasive. One submits voluntarily to influence. Influence does not require coercive power. It is attached to an idea, a doctrine, or a creed. It has its locus in the ideological sphere.’ Christ, Buddha, Marx, Gandhi and the like had influence. By ‘influence’ is meant ability to get others act, think, or feel as one intends. From this point of view any cooperative activity – any organisation, formal or informal, ephemeral or lasting can be looked as a sphere of influence.

Lasswell uses the concept of ‘influence’ in a generic sense: ‘The study of politics is the study of influence and the influential. He is aware of the distinction between power and influence. According to Lasswell, ‘influence is the value position and potential of a person or group. It aims at affecting the policies of others by persuasive means. Rowe includes power and authority in the concept of influence.

Political influence is the power sought for by politically active persons like legislators, ministers, leaders, etc. For some persons it is a source of enjoyment for its own sake, while for others it may be a means to determine or affect a policy. It intends to decide what interest it shall serve, of what value, and with what form of expression. Political influence is unevenly shared. Often a vast majority wields very small influence, whereas a small minority, known as the elite can rule over a whole political system. Catlin has observed that influence contributes to building up a control system, especially of a consensual, habitual, or cooperative order.

It is distinct from ‘command’ and ‘coercion’. It has potentiality, but remains on the verge of power as coercive force. It is rather potential power, less than actual control. Potential power appears in persons or groups when someone evokes their attention on some just and suppressed cause. Such causes often stand in suppressed, secondary or unconcerned manner.

They are not immediate but mediate or next to currently conflicting causes. Probable potential power (PPP) exists among a very large number of un-organised people. It belongs to masses. It may erupt in an organised or unorganised manner. Even state power may stand helpless before its avalanche. Successful influence is a form of mental control: authority, leadership, political party, legitimacy, etc., are its various manifestations.

Two Views:

In a general sense, as ‘capacity to induce behaviour’, both power and influence are identical. In order to conceptualise both as one, we propose to use it as ‘Power’ (with capital ‘P’). Analytically, ‘power’ as capacity is a noun while influence is both a noun (fact) and a verb (process or activity). In the elaborate explanation of interrelationship between power and influence, both views can be adopted.

The power view regards influence as a form of power, which is largely indirect and unorganised. Some scholars like Weber, Maclver, Bierstedt, etc., take wider view of power. Morgenthau views all politics as struggle for power. Others distinguish two variants of power, as coercive and non-coercive. In politics, non-coercive power is more important than coercive power. The influence view observes influence as an all-pervading phenomenon. The second view also involves two perspectives.

One finds all behavioural changes as related to influence. Rowe finds it an umbrella concept covering power, authority, etc. According to him, power is coercive influence. The other view is specific, and acknowledges both power and influence as independent variables. Influence is different from power in the sense that man voluntarily submits to influence, whereas power requires submission. Karl Marx and Gandhi had influence, not power.

Influence in this sense does not require power. Power can exist without influence. In politics and political organisations both are found in a mixed form, as m actual practice influence also has power and vice versa, though conse­quences differ in nature and impact.

Upload and Share Your Article:

The goal of Easton’s political system is to maintain ‘persistence’ and not ‘equilibrium’. He is a critic of equilibrium-approach. His system converts demands and supports into outputs through feedback mechanisms. It is not a routine operation, but a complex cyclic process with a dynamism peculiar to it. The system has its own goal which it tries to reach by facing problems of stress and maintenance.

His analytical framework is based on two critical variables:

(i) Sources of stress and persistence of the system, and

(ii) Regulating processes or mechanisms of regulating these stresses.

Persistence stands for continuity of the capacity of the system to allocate values to the members in a binding manner and implement them. In Easton’s words, it is ‘the continuation of the capacity of a system to make and execute binding decisions of allocations on its members.’ It is a unique trait of political systems. It maintains the system with all modifications and changes entering into its environment. It transforms inputs into outputs, which influence the environment, and creation of inputs. The feedback mecha­nisms communicate reactions and responses to the outputs of the environment to the system.

The latter are interlocking cycles within the systematic cycle, and there is endless, interlinked, and interactive flow of operations which constantly change, and subsequently change the behaviour of the system. Thus, Easton presents a flow model of political system. It has an extraordinary capacity to adjust to, and sometimes even to transform the environment. For this, there operate so many processes and mechanisms, unlike other systems. Apart from regulating its own behaviour and maintaining itself amid changes, it transforms its own structure, even reformulate its goals.

In equilibrium approaches, scholars, mostly sociologists, give all importance to: (i) stability or maintenance of the system as it is; and (ii) neglect the environment or processes bringing about change in the system itself. They overlook the system’s capacity to cope with the problems coming from environment. A system, beyond the assumptions of these scholars, can have goals other than maintaining its equilibrium. At times, it may like to destroy an already existing equilibrium or wish to acquire a new pattern of equilibrium. It may, as Easton opines, like to change its environment so that transactions between the environment and the system are not stressful.

It may seek to insulate itself against undue pressures from the environment, and, the members ‘even fundamentally transform their own relationships and modify their own goals and practices so as to improve their chances of handling the inputs from the environment.’ Easton’s system has the capacity for creative and constructive regulation of disturbances. It is both open and adaptive to environment and liking of its own members. Thus Easton’s model is different from equilibrium models which neglect their changing environments.

Their goal is survival or maintenance of the status quo. Easton’s political system does not operate merely to face stresses, crises or change for maintaining itself. It is creative, innovative, forward-looking, persistent, goal-determining, and capable to cope with crises. However, the goal of persistence is bound up with problems of systematic survival and the preservation of essential variables within the critical range. Goal-attainment is restricted by the needs of system’s maintenance. As such, the theory contains little beyond the question of persistence.

Upload and Share Your Article:

Like facts and values, theory and facts also have a closer relationship. As in case of values, facts are the basic raw material of theory. Kant’s famous adage may be rephrased as, ‘fact without theory is blind theory without fact is empty’. In fact, there exists a continuous relationship between facts and theory, popularly known as ‘theory-data-continuum’. If theory is vital to every scientific advancement facts are the building blocks of every science. Both remain in constant interaction. Development in facts leads to devel­opment in theory, and vice versa.

In fact, the researcher perceives the concerned or relevant aspects, properties or relations in an event or activity. Fact, as stated earlier, is a purposeful relevant observation. From the observation of similar facts, he goes to the foundation of concepts. A concept is a shorthand representation of a variety of facts. It is an abstraction formed by generalisation from particulars. It is a generalised term for a class of objects. As such, it helps in classification and measurement of facts.

As a set of directions, or abstraction of certain properties or relation, it directs the researcher to pick out a particular kind of experience. After having classification of facts on the basis of concepts, the researcher analyses the various categories and discovers interrelation among them. From analysis, he goes to the stage of generali­sation – making a general statement applicable to a large number of facts – both observed and unobserved. A good number of interconnected generali­sations make up a theory.

A theory is facts assembled, put in an order, and seen in a relevant relationship. After coming to the stage of generalisation, one takes a jump or makes theoretical thrust and speaks for the similar, but hitherto unobserved, facts and events.

In a scientific venture, facts, concepts, generalisation, and theory should be based on empirical experience. When we go upwards from fact to theory, we move from validity to generality. Both rarely go together. As we go higher towards generality, which means speaking for a larger number of facts, we gradually lose validity or closeness to all actual empirical facts. Quantum of validity in factual statements differs in proportion to closeness to empirical facts. Scientific method keeps us close to observation of political facts. Theoretical movement takes us higher to generality of facts, but away from validity of observation.

Theory simply means the putting up of the relevant facts under the umbrella of some relation, property or abstraction. This is done on the basis of actual observation of some facts which enables the researcher to include other unobserved facts. For this, he uses the tools of concepts and generalisations. However, the whole structure has to stand on the foundation stone of empirical observation or validity of facts.

On the basis of validation or validity, theoretical statements can be put at four levels:

(1) Factual statements:

These are based on hundred per cent empirical evidence. Being observable, they are fully reliable.

(2) Probabilistic statements:

These are based on empirical evidence, but are applied on similar objects or events. They are hypothetically applied to all of them, and are accepted as true till proved false. They lack cent per cent validity, but mostly are regarded as empirical.

(3) Hypothetical statements:

Here we guess about facts. They are based on the interrelation of various variables which become a basis to prove them empirically. They help us in knowing the relationship between the change in one variable and the change in another variable. Lesser the ambiguity in the interrelation of variables, greater the precision. The mutual relationship makes hypothetical statements more fruitful and valid.

(4) Theoretical statements:

This is the highest stage of theoretical movement made on the road to validity. At this level, all facts, probable and hypothetical statements are woven into a widening relationship. The theoretical structure at this level is more general and universal than the lower three. However, each higher level tends to lose more and more validity.

In the diagram below as the scholar rises higher towards the theoretical top, his knowledge about the facts gets more and more generalised. The area of his knowledge enlarges, but validity dilutes. As given therein, at the lowest factual level, if generality is 25°, validity is 100°. At the next higher probabilistic level, generality is increased 50°, but validity goes low to 75°, and so on so forth.

To illustrate, if a vigilant citizen knows all the members of his ward, his knowledge about the ward can be counted valid up to 100 per cent. But his generality at higher level remains limited to a few hundred persons only, and validity about the people of his ward is not cent per cent. His factual knowledge, if applied to members of other wards, would only be probabilistic, with increased generality and reduced validity. If he applies the knowledge of the results of his municipal council to the elections of other local bodies, such an attempt can roughly be called as the use of his hypothetical knowledge.

In that case, generality will further be increased, but validity may go to a lowest ebb. ‘If there is heavy polling in those elections, the opposition will be benefited’ – can be a useful hypothetical statement. If more hypothetical statements are transformed into generalisa­tions after empirical observations, and weared into a set or cluster, the latter will reach the level of a theory. Its validity will further be reduced.

All these levels of statements or knowledge are somehow related to or based on facts. A structure of knowledge originates from simple factual statements and ends in abstract and general statements. All such statements or generation of knowledge presents ‘theory-data-continuum’.

At the highest level of knowledge or theory, one is able to generate many new hypotheses, and predict unobserved but probable and important facts of political life. Without a higher and more abstract set of concepts and gener­alisations, one cannot know much about political facts and processes. A theorist cannot stand without a collection of empirical facts.

In all situations, knowledge of a political theorist is based on obser­vation of facts, and their analysis in terms of scientific method. One has to constantly shuttle from facts to theory and theory to facts. But one may stop at the level of facts, their observation or analysis only. He is a political scientist, and not a theorist. He may even go a little beyond the facts and make some statements. Even this attempt does not amount to a theory.

A theory emerges in the form of interrelated concepts and generalisations under a certain scheme. A theorist refers to relationship between facts by ordering them in some meaningful way. Each theory has to go beyond facts and events. Thus, a theorist has necessarily to be a scientist, but the two roles can separately be taken up by two sets of scholars.

However, knowledge of facts can tell a lot about their ‘what’, ‘how’, ‘when’, ‘where’ etc., but remains empirically unable to speak on its ‘why’. The understanding of ‘why relates to values. If ultimate values or ideas about them are known or shown, the researcher can scientifically study the lower level or secondary values also. As political facts are deeply involved with facts, a the
orist has to know a lot about meaning and implication of various values also.

Upload and Share Your Article:

It may be pointed out that the concept of ‘political technology’ is different from many other forms of politics, which often are long or short-term, legal, ephemeral, specific, secretive and vague like strategy, policy, diplomacy, manipulation, technique, appeal, and other several similar expressions.

They may, however, be observed as various forms of ‘political technologies’ in making. Future research on them will encompass both an evolving philosophy and a range of techniques. Its primary objective will be to assist decision makers to understand better the potential consequences of present Social Sciences. This concept has to be expanded further.’

The proposed concept of ‘political technology’ is made of two terms, viz., ‘technology’ and ‘polities’. Politics usually is the art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs. It includes the activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party and also the methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government.

In a broad liberal-moderate way, politics also is the regulation and government of a nation or state. It also means the preservation of its safety, peace, and prosperity, the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, the augmentation of its strength and resources, and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals. Pejoratively, it also means intrigue or manoeuvring within a political unit or a group in order to gain control or power, often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society.

Politics, in its non-pejorative sense, is a specific kind of activity concerning ‘Who gets, What, When and How?’ It pertains to power, influence, and control or activities relating to governing of man by man. When broadly viewed, it is an ensemble of certain types of activities within, and related to a political system, including the environment in which the latter operates.

The concept of ‘Political technology’ directly relates to politics wherein power is generated and employed to gain rewards, and through which the interests of broad segments of population are affected. ‘Technology’, in human terms, is a relational activity including interpersonal relationships to realize certain goals and values. It is knowledge and a pattern of activities used to manipulate physical environment in order to achieve desired practical ends.

It is generally used in some rational, settled and dispas­sionate manner. Political technology means mastery and utilisation of the art of politics for directing political operations and manipulating political methods. It implies systematic application of knowledge to practical tasks. But political technology, as such, is different from ‘technique’, which is a personal skill. It is a method of doing something expertly for realising a given end. Techniques are learned, and require the acquisition of specialised skills.

Political technology concerns political goals and values, related to power relationships and/or deals with specific forms of interpersonal activ­ities relating to politics. On the basis of past and present experience, and in view of changing goals and objectives, it prepares and applies new patterns of relationships or triggers off appropriate sets of activities. It involves inter­est-relationship between two or more ends of political actors or groups.

Conceptually, at its bare minimum, each political relationship has one end, on the left hand, and the other end, on the right hand. As a cluster of inter­est-relationship, it can also have many ends or hands. Interest-relationship connects one with the other. This relationship can be concrete or abstract. It may appear in the form of human, moral or material interests.

A wider concept of political technology involves three types of relationships. One is the player or actor, second is that which is played or acted upon, and the third is the connection or relation emerging out of the two. When there are three ends or hands in a political relationship, the third one can be called as the connecting or interpersonal relationship, bond, link or engagement operating in a cluster of interrelationship.

The person or the user, who has the need of having a political technology, can be seen as the client, operator, customer, player, receiver, and political leader or simply as an activist. However, for all of these persons, the term ‘political leader’ (PL) has been used here.

Upload and Share Your Article:

After the First World War (1914-18) the principles preached by Hitler are known as Nazism. There is no need to give details of Nazism, because its principles are identical to those of Fascism.

The reasons for the rise of Nazism:

Germany faced a defeat in the First World War. Heavy war reparations were imposed on her. Many of her parts were given way to the neighbouring states and the German armed forces were reduced, consider ably. Many types of restrictions were imposed on their increase or the manufacture of various types of weapons of war.

Germany suffered a severe loss in the war and its treasury lay empty. She had no money to give to the allies, i.e., England, France the U.S.A., etc.; but the allies wanted to realize the money from Germany by force. Thus, the economic condition of Germany deteriorated considerably.

After World War I, Weimar Constitution of Germany was framed. According to it, democracy was established. This democracy continued till 1919-1933. The democratic government of Germany could not solve the problems which had arisen owing to World War I and the Treaty of Versailles.

Hitler took undue ad advantage of this situation. He preached against communism and democracy and laid emphasis on the obedience to one leader. Hitler’s principles and programmes became very popular in Germany. In 1933 he was elected the Chancellor (Prime Minister) of Germany.

Theory of Hitler or Nazism:

Like Mussolini, Hitler condemned communism and democracy and supported his personal dictatorship. He raised the slogan of turning the Jews out of Germany for their seditious activities and for the restoration of the parts of Germany to German mainland. He laid special emphasis on the renunciation of rights, liberty and equality, and on dutifulness, discipline and sacrifice.

He, too, wanted to make the state omnipotent and considered it his duty to control and regulate economic spheres in the national interest. He also supported the view that war was inevitable and believed in violent means to achieve his ends. He believed in racialism and imperialism and said that the Germans were connected with the Aryan race and they had the right to rule over the whole world.

In order to achieve his purposes, Hitler invaded Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium and France. It resulted in the outbreak of the Second World War. Germany was defected in 1945 and Hitler committed suicide. In this way, Nazism came to an end in Germany after World War II and once again democracy was established there.

Criticism:

Though Hitler made efforts to consolidate the unity of his country, to infuse patriotism among the people, and to increase the production, yet his imperialist wars and the use of force is condemnable. The propaganda of racialism is also not desirable. Hit propaganda against democracy and in favour of dictatorship was totally unfair.

Upload and Share Your Article: