You are currently viewing IGNOU MPS 1 GUESS PAPER FOR EXAM


QNO1:- What is political theory? Explain. OR Distinguish among political theory, political philosophy and political science. OR Explain the growth and evolution of political theory.

ANS:-Political theory is the study of the concepts and principles that people use to describe, explain, and evaluate political events and institutions. Traditionally, the discipline of political theory has approached this study from two different perspectives: the history of political thought, and contemporary political philosophy. Princeton’s political theory faculty has strength in both of these areas of the discipline, and indeed a number of faculty members actively work in both.

Major areas of research bringing together clusters of Princeton political theorists include democratic theory, international political theory, and aspects of the history of political thought. Princeton’s theorists share a strong commitment to interdisciplinary research. Graduate students routinely take seminars in the Departments of Philosophy, Classics, Religion and History, and participate in activities at the University Center for Human Values. A number of Politics faculties enjoy affiliate status in these units, and Politics extends the same status to several outside faculty with strong profiles in political theory. The theorists also work closely with empiricists in other subfields of the department.

The Program in Political Philosophy offers graduate students the chance to do interdisciplinary work. It also sponsors colloquia that bring political philosophers to Princeton every two or three weeks throughout the academic year, enabling graduate students to meet scholars from across the field.

The University Center for Human Values offers a year-long lineup of speakers on themes of interest to political theorists, sponsors graduate prize fellowships that support advanced research by graduate students, and supports a post-doctoral research program that brings several political theorists to Princeton each year for one-year visits.

Political theory seeks to understand, explain and analyze the political phenomena and prescribe ways and means to rectify the shortcomings. Political theory is a complex subject. This is because in the Western tradition, it is at least 2300 years old and has been attended to by philosophers, theologians, kings, economists, sociologists, popes and others. The number of political theorists is very large, and the interests and commitments of those engaged in this field have been so different that we are faced with the difficult task of answering a simple question:

What is political theory? Moreover, because of the diversity and changes in the socio-economic circumstances, there have been substantial changes both in the subject matter of political theory and the methods of studying it.

Political theory is the categorization of social thought by a group or by the persuasion or beliefs of a geo-political mass. Many political theories are founded as critiques toward existing political, economic and social conditions of the theorist’s time. Political theory can also be considered as a critical tradition of discourse that provides a reflection on collective life, the uses of collective power, and resources within a collectivity. The emphasis of political theory changes over time. As you will read, there are many different elements that create the foundation for theoretical analysis towards political science.

Political Theory/Basic Principles

  • Human Nature and Society
  • Purpose of Government
  • Rulers and the Ruled
  • Politics and the Political
  • Conviction and Belief
  • War and Peace

Political philosophy is the study of such topics as politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law, and the enforcement of a legal code by authority: what they are, why (or even if) they are needed, what, if anything, makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown, if ever. In a vernacular sense, the term “political philosophy” often refers to a general view, or specific ethic, political belief or attitude, about politics that does not necessarily belong to the technical discipline of philosophy.

Political science is a social science discipline concerned with the study of the state, government, and politics. Aristotle defined it as the study of the state. It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics, and the analysis of political systems and political behavior. Political scientists “see themselves engaged in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions, and from these revelations they attempt to construct general principles about the way the world of politics works.” Political science intersects with other fields; including economics, law, sociology, history, anthropology, public administration, public policy, national politics, international relations, comparative politics, psychology, political organization, and political theory. Although it was codified in the 19th century, when all the social sciences were established, political science has ancient roots; indeed, it originated almost 2,500 years ago with the works of Plato and Aristotle.

QNO2:- Describe the various theories of rights.

ANS: – Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.

Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture, and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived.”  The connection between rights and struggle cannot be overstated — rights are not as much granted or endowed as they are fought for and claimed, and the essence of struggles past and ancient are encoded in the spirit of current concepts of rights and their modern formulations.

There are five different theories regarding the nature of rights.

1. The Theory of Natural Rights:

The theory is based on the assumption that certain rights belong to man by nature. John Locke was its main exponent.

The sociological school has given them a new significance.

They regard natural rights as immunities and freedoms of man which are highly conducive to perfect living in society.

The theory is criticized on the ground that rights cannot exist prior to state.

2. The Historical Theory of Rights:

According to this theory, rights are the product of history. These are found in ancient customs and traditions.

The theory is criticized on the basis that rights do not always exist in customs and traditions. Rights change from age to age.

3. The Legal Theory of Rights:

According to this theory rights are created and maintained by the state.

The political pluralists object to this theory, because the state does not create rights but it only recognizes them.

4. The Social Welfare Theory of Rights:

The Utilitarian’s defend it. Utility is the measuring rod of a particular right.

The theory has its appeal in the sense of justice and reason.

5. The Idealistic Theory of Rights:

The idealists deify the state which creates rights. The state has all claims against the individual but the individual has no claims against the society.

The theory has little appeal to reason or logic.

QNO3:- Write an essay on the Marxist view of citizenship.

ANS: – Citizenship denotes the link between a person and a state or an association of states. It is normally synonymous with the term nationality although the latter term is sometimes understood to have ethnic connotations. Possession of citizenship is normally associated with the right to work and live in a country and to participate in political life. A person who does not have citizenship in any state is said to be stateless.

Nationality is often used as a synonym for citizenship – notably in international law – although the term is sometimes understood as denoting a person’s membership of a nation.

For Marx, citizenship was an abstraction that did not relate to the real material conditions of social life. To resolve the problem,


The actual individual man must take the abstract citizen back into himself and, as an individual man in his empirical life, in him in his individual work and individual relationships, become a species-being; man must recognize his own forces as social forces, organize them and thus no longer separate social forces from himself in the form of political forces. Only when this has been achieved will human emancipation be completed. (Marx, 1844)


In other words, the equalities of citizenship were formal not substantive equalities. For

Marx, real equality required the abolition of private property, not its protection.


Nevertheless, formal citizenship status is certainly real, and it has been used by governments to exclude would-be immigrants and other people deemed ‘undesirable’. In fact citizenship is an inherently exclusionary concept as it draws a clear legal line between those who belong and those who do not. Other writers on the left have pointed out that even those who formally belong are often denied equal access to citizenship rights because of their gender, ethnicity, (dis)ability, sexuality or religion. These inequalities may be enshrined in law (for example by giving men and women different voting rights) or they may be the outcome of institutionalized discrimination. In some cases equal rights applied in an formally equal way can produce discriminatory outcomes raising the possibility that special treatment for some groups may be the only way to ensure full equality among citizens – so-called ‘differentiated citizenship’ (Young, 1989). The philosophical basis of the conventional model of citizenship has also been criticized. While many on the left defend the ideal of universal rights on which the conventional model is based, others see the underlying universalism as a problem in itself. They argue that the underlying values are not, in fact, genuinely universal, but represent a particular (Western, masculine) world view that has been portrayed as universal, and that denies the value of other ways being in the world. Finally, some more active models of citizenship propagated by the political right have the aim of integrating the population more closely around the nation-state promoting patriotism, military service and seeking to minimize political dissent.


Despite all these criticisms, there are many aspects of citizenship that are supported by those on the radical left. The discourse of rights, for example, has been an important resource for numerous social movements, including the labour, women’s and gay and lesbian movements. Many such movements have campaigned not for the abolition of universal rights, but for their extension to all, regardless of their social position. The social citizenship that developed with the welfare state in the twentieth century was an important corrective to Marx’s argument that citizenship rights lacked substance. While the dominant forms of state welfare provision have been criticized for placing people in a passive relationship to the state and for generating institutionalized discrimination (Pierson, 1991) the extension of social provision showed that citizenship could in principle embrace social and economic life too. The struggle against apartheid, a cause dear to the left throughout the 1970s and 1980s, reveals that civil and political rights do matter. The impact on people’s daily lives of authoritarian regimes of all political hues suggests that civil and political freedoms are necessary, if not sufficient, conditions for human emancipation.


QNO4:- Critically examine the relationship between the state and the civil society.


ANS: – THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY, i.e., the political life, finds itself within a greater reality, what the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church calls “civil society.” The Compendium defines civil society as the “sum of the relationships between individuals and intermediate social groupings, which are the first relationships to arise and which come about thanks to ‘the creative subjectivity of the citizen.'” .It also defines it a little more broadly as “the sum of relationships and resources, cultural and associative that are relatively independent from the political sphere and the economic sector.” Civil society is, in a sense, an organic and therefore “messy” reality:


Civil society is in fact multifaceted and irregular; it does not lack its ambiguities and contradictions. It is also the arena where different interests clash with one another, with the risk that the stronger will prevail over the weaker.

The activities of civil society — above all volunteer organizations and cooperative endeavors in the private-social sector, all of which are succinctly known as the “third sector,” to distinguish from the State and the market — represent the most appropriate ways to develop the social dimension of the person, who finds in these activities the necessary space to express himself fully. The progressive expansion of social initiatives beyond the State- controlled sphere creates new areas for the active presence and direct action of citizens, integrating the functions of the State. This important phenomenon has often come about largely through informal means and has given rise to new and positive ways of exercising personal rights, which have brought about a qualitative enrichment of democratic life.


Because civil society proceeds with relative autonomy, it does need some ordering. Hence, civil society needs a political community, a political order, ultimate formalized into a State. The relationship between the political community and civil society (and hence the State and civil society) is threatened by two extreme ideologies, extreme individualism or atomism, on the one hand, and collectivism, on the other hand. Though their view of the relationship between the individual and civil society are at opposite poles, they lead to the same practical result: the absorption of civil society into the political community. The Church warns us to steer clear of these two ideologies and advocates a “social pluralism” which rejects both extremes, accepts that which is true in both, to the end of “bringing about a more fitting arrangement of the common good and democracy itself, according to the principles of solidarity, subsidiary, and justice.”


Several truths must be kept in mind in understanding the relationship between the political community and civil society. First, one should keep in mind that the political community “originates” from civil society. Second, the “political community and civil society, although mutually connected and inter-dependent, are not equal in the hierarchy of ends.” In the hierarchy of ends, the political community is clearly subordinate to civil society. The political community is “at the service of civil society.”

Holding to a proper understanding between civil society and the individual, helps us see that “in the final analysis” the political community will be at the service of “the persons and groups of which civil society is composed.”  Because the political community is subordinate to civil society, it is an error to see civil society as “an extension or a changing component of the political community.” To the contrary, it is civil society that “has priority” over the political community, “because it is in civil society itself that the political community finds its justification.”


The State is the formal expression of the political community, and it is charged with the task of providing an “adequate legal framework for social subjects,” what we call its citizens, “to engage freely in their different activities.” The State and its agencies “must be ready to intervene, when necessary and with respect for the principal of subsidiary, so that the interplay between free associations and democratic life may be directed to the common good.” .To this degree, one might view the state as a “night watchman state,” but, as we shall see, it is more than a “night watchman state.”

The political community is responsible for regulating its relations with civil society according to the principle of subsidiarity.” (Compendium, No. 419) Its role should be hands-off unless the various associations of which civil society is composed are unable responsibly to handle the matter, and any intervention should be one in aid, and not in replacement of, the activities of that part of civil association.

The Church discourages Statism, insists on the principle of subsidiarity, and its social doctrine actively supports and encourages the role of the “third sector” as the means of humanizing, de-bureaucratizing, de-politicizing and advancing the needs of persons within civil society. It sees the third sector as the means also of removing the plague of extreme individualistic competition (dog-eat-dog) too often found in a disordered economic sector, and replacing it with more personalist notions of cooperation and solidarity.


QNO5:- Explain the concept of liberalism.

ANS: – Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on the ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and a right to life, liberty, and property.

Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property and according to the social contract governments must not violate these rights. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with democracy and the rule of law.

The revolutionaries in the American Revolution, the French Revolution and other liberal revolutions from that time used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Spanish America, and North America.

During the beginning of the twentieth century some countries adopted totalitarian, non-liberal regimes, such as Fascism, Nazism and Communism. In other countries classical liberalism became less popular and gave way to social democracy and social liberalism According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies.”

After the defeat of Fascism and Nazism in World War II, the world was largely divided into two blocks, the western world, which held onto liberal ideas, and the Communist Block. Non-aligned countries were sometimes called “Third World” countries. Today, liberal political parties remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents.

Liberalism as a political movement spans the better part of the last four centuries, though the use of the word liberalism to refer to a specific political doctrine did not occur until the 19th century. Perhaps the first modern state founded on liberal principles, with no hereditary aristocracy, was The United States of America, whose Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” echoing John Locke’s phrase “life, liberty, and property”. A few years later, the French Revolution overthrew the hereditary aristocracy, with the slogan “liberty, equality, fraternity”, and was the first state in history to grant universal male suffrage. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, first codified in 1789 in France, is a foundational document of both liberalism and human rights. The Enlightenment, which challenged tradition, eventually coalesced into powerful revolutionary movements that toppled archaic regimes all over the world, especially in Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberalism fully exploded as a comprehensive movement against the old order during the French Revolution, which set the pace for the future development of human history.

Some argue that Liberalism started as a major doctrine and political endeavor in response to the religious wars gripping Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries. In any case, the intellectual progress of the Enlightenment, which questioned old traditions about societies and governments, eventually coalesced into powerful revolutionary movements that toppled archaic regimes all over the world, especially in Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberalism fully exploded as a comprehensive movement against the old order during the French Revolution, which set the pace for the future development of human history.

QNO6:- What were the early strands of socialism?


ANS: – The word socialism refers to a broad range of theoretical and historical socio-economic systems, and has also been used by many political movements throughout history to describe themselves and their goals, generating numerous types of socialism. Different self-described socialists have used the term socialism to refer to different things, such as an economic system, a type of society, a philosophical outlook, a collection of moral values and ideals, or even a certain kind of human character. Some definitions of socialism are very vague, while others are so specific that they only include a small minority of the things that have been described as “socialism” in the past. There have been numerous political movements which called themselves socialist under some definition of the term; this article attempts to list them all. Some of these interpretations are mutually exclusive, and all of them have generated debates over the true meaning of socialism.

The word socialism was coined in the 1830s, and it was first used to refer to philosophical or moral beliefs rather than any specific political views. For example, Alexandre Vinet, who claimed to have been the first person to use the term, defined socialism simply as “the opposite of individualism”. Robert Owen also viewed socialism as a matter of ethics, though he used it with a slightly more specific meaning, to refer to the view that human society can and should be improved for the benefit of all. In a similar vein, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon claimed that socialism is “every aspiration towards the amelioration of society”.

In the first half of the 19th century, many writers who described themselves as socialists – and who would be later called “utopian socialists” – wrote down descriptions of what they believed to be the ideal human society. Some of them also created small communities that put their ideals into practice. A constant feature of these ideal societies was social and economic equality. Because the people who proposed the creation of such societies called themselves socialists, the word “socialism” came to refer not only to a certain moral doctrine, but also to a type of egalitarian society based on such a doctrine.

Other early advocates of socialism took a more scientific approach by favouring social leveling to create a meritocratic society based upon freedom for individual talent to prosper, such as Count Henri de Saint-Simon, who was fascinated by the enormous potential of science and technology and believed a socialist society would eliminate the disorderly aspects of capitalism. He advocated the creation of a society in which each person was ranked according to his or her capacities and rewarded according to his or her work. The key focus of this early socialism was on administrative efficiency and industrialism, and a belief that science was the key to progress. Simon’s ideas provided a foundation for scientific economic planning and technocratic administration of society.

Other early socialist thinkers, such as Thomas Hodgkin and Charles Hall, based their ideas on David Ricardo’s economic theories. They reasoned that the equilibrium value of commodities approximated to prices charged by the producer when those commodities were in elastic supply, and that these producer prices corresponded to the embodied labor — the cost of the labor (essentially the wages paid) that was required to produce the commodities. The Ricardian socialists viewed profit, interest and rent as deductions from this exchange-value. These ideas embodied early conceptions of free-market socialism.

After the advent of Karl Marx’s theory of capitalism and Scientific socialism, socialism came to refer to ownership and administration of the means of production by the working class, either through the state apparatus or through independent cooperatives. In Marxist theory, socialism refers to a specific stage of social and economic development that will displace capitalism, characterized by coordinated production, public or cooperative ownership of capital, diminishing class conflict and inequalities that spawn from such, and the end of wage-labor with a method of compensation based on the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution”.

QNO7:- Write a note on Habermas’s notion of Legitimation crisis.

ANS: – Jurgen Habermas’ (1929- ) theory on the crisis of legitimacy is a useful social theory to explain and interpret the social reality in more developed countries. Its application to less developed countries is also important and permits the explanation of many aspects of the social reality of these nations. However, it is possible that this theory does not provide a complete explanation of the social situation inherent in these less developed nations.

The inability of this theoretical application to fully explain the reality of less developed countries can be attributed to the fact that in these nations, social conditions are different than those in the developed countries. To state the problem more concretely, Habermas’ theory has been formulated based on the conditions which exist in the developed countries. These conditions are not all present in developing countries. For this reason, the application of Habermas’ theory to the conditions of the latter group can only partially characterize the social reality which exists. It then follows that the assumptions which are sustained by Habermas’ theory and which are found primarily in developed countries, would not be fulfilled in terms of the majority of the social sectors of less developed nations.

The fundamental problem which will be studied in this document is the application of Habermas’ theory, the crisis of legitimation, to the conditions of one country in particular: Guatemala. The essential question to be put forth will be: To what degree can Habermas’ theory be applied to the social reality in Guatemala? The thesis which will be supported throughout the document is: Habermas’ crisis of legitimation theory only partially explains the Guatemalan reality due to the fact that not all of the theory’s assumptions are applicable to this central american country.

In particular will be presented the analysis of that which is considered an essential assumption in Habermas’ theory: social integration. The proposal is to demonstrate that this assumption is present in Guatemala, but not in the same manner as in the more developed countries, namely, North America, Western Europe, and Japan. In the latter countries, social integration occurs for the majority of the population. In other words, the majority of the population in these countries is in a situation of integration, within the three spheres specified by Habermas: economic, political and socio-cultural. In the case of Guatemala, only minority groups of the population would take part in this fundamental integration. The majority of Guatemalan society finds itself only marginally integrated, or in conditions of marginality.

With the objective being the aforementioned analysis, this document will have three principles parts. The first part will refer to the elements of the theory which will be studied. Chapter two, following the introduction, will present those aspects which are considered essential to Habermas’ theory of the crisis of legitimation. Chapter three will include a specific analysis of the assumption of social integration.

The second part will be dedicated to the study of the current situation in Guatemala. The fourth chapter will present conditions in Guatemala in economic, political and socio-cultural terms. The proposal here is to demonstrate the levels of integration which occur in Guatemalan society. Chapter five will contain a summary of the principal aspects of social integration situation in Guatemala.

The third part will present the results of the application of the crisis of legitimation theory to conditions in Guatemala. Chapter six will concentrate on the indication that Habermas’ theoretical base can be applied to the social sector which is principally integrated into Guatemalan society, but not to the sectors which are marginally integrated in this society. The seventh chapter will present final reflections on applying Habermas’ theoretical base on three levels: 1) human society in general, or the global level; 2) those sectors which are principally integrated in developed countries as well as in less developed countries; and 3) those sectors which are marginally integrated in both groups of countries.

Applying the theory of the crisis of legitimacy to conditions in Guatemala could glean results which might be characteristic of other less developed countries. In other words, the results of this application to the case of Guatemala could be relatively extended to certain other countries of the so-called Third World, even though it is necessary to consider the specific social conditions of each nation under evaluation.

It is understood that this document should not only include the determination of the limitations of the theory when applied to less developed countries such as Guatemala, but should also present features of reflection in addition. For this reason, the last part of the document will be dedicated to the placement of Habermas’ theory. This will entail a determination of the social levels which exist at a national and an international level. These reflections will indicate certain points which could be considered useful to evaluate keeping in mind the objective of the application of the social theory which is derived from the basis of the crisis of legitimation.

The principal theoretical elements which will be referred to originate from Habermas’ work, Crisis of Legitimacy (1973). However, elements from other works by Jurgen Habermas, such as Autonomy and Solidarity (1992) and The Theory of Communicative Action (1984), will also be utilized, especially in the identification of concrete aspects of social integration in the economic, political and socio-cultural sense.

QNO8:- Analyze Gellner’s theory of nationalism.

ANS: – Nationalism is a form of patriotism based upon the identification of a group of individuals with a nation. There are two main perspectives on the origins and basis of nationalism, one is the primordialist perspective that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient and perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct grouping based on an affinity of birth; the other is the modernist perspective that describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that requires the structural conditions of modern society. There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group, or that multi-nationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.

The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development has commonly been the result of a response by an influential group or groups that is unsatisfied with traditional identities due to inconsistency between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting in a situation of anomie that nationalists seek to resolve. This anomie results in a society or societies reinterpreting identity, retaining elements that are deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, in order to create a unified community. This development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign powers that are deemed to be controlling them.

Nationalism may involve several recognized nations being involved in a single goal of self-determination uniting the nations, such as binationalism or multinationalism, examples of this occurred in Austria-Hungary, Belgium, and Czechoslovakia.

National flags, national anthems, and other symbols of national identity are commonly considered highly important symbols of the national community.

Gellner, “nationalism is primarily a political principle that holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent”. Nationalism only appeared and, Gellner argues, became a sociological necessity in the modern world. In previous times (“the agro-literate” stage of history) rulers had little incentive to impose cultural homogeneity on the ruled. But in modern society, work becomes technical. One must operate a machine, and as such one must learn. There is a need for impersonal, context-free communication and a high degree of cultural standardisation.

Furthermore, industrial society is underlined by the fact that there is perpetual growth – employment types vary and new skills must be learned. Thus, generic employment training precedes specialised job training. On a territorial level, there is competition for the overlapping catchment areas (e.g. Alsace-Lorraine). To maintain its grip on resources, and its survival and progress, the state and culture must for these reasons be congruent. Nationalism therefore is a necessity.

Criticisms of Gellner’s theory:

  • It is too functionalist. Critics charge that Gellner explains the phenomenon with reference to the eventual historical outcome—industrial society could not ‘function’ without nationalism. (Tambini 1996)
  • It misreads the relationship between nationalism and industrialization. (Smith 1998)
  • It accounts poorly for national movements of ancient Rome, Greece, etc. claiming an alum type argument; insisting that nationalism is tied in ‘modernity’ and cannot exist without a clearly defined modern industrialization. (Smith 1995)
  • It fails to account for nationalism in non-industrial society and resurgences of nationalism in post-industrial societies. (Smith 1998)
  • It cannot explain the passions generated by nationalism. Why should anyone fight and die for his country? (Connor 1993)
  • It fails to take into account the role of war and the military in fostering both cultural homogenization and nationalism, ignoring in particular the relationship between militarism and compulsory education. (Conversi 2007)

QNO9:- Write a note on the Fascist world view.

ANS: – Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek to unify their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people through national identity. The unity of the nation is to be based upon suprapersonal connections of ancestry and culture through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics. Fascism utilizes a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation upon fascist principles. The fascist party and state is led by a supreme leader who exercises a dictatorship over the party, the government and other state institutions. Fascism views direct action including political violence and war, as a means to achieve national rejuvenation, spirit and vitality.

Fascism recognizes the existence of class conflict in societies, and advocates a resolution to end the division of classes and secure national solidarity. However fascism publicly favours proletarian culture, and claims that cultural nationalization of society emancipates the nation’s proletariat, and promotes the assimilation of all classes into a proletarian nation.

Fascism advocates a state-controlled and regulated mixed economy; the principal economic goal of fascism is to achieve autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence, through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.  It promotes regulated private enterprise and private property contingent whenever beneficial to the nation and state enterprise and state property whenever necessary to protect its interests. It supports criminalization of strikes by employees and lockouts by employers because it deems these acts as prejudicial and detrimental to the national community and therefore to society as an entirety. Fascism promotes such economics as a “third position” alternative to capitalism and Marxism, as fascism declares both as being obsolete.

Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views. Fascists have commonly opposed having a firm association with any section of the left-right spectrum, considering it inadequate to describe their beliefs, though fascism’s goal to promote the rule of people deemed innately superior while seeking to purge society of people deemed innately inferior is identified as a prominent far-right theme. Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism — communism and social democracy.

QNO10:- Discuss the major techniques of non-violent action. OR Describe the Gandhian notion of Non-violence. Explain various techniques of non-violent action.


ANS: – The technique of nonviolent action, which is based on this approach to the control of political power and the waging of political struggles, has been the subject of many misconceptions: for the sake of clarity the two terms are defined in this section.

The term technique is used here to describe the overall means of conducting an action or struggle. One can therefore speak of the technique of guerrilla warfare, of conventional warfare, and of parliamentary democracy.

The term nonviolent action refers to those methods of protest, noncooperation, and intervention in which the actionists, without employing physical violence, refuse to do certain things which they are expected, or required, to do; or do certain things which they are not expected, or are forbidden, to do. In a particular case there can of course be a combination of acts of omission and acts of commission.

Nonviolent action is a generic term: it includes the large class of phenomena variously called nonviolent resistance, satyagraha, passive resistance, positive action, and nonviolent direct action. While it is not violent, it is action, and not inaction; passivity, submission, and cowardice must be surmounted if it is to be used. It is a means of conducting conflicts and waging struggles, and is not to be equated with (though it may be accompanied by) purely verbal dissent or solely psychological influence. It is not pacifism, and in fact has in the vast majority of cases been applied by nonpacifists. The motives for the adoption of nonviolent action may be religious or ethical or they may be based on considerations of expediency. Nonviolent action is not an escapist approach to the problem of violence, for it can be applied in struggles against opponents relying on violent sanctions. The fact that in a conflict one side is nonviolent does not imply that the other side will also refrain from violence. Certain forms of nonviolent action may be regarded as efforts to persuade by action, while others are more coercive.

Methods of Nonviolent Action

There is a very wide range of methods, or forms, of nonviolent action, and at least 197 have been identified. They fall into three classes – nonviolent protest and persuasion, noncooperation, and nonviolent intervention.

Generally speaking, the methods of nonviolent protest are symbolic in their effect and produce an awareness of the existence of dissent. Under tyrannical regimes, however, where opposition is stifled, their impact can in some circumstances be very great. Methods of nonviolent protest include marches, pilgrimages, picketing, vigils, “haunting” officials, public meetings, issuing and distributing protest literature, renouncing honors, protest emigration, and humorous pranks.

The methods of nonviolent noncooperation, if sufficient numbers take part, are likely to present the opponent with difficulties in maintaining the normal efficiency and operation of the system; and in extreme cases the system itself may be threatened. Methods of nonviolent noncooperation include various types of social noncooperation (such as social boycotts); economic boycotts (such as consumers’ boycott, traders’ boycott, rent refusal, and international trade embargo); strikes (such as the general strike, strike by resignation, industry strike, go-slow, and economic shutdown); and political noncooperation (such as boycott of government employment, boycott of elections, administrative noncooperation, civil disobedience, and mutiny).

The methods of nonviolent intervention have some features in common with the first two classes, but also challenge the opponent more directly; and, assuming that fearlessness and discipline are maintained, relatively small numbers may have a disproportionately large impact. Methods of nonviolent intervention include sit-ins, fasts, reverse strikes, nonviolent obstructions, nonviolent invasion, and parallel government.

The exact way in which methods from each of the three classes are combined varies considerably from one situation to another. Generally speaking, the risks to the actionists on the one hand, and to the system against which they take action on the other, are least in the case of nonviolent protest, and greatest in the case of nonviolent intervention. The methods of noncooperation tend to require the largest numbers, but not to demand a large degree of special training from all participants. The methods of nonviolent intervention are generally effective if the participants possess a high degree of internal discipline and are willing to accept severe repression; the tactics must also be selected and carried out with particular care and intelligence.

Several important factors need to be considered in the selection of the methods to be used in a given situation. These factors include the type of issue involved, the nature of the opponent, his aims and strength, the type of counteraction he is likely to use the depth of feeling both among the general population and among the likely actionists, the degree of repression the actionists are likely to be able to take, the general strategy of the overall campaign, and the amount of past experience and specific training the population and the actionists have had. Just as in military battle weapons are carefully selected, taking into account such factors as their range and effect, so also in nonviolent struggle the choice of specific methods is very important.

Mechanisms of Change:In nonviolent struggles there are, broadly speaking, three mechanisms by which change is brought about. Usually there is a combination of the three. They are conversion, accommodation, and nonviolent coercion.

George Lakey has described the conversion mechanism thus: “By conversion we mean that the opponent, as the result of the actions of the nonviolent person or group, comes around to a new point of view which embraces the ends of the nonviolent actor.” This conversion can be influenced by reason or argument, but in nonviolent action it is also likely to be influenced by emotional and moral factors, which can in turn be stimulated by the suffering of the nonviolent actionists, who seek to achieve their goals without inflicting injury on other people.

Attempts at conversion, however, are not always successful, and may not even be made. Accommodation as a mechanism of nonviolent action falls in an intermediary position between conversion and nonviolent coercion, and elements of both of the other mechanisms are generally involved. In accommodation, the opponent, although not converted, decides to grant the demands of the nonviolent actionists In a situation where he still has a choice of action. The social situation within which he must operate has been altered enough be nonviolent action to compel a change in his own response to the conflict; perhaps because he has begun to doubt the rightness of his position, perhaps because he does not think the matter worth the trouble caused by the struggle, and perhaps because he anticipates coerced defeat and wishes to accede gracefully or with minimum or losses.

Nonviolent coercion may take place in any of three circumstances. Defiance may become too widespread and massive for the ruler to be able to control it by repression; the social and political system may become paralyzed; or the extent of defiance or disobedience among the ruler’s own soldiers and other agents may undermine his capacity to apply repression. Nonviolent coercion becomes possible when those applying nonviolent action succeed in withholding, directly or indirectly, the necessary sources of the ruler’s political power. His power then disintegrates, and he is no longer able to control the situation, even though he still wishes to do so.

Just as in war danger from enemy fire does not always force front line soldiers to panic and flee, so in nonviolent action repression does not necessarily produce submission. True, repression may be effective, but it may fail to halt defiance, and in this case the opponent will be in difficulties. Repression against a nonviolent group which persists in face of it and maintains nonviolent discipline may have the following effects: it may alienate the general population from the opponent’s regime, making them more likely to join the resistance; it may alienate the opponent’s usual supporters and agents, and their initial uneasiness may grow into internal opposition and at times into noncooperation and disobedience; and it may rally general public opinion (domestic or international) to the support of the nonviolent actionists; though the effectiveness of this last factor varies greatly from one situation to another, it may produce various types of supporting actions. If repression thus produces larger numbers of nonviolent actionists, thereby increasing the defiance, and if it leads to internal dissent among the opponent’s supporters, thereby reducing his capacity to deal with the defiance, it will dearly have rebounded against the opponent.

Naturally, with so many variables (including the nature of the contending groups, the issues involved, the context of the struggle, the means of repression. and the methods of nonviolent action used), in no two instances will nonviolent action “work” in exactly the same way. However, it is possible to indicate in very general terms the ways in which it does achieve results. It is, of course, sometimes defeated: no technique of action can guarantee its user short-term victory in every instance of its use. It is important to recognize, however, that failure in nonviolent action may be caused, not by an inherent weakness of the technique, but by weakness in the movement employing it, or in the strategy and tactics used.

Strategy is just as important in nonviolent action as it is in military action. While military strategic concepts and principles cannot be automatically carried over into the field of nonviolent struggle, since the dynamics and mechanisms of military and nonviolent action differ greatly, the basic importance of strategy and tactics is in no way diminished. The attempt to cope with strategic and tactical problems associated with civilian defense (national defense by prepared nonviolent resistance) therefore needs to be based on thorough consideration of the dynamics and mechanisms of nonviolent struggle; and on consideration of the general principles of strategy and tactics appropriate to the technique-both those peculiar to it and those which may be carried over from the strategy of military and other types of conflict.

Development of the Technique:-Nonviolent action has a long history but because historians have often been more concerned with other matters, much information has undoubtedly been lost. Even today, this field is largely ignored, and there is no good history of the practice and development of the technique. But it clearly began early. For example, in 494 B.C. the plebeians of Rome, rather than murder the Consuls, withdrew from the city to the Sacred Mount where they remained for some days, thereby refusing to make their usual contribution to the life of the city, until an agreement was reached pledging significant improvements in their life and status.

A very significant pre-Gandhian expansion of the technique took place in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The technique received impetus from three groups during this period: first from trade unionists and other social radicals who sought a means of struggle-largely strikes, general strikes, and boycotts-against what they regarded as an unjust social system, and for an improvement in the condition of working men; second, from nationalists who found the technique useful in resisting a foreign enemy such as the Hungarian resistance against Austria between 1850 and 1867, and the Chinese boycotts of Japanese goods in the early 20th century; and third, on the level of ideas and personal example, from individuals, such as Leo Tolstoy in Russia and Henry David Thoreau in the U.S.A., who wanted to show how a better society might be created.

With Gandhi’s experiments in the use of nonviolent action to control rulers, alter policies, and undermine political systems, the character of the technique was broadened and refinements were made in its practice. Many modifications were introduced: greater attention was given to strategy and tactics; the armory of methods was expanded; and a link was consciously forged between mass political action and the ethical principle of nonviolence. Gandhi, with his political colleagues and fellow Indians, demonstrated in a variety of conflicts in South Africa and India that nonviolent struggle could be politically effective on a large scale. He termed his refinement of the technique “satyagraha,” meaning roughly insistence and reliance upon the force of truth. “In politics, its use is based upon the immutable maxim, that government of the people is possible only so long as they consent either consciously or unconsciously to be governed.”

QNO11:- What is the basis of J.S. Mill’s support to negative liberty?

ANS: – Mill’s On Liberty was written almost two hundred years after Hobbes’s masterpiece (The Leviathan), and, as Mill says at the very beginning of his argument, by that time some liberal principles, like freedom of the press, are now so firmly entrenched that he feels no need to defend them. Certainly in America and in England, the liberal tradition deriving ultimately from Hobbes (via John Locke) had become the organizing principle of government (it is important for an understanding of Canadian law to recognize that our non-aboriginal traditions have no roots other than in modern liberalism: this helps to explain some basic things about what we believe and how we live).

Mill, however, is worried that the present development of liberalism does not create enough room in the private realm, and his essay (of which we are reading only a short condensation) is a detailed and sustained argument for maximizing personal freedom in the modern liberal state. He feels the need to do this because he perceives two great threats to the modern liberal state: excessive power of the government and its written codified laws and excessive power of public opinion and its unwritten laws (what Mill calls, borrowing the phrase from de Tocqueville, a French political thinker, the “tyranny of the majority”).

The central thrust of Mill’s argument is very straightforward, but it is easily misunderstood. His aim, as he tells up right away, is to make the case that we should permit individuals to say and do what they want as much as possible, subject to only one limitation, namely, that they should inflict no direct harm on other people. In all other cases, individuals should be left free to say and to do what they want, with no legal or social barriers. Only if this happens can the best people develop fully and societies prosper.

It is particularly important to notice the basis of Mill’s argument. He does not argue that we have a basic right to these freedoms or that the government is under some sort of moral obligation to maximize our freedom, or that such freedoms are divine commandments. His argument is a thoroughly utilitarian one: he argues that adopting his principles will bring direct social benefits for everyone, they will permit faster progress in all sectors of society, in ideas, in education, in business, in everything else.

Without such principles, Mill believes, society is in danger of stagnating. In other words, maximizing the freedom of all is in the best interests of every one in society. Unlike Hobbes, Mill believes that people will not threaten the stability of society if we give them much more freedom than they presently possess. Put in the terms introduced earlier in this lecture, Mill’s position is that maximizing negative liberty will provide direct practical benefits to everyone. In making the case for increasing personal liberty, he is appealing directly to our self-interest. Where Hobbes’ main concern is civil security (avoiding the dangers of civil war), Mill’s is social stagnation. Thus, Hobbes is prepared to limit negative liberty in the name of security; Mill wants to maximize it for the sake of progress.

And the basis of Mill’s faith in such progress comes from a central claim that, in a tradition established by the Greeks (to whom Mill appeals), liberty will breed competition and variety and these, in turn, will better foster excellence. Only by competing with each other in the realm of ideas and practical experiments for living and in trade will our society improve. For example, in the realm of ideas, free speech is essential for a number of reasons. Without it we may stifle some ideas which may be true. Or, if the minority ideas are not true, then we lose the opportunity to have our ideas challenged and to think through how we can defend them. Any attempt to stifle the expression of any idea for whatever reason is an assumption of infallibility and runs the risk of making us complacent about our beliefs and thus prevents us from improving our ideas or even understanding them as fully as we might.

QNO12:- On what grounds do the pluralists attack Austin’s theory of sovereignty?

ANS: – Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no pure legal explanation can be provided. In theoretical terms, the idea of “sovereignty”, historically, from Socrates to Thomas Hobbes, has always necessitated a moral imperative on the entity exercising it.

For centuries past, the idea that a state could be sovereign was always connected to its ability to guarantee the best interests of its own citizens. Thus, if a state could not act in the best interests of its own citizens, it could not be thought of as a “sovereign” state.

The concept of sovereignty has been discussed throughout history, from the time of the Romans through to the present day. It has changed in its definition, concept, and application throughout, especially during the Age of Enlightenment. The current notion of state sovereignty is often traced back to the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which, in relation to states, codified the basic principles:

  • territorial integrity
  • border inviolability
  • supremacy of the state (rather than the Church)
  • A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority within its jurisdiction.

Law is nothing but a command of the sovereign and is obeyed because of physical penalties. Sovereignty is universal. It can make or unmake any laws. It creates unity in society.

Whatever exists in society is permitted by the state and hence commanded by it. People have no rights against the state; state creates both laws and rights. Rights are what sovereign sanctions. Hobbes compared the state to a “Leviathan”.

Idealists defined the state as “God” on earth. According to these writers, the citizen has to ask the state of his duties and perform them. It is in the performance of duties and obedience of law that he achieves his best self and reaches perfection.

Pluralists on the other hand, criticize this theory on the ground that society is not monistic but pluralistic and federal. State is not society. State is not the but an association in society.

Society is a web of associations and social processes. The state does not create one final unit in society but there are numerous units. The state does not comprehend the whole social life.

It only deals with, as MacIver says, “external conditions of social order. It does not and cannot deal with its internal life”.

According to Pluralists, each association is a real personality, inde­pendent of state. There are associations like family and church which came into existence even before the state. These associations have their own constitution, purpose and regulative institutions which the states cannot interfere with.

As Lindsay put it, “The state can have control corporations and associations within it only and in so far as they are prepared to give it such power.

The state is only one of associations and organizations which possess corporate personalities and which are occupied in the performance of various functions analogous to those performed by the state.

These associations are more important to life than the state. Man is an associative animal and lives his life through various associations like family, church, recreational club, economic organization where he earns his livelihood, a gossip circle, etc. They are more real to him and of greater significance than the state is.

The purpose of the state is to create external conditions whereby a citizen can choose his associations, freely and thereby develop his personality. They deal with his spiritual, internal moral and personal life.

They deal with those aspects of life which state is incapable of serving successfully. These associations are a thus limi­tation upon the powers of state and its sovereignty.

They also compete with the state for the allegiance of man. Very often an association or its members may defy the state and even over­throw it if the state does not fulfill the purpose they consider good and promote common welfare.

Moreover, an individual obeys to the associa­tions from his heart whereas he obeys the state only on account of fear. As Lindsay points out, “these associations attract deeper loyalties than the state and prove more effective agencies of social co-ordination.

“Ac­cording to MacIver.” Customs, religion, principles of morality and public opinion are a limitation upon the state.”

Laws are not commands of state but reflect the ‘sociological needs of the community. The function of the state is to maintain these laws and they are limitations upon the state, which it too must obey. State at the most brings them up-to-date according to the changing needs.

The laws are obeyed not because of fear but because they promote common welfare, “Force is not the essence but only differentia or criterion of state.” State only distinguishes it from other associations.

It possesses force because the performance of its functions, that is, maintenance law and order, demands it. The physical force is conditioned by the purpose.

Laski points out that there is no single unity in the state- associations are unities but they together form the society. Authority of the state is federal and conditioned by its purpose.

Speaking of the monistic theory of sovereignty he says, “It would be of lasting benefit to political science if the whole concept of sovereignty was surrendered.

” He further says that the state “does not exhaust the associative impulses of men.” The group is real in the same sense that the state is real. No association can legislate for the whole of self. Surely, least can the state.”

The laws made by the state are very often the result of the demands of various associations. Often the state presents the decisions of other associations as its own decisions and clothes them into law.

The state is thus only according to Figgis, “an agency of co-ordination and adjust­ment.” It is the supreme body because its commands are adhered but it cannot act arbitrarily and has to function within so many limitations.

QNO13:-Explain the term satyagraha related with Mahatma Gandhi.

ANS: – With Satyagraha, Mahatma Gandhi ushered in a new era of civilian resistance on the political scenario of the world. The word was coined to aptly define the mode of non-violent resistance that the Indians at South Africa were building against the oppressive British colonialists. The word has been variedly interpreted, but literally it is a combination of two words, signifying truth and force. By connotation, it means an unshaken faith in truth, unwavering even in the face of adversity. Satyagraha for Gandhi was the only legitimate way to earn one’s political rights, as it was based on the ideals of truth and non-violence. Satyagraha was the key aspect of all revolutions of the Indian National Movement in the Gandhian era of Indian history for more twenty long years, and its legacy was carried on long after him as Martin Luther King used it in his battle against racism. Satyagraha has not been free of criticism, but its methodologies have gained wide acceptance around the world as a more potent tool of resistance than armed violence.

Origins of Satyagraha: Term and Influences

Gandhi was in need of a term to connote the revolution against the British imperialists that he organized in South Africa. ‘Passive resistance’, his first perfunctory choice, was not only a foreign term that Gandhi had strong reservations about, but the connotations of the term was also inadequate to highlight the aspect of truth and moral courage that Gandhi associated with non-violent political resistance. Moreover, it put political ends at the forefront, dissociated from deeper ideological values. Gandhi needed an Indian name that could encompass all these aspects of the revolution within it. A competition was thrown open in the local newspaper, ‘Indian Opinion’, and ‘sadagraha’ was elected as the best entry. Gandhi took the term, but changed it to ‘satyagraha’ highlighting the aspect of ‘truth’ in it. ‘Satyagraha’ was based on the principles of non-violence, which was the founding principle of Gandhi’s political ideology, that was based on as much as theological tenets of Jainism, Buddhism, Upanishads and the Bhagwatgita, as on the political theories of Tolstoy, Ruskin and Thureau.

Satyagraha: Definition and Method:-Satyagraha is fundamentally a way of life, which guides the modes of political activism undertaken by the followers of its principle (or satyagrahis). On a personal front it involves a life committed to truth, chastity, non-attachment and hard-work. On the political front, satyagraha involves utilisation of non-violent measures to curb the opponent, and ideally to convert him rather than to coerce him into submission. A satyagrahi wants to make the evil-doers see the evil that they are indulging into, and realize their injustice. In an ideal way, it involves transforming them into acceptance of the right, and if that fails to come around, then at least to stop them from obstructing the right. Picketing, non-cooperation, peaceful marches and meetings, along with a peaceful disobedience of the laws of the land were typical modes of resistance adopted by satyagraha. Reverence to the opposition was one of the unique features of the satyagraha preached by Gandhi. Under no circumstance, should the opposition or the flag of the opposition be insulted in a Satyagraha movement. Resistance on the part of the authorities would be expected, but a true Satyagrahi had to bear all hardships, including physical assault with patience, not ever stooping to anger, and to defend the faith even at the cost of life. Gandhi believed that the Satyagrahis had to be extremely strong in inner strength and moral courage in order to do that, and also realized that could not be achieved unless the Satyagrahis maintained a pure and simple life. He made his own life a veritable example of his teachings, and also turned his ashram at Sabarmati as a haven for individuals who chose to maintain a life based on his teachings. Non-violence of all forms were to be resisted and refrained from. Abuses and swearing were strictly prohibited and all forms of abstinence from sensual pleasures were highly advocated. Hard labor was an integral part of Satyagraha. Everyone was meant to work for his or her food and the clothes. Khadi developed as the very mark of nationalism, and simple life became the order of the day. Absolute secularism and eradication of every shade of untouchability were also distinct characteristics of satyagraha. It was only in such a way, Gandhi believed, that the Indians would be strong enough to tread the paths of a truly non-violent revolution.

Satyagraha in the Indian National Movement

Gandhi achieved success in the revolutions he led in South Africa by following the path of Satyagraha. He had an innate belief that it would succeed in India too. In fact, Gandhi had an innate belief that it would be the only effective way to fight the powerful British, because two centuries of colonial rule has financially and morally emasculated India to such a degree, that any other form of resistance was bound to fail. Gandhi’s satyagraha methods had few takers in his early years at the Indian National Congress. However, under the table guidance of Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Gandhi’s method gradually gained acceptance. Gandhi shot into political prominence by successfully employing methods of Satyagraha at the indigo planters revolution at Champaran in Bihar. The same method was repeated with similar results at Kheda in Gujarat against the raised taxes from the British authorities. Satyagraha became the foundation of the non-cooperation movement of 1920, following the infamous Rowlatt Act. Non-cooperation movement ended unceremoniously with the Chauri Chaura incident. However, it was during the Civil Disobedience movement that Gandhi re-inroduced satyagraha in a big way. His peaceful denial of government rules started with the celebrated Dandi march and the making of salt on 12th March 1930, defying the British Salt Law that prohibited the making of salt without government permission. Although ridiculed in the early years by a majority of the Western and particularly British press, the true power of satyagraha was soon realised by the British government, as all government endeavors and enterprises were in doldrums following mass boycott from Indians. Gandhis’s satyagraha reached the pinnacle of success, and Indian Nationalist movement reached a feverish pitch, forcing the government to initiate procedures towards the Gandhi-Irwin pact, followed by the second round table conference, where Gandhi gave one of his greatest speeches exposing the evils of the British rule and endorsing the methods of satyagraha.

Satyagraha by that time has gained wide popularity, and there were committed satyagrahis all over the country. Quit India Movement reclaimed the ideals of satyagraha, which finally went a long in securing Indian independence.

The Legacy of Satyagraha

Gandhi had to pay for his ideals with his life, but he never veered from his innate faith in non-violence and his belief in the methods of satyagraha. The significance of satyagraha was soon accepted worldwide. Martin Luther King adopted the methods of satyagraha in his fight against the racial discrimination of the American authorities in 1950.

Satyagraha is more than a political tool of resistance. It is a holistic approach towards life, based on the ideals of truth and moral courage. The similarity of the satyagraha to some of the greatest philosophical and religious tenets of the world have been observed and much written about. However, in the specific context of India, Satyagraha was an immense influence. It went a long way in instilling among the Indians a dignity for hard labor and mutual respect. In the traditional Indian society torn apart by caste and creed based discriminations, satyagraha stated that no work was lowly. It championed secularism and went a long way in eradicating untouchability from the heart of India’s typically stratified society. Satyagraha glorified the role of women as an important member of the society. All in all, satyagraha instilled in the Indian mind a dignity and a self respect that is yet unprecedented in its modern history.


QNO14:- What are the major contributions of Marx to socialism?

ANS:- In Marxist theory, socialism, lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that eventually supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism. Socialism is defined as a mode of production where the criterion for economic production is use-value, and is based on direct production for use coordinated through conscious economic planning, where the law of value no longer directs economic activity, and thus monetary relations in the form of exchange-value, profit, interest and wage labor no longer operate. Income would be distributed according to individual contribution. The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working-class effectively controlling the means of production and the means of their livelihood either through cooperative enterprises or public ownership and self management, so that the social surplus would accrue to the working class or society as a whole.

Although Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels wrote very little on socialism and neglected to provide any details on how it might be organized, numerous Marxists and neoclassical economists used Marx’s theory as a basis for developing their own models and proposals for socialist economic systems.

Mode of production:-Socialism is a post-commodity economic system, meaning that production is carried out to directly produce use-value (to directly satisfy human needs, or economic demands) as opposed to being produced with a view to generating a profit (to maximize exchange-value). The stage in which the accumulation of capital was viable and effective is rendered insufficient at the socialist stage of social and economic development, leading to a situation where production is carried out independently of capital accumulation in a supposedly planned fashion. Planning has been understood to mean decentralized planning, participatory planning, workplace democracy or centralized planning.

In contrast to capitalism, which relies upon on the coercive market forces to compel capitalists to produce use-values as a byproduct in the pursuit of profit, socialist production is based on the rational planning of use-values and coordinated investment decisions to attain economic goals. As a result, the cyclical fluctuations that occur in a capitalist market economy will not be present in a socialist economy. The value of a good in socialism is its physical utility rather than its embodied labor, cost of production and exchange value as in a capitalist system.

The advanced stage of socialism, referred to as “upper-stage communism” in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, is based on the socialist mode of production but is differentiated from lower-stage socialism in a few fundamental ways. While socialism implies public ownership (by a state apparatus) or cooperative ownership (by a worker cooperative enterprise), communism would be based on common ownership of the means of production. Class distinctions based on ownership of capital cease to exist, along with the need for a state. A superabundance of goods and services are made possible by automated production that allow for goods to be distributed based on need rather than merit.

Intermediate phases:-The period in which capitalism becomes increasingly insufficient as an economic system and immediately after the proletarian conquest of the state, an economic system that features elements of both socialism and capitalism will probably exist until both the productive forces of the economy and the cultural and social attitudes develop to a point where they satisfy the requirements for a full socialist society (one that has lost the need for monetary value, wage labor and capital accumulation). Specifically, market relations will still exist but economic units are either nationalized or re-organized into cooperatives. This transitional phase is sometimes described as “state capitalism” or “market socialism”.

Social relations:-As a set of social relationships, socialism is defined by the degree to which economic activity in society is planned by the associated producers, so that the surplus product of the population is controlled by a majority of the population through democratic processes. The sale of labor power is abolished so that every individual participates in running their institution and no one controls anyone else. The incentive structure changes in a socialist society given the change in the social environment, so that an individual laborers’ work becomes increasingly autonomous and creative, creating a sense of responsibility for his or her institution as a stakeholder. The individual is no longer alienated from his or her work; work now becomes a means by which the individual fulfills his or her humanity (pursues his or her interests).

Inequality and incentive-based systems would still exist under socialism, but to a diminishing extent as all members of society are de facto workers. This eliminates the severity of previous tendencies towards inequality and conflicts arising from these. The method of compensation and reward in a socialist society would be based on an authentic meritocracy, along the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution”.

Role of the state:-In Marxist theory, the state is a mechanism dominated by and utilized in the interests of the ruling class to subjugate other classes, to legitimize the existing socio-economic system and to promote the interests of the dominant class After a workers’ revolution, the state initially becomes the instrument of the working class. Conquest of the state apparatus by the working class must take place to establish a socialist system. As socialism is built, the role and scope of the state changes as class distinctions (based on ownership of the means of production) gradually deteriorate due to the concentration of means of production in state hands. From the point where all means of production become state property, the nature and primary function of the state would change from one of political rule (via coercion) over men by the creation and enforcement of laws into a scientific administration of things and a direction of processes of production; that is the state would become a coordinating economic entity rather than a mechanism of class or political control, and would no longer be a state in the Marxian sense.


QNO15:- Explain the new dimensions of the theory of Federalism.

ANS: – The existing theories of cooperative and competitive federalism will possibly encounter novel heights bringing forth innovative reproductions of federalism. Federalism is described as a structural constitution, in terms of a constitutionally created equilibrium between selfrule and shared rule. The vital point arises as to in what way globalization will impact the theory of federalism? Whether globalization will empower or feeble federalism? Which new aspects of the theory of federalism will appear? In what way will the federal states be influenced by the globalization of market economy? The multi-cultural and multi-national societies assert realization and authorization of inherent varieties. The theory of federalism pointedly mirrors the regional and sub-regional identities. Ethnic federalism has by now been germinated. Put differently, multi-ethnic threats have to be dealt with the nation-state federalism. Because the pluralist societies are considered as polities of identities, an affiliated waning of the nation-state will be visible. However, the ethno-centric concept of state is achieving popularity to the detriment of the political concept of state within the scope of political theory.

The constitutional ascendency proclaimed in the nineteenth century needs to be dealt with the threat of globalization. The commonplace definition of federalism will be influenced by the phenomenon of globalization in the background of adapted associations working between federal states and their related federating units with the WTO and connected worldwide blocs such as the World Bank. In the words of Lidija Basta Fleiner, a noted Swiss academic on federalism, it is a “democratic control of federalized power and the federalized control of democracy”. Political cultivation will represent accentuated decentralized loyalty first and accentuated supra-state loyalty second, because of the procedure of globalization; hence, the theory is confronted with the considerable matter of constructing a federal conventional symmetry inside a majoritarian democratic scaffold and of assembling diverse groups surpassing specific fidelities. Globalization and its associated constructional stresses will intrude into majoritarian democracy and anti-majoritarian federalism. Libertarian democracy, something which Robert Nozick prescribed, will fail to deal with the politics of group divergences connected with nation-building method. Such a version will face difficulties in sufficing to the requirements of multi-culturalism on the point of variations and collective demands.

A greater degree of judicial power will be evident under dominant liberal democracies, in the event of globalization which will consequently set off more anxiety regarding judicial autonomy. The judiciary will be immediately overlapped with democratic politics. The judicial amendment will cast two prime consequences namely, fortifying the authority of judicial review and acceptance of political pluralism during the nomination of judges. One more indication of globalization in the case of the theory of federal democratic states is present. Liberal welfare state has comprehended the idea of equal representation by all people reflecting a ritual pledge against unreceptive discriminations. The ideal of multiculturalism founded on realization of variations and combined rights will supposedly be adversative to globalization which will perpetually accelerate inequalities in between countries and in the countries themselves. Obviously, sheer assurance provided by constitutional arrangements will be insufficient to promote equality except attended by the promise of right of equality regardless of differences. This matter is going to assume greater importance and notice.

Indeed, it may eventually result into reuniting the values of equality, liberty and fraternity taken to be the principal codes of the contemporary state along with the choice emanating archetype underlining security, diversity, and solidarity. Briefly, the 19th century liberalism is left with the choice to modify its attributes in consonance with multiculturalism. In the words of Will Kymlieka, “the fundamental challenge with the theory of liberal state will face in the wake of globalization is to identify some new sources of unity in a democratic multi-cultural state.”

QNO16:- Difference between a procedural democracy and substantive democracy?

ANS:-Procedural democracy emphasizes to the functioning system of law making bodies and political institutions like election procedure, election commission, legislative assembly etc. But substantive democracy emphasizes public participation of all groups in political activities in election with procedural democracy.

Procedural democracy is a democracy in which the people or citizens of the state have less influence than in traditional liberal democracies. This type of democracy is characterized by voters choosing to elect representatives in free elections. Substantive democracy is a form of democracy in which the outcome of elections is representative of the people. In other words, substantive democracy is a form of democracy that functions in the interest of the governed. Although a country may allow all citizens of age to vote, this characteristic does not necessarily qualify it as a substantive democracy.

When you say substantive democracy, it actually refers to the written or statutory democracy which governs the relationship between people, or between people and the state. Procedural democracy, on the other hand, is the set of rules followed when a court is hearing a case ‘“ so it basically dictates what will happen during a civil or criminal proceeding. Next, here’s a deeper look at the differences between the terms. When there is an ongoing trial, substantive democracy is the branch of the legal industry which will define the crimes and punishments to which the accused will be subjected. It’s also the branch of democracy which defines the rights and responsibilities of a civilian.


QNO17:- Explain the difference between negative and positive liberty?


ANS: – “Two Concepts for Liberty,” a lecture from the 20th-century philosopher and essayist Isaiah Berlin, makes a distinction between “positive liberty” and “negative liberty.” The difference between the two is subtle, but significant. Accurately differentiating between the two requires a brief explanation of what positive liberty is and what negative liberty is. Then consider the creation of a business to illustrate the concepts.

  1. Understand that positive liberty is the freedom to accomplish something that is within your scope. An example would be the ability to start your own business: If you have the knowledge, the resources and enough capital to begin your own business, you can be said to be enjoying positive liberty. This is opposed to one who, all other things being equal, does not have the resources or knowledge to start a business himself, and therefore does not share the same positive liberty.

2 .Contrast negative liberty with positive liberty. Negative liberty is the freedom from restrictions that would impede your ability to do something, most often taking the form of societal or state barriers. For example, if you wanted to open a business, but it was illegal in your state or country to open a business, you would not be enjoying negative liberty. If it were illegal for you and you alone to open a business, but someone else were allowed to, she would be enjoying negative liberty while you were not–even if she does not open a business.

3 .Make the difference between them obvious, especially if you are educating an audience. Continuing with the business, if there is no law against you creating a business, and you have the resources to start it, you enjoy both positive and negative liberty.

If you have the resources to start a business, but there is a law against your business being started, you are enjoying positive liberty but not negative liberty.

If there is no law against you starting a business, but you don’t have the resources to do so, you have negative liberty but not positive liberty.

If you don’t have resources to start a business and there is a law against you starting a business, you have neither positive nor negative liberty.

QNO18:-What is meant by the term Equality? Explain.

ANS: – ‘Equality’ is a contested concept: “People who praise it or disparage it disagree about what they are praising or disparaging” (Dworkin 2000, p. 2). Our first task is therefore to provide a clear definition of equality in the face of widespread misconceptions about its meaning as a political idea.

The terms “equality” (Gr. isotes, Lat. aequitas, aequalitas, Fr. égalité, Ger. Gleichheit), “equal,” and “equally” signify a qualitative relationship. ‘Equality’ (or ‘equal’) signifies correspondence between a group of different objects, persons, processes or circumstances that have the same qualities in at least one respect, but not all respects, i.e., regarding one specific feature, with differences in other features. ‘Equality’ needs to thus be distinguished from ‘identity’ — this concept signifying that one and the same object corresponds to itself in all its features: an object that can be referred to through various individual terms, proper names, or descriptions. For the same reason, it needs to be distinguished from ‘similarity’ — the concept of merely approximate correspondence (Dann 1975, p. 997; Menne 1962, p. 44 ff.; Westen 1990, pp. 39, 120). Thus, to say e.g. that men are equal is not to say that they are identical. Equality implies similarity rather than ‘sameness.’

In distinction to numerical identity, a judgment of equality presumes a difference between the things being compared. According to this definition, the notion of ‘complete’ or ‘absolute’ equality is self-contradictory. Two non-identical objects are never completely equal; they are different at least in their spatiotemporal location. If things do not differ they should not be called ‘equal,’ but rather, more precisely, ‘identical,’ as e.g., the morning and evening star. Here usage might vary. Some authors do consider absolute qualitative equality admissible as a borderline concept (Tugendhat & Wolf 1983, p. 170).

‘Equality’ can be used in the very same sense both to describe and prescribe, as with “thin”: “you are thin” and “you are too thin.” The approach taken to defining the standard of comparison for both descriptive and prescriptive assertions of the concept of equality is very important (Oppenheim 1970). In the case of descriptive use of equality, the common standard is itself descriptive, e.g. two people weigh the same. A prescriptive use of equality is present when a prescriptive standard is applied, i.e., a norm or rule, e.g. people ought to be equal before the law. The standards grounding prescriptive assertions of equality contain at least two components. On the one hand, there is a descriptive component, since the assertions need to contain descriptive criteria, in order to identify those people to which the rule or norm applies. The question of this identification — who belongs to which category? — may itself be normative, e.g. to whom do the U.S. laws apply? On the other hand, the comparative standards contain something normative — a moral or legal rule, in the example, the U.S. laws — specifying how those falling under the norm are to be treated. Such a rule constitutes the prescriptive component (Westen 1990, chap. 3). Sociological and economic analyses of (in-)equality mainly pose the questions of how inequalities can be determined and measured and what their causes and effects are. In contrast, social and political philosophy is in general concerned mainly with the following questions: what kind of equality, if any, should be offered, and to whom and when? Such is the case in this article as well.

‘Equality’ and ‘equal’ are incomplete predicates that necessarily generate one question: equal in what respect? (Rae 1981, p. 132 f.) Equality essentially consists of a tripartite relation between two (or several) objects or persons and one (or several) qualities. Two objects a and b are equal in a certain respect if, in that respect, they fall under the same general terminus. ‘Equality’ denotes the relation between the objects that are compared. Every comparison presumes a tertium comparationis, a concrete attribute defining the respect in which the equality applies — equality thus referring to a common sharing of this comparison-determining attribute. This relevant comparative standard represents a ‘variable’ (or ‘index’) of the concept of equality that needs to be specified in each particular case (Westen 1990, p. 10); differing conceptions of equality here emerge from one or another descriptive or normative moral standard. There is another source of diversity as well: As Temkin (1986, 1993) argues, various different standards might be used to measure inequality, with the respect in which people are compared remaining constant. The difference between a general concept and different specific conceptions (Rawls 1971, p. 21 f.) of equality may explain why according to various authors producing ‘equality’ has no unified meaning — or even is devoid of meaning. (Rae 1981, p. 127 f., 132 f.)

For this reason, it helps to think of the idea of equality or for that matter inequality, understood as an issue of social justice, not as a single principle, but as a complex group of principles forming the basic core of today’s egalitarianism. Depending on which procedural principle one adopts, contrary answers are forthcoming. Both equality and inequality are complex and multifaceted concepts (Temkin 1993, chap. 2). In any real historical context, it is clear that no single notion of equality can sweep the field. (Rae 1981, p. 132) Many egalitarians concede that much of our discussion of the concept is vague and theoretical. But they believe that there is also a common underlying strain of important moral concerns implicit in it (Williams 1973). Above all it serves to remind us of our common humanity, despite various differences (cf. 2.3. below). In this sense, egalitarians tend to think of egalitarianism as a single coherent normative doctrine — but one in any case embracing a variety of principles. Following the introduction of different principles and theories of equality, I will return in the last section of this article to the question how best to define egalitarianism and the value of equality.

QNO19:-Write a short note on Classical liberalism?

ANS:- Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative government under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization. Notable individuals whose ideas have contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law, utilitarianism, and progress.

There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the 20th century led by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Some call the modern development of classical liberalism “neo-classical liberalism”, which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom, while some refer to all liberalism before the 20th century as classical liberalism.

The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.

Libertarianism has been used in modern times as a substitute for the phrase “neo-classical liberalism”, leading to some confusion. The identification of libertarianism with neo-classical liberalism primarily occurs in the United States, where some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government.



QNO20:-Explain the term Conservatism?

ANS: – Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to “the way things were”. The first established use of the term in a political context was by François-René de Chateaubriand in 1819, following the French Revolution. The term, historically associated with right-wing politics, has since been used to describe a wide range of views.

Edmund Burke, an Anglo-Irish politician who served in the British House of Commons and opposed the French Revolution, is credited as one of the founders of conservativism in Great Britain. According to Hailsham, a former chairman of the British Conservative Party, “Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself.”

Characteristic Features of Conservatism

The characteristic features of conservatism, as evolved in different form and indicating the constituent parts of conservatism can be marked.

History and Tradition

The role of history and tradition is fundamental to any type of conservatism. History, reduced to its essentials, is nothing but experience. It is deductive inference in matters of human relationship. Logical coherence is the work of history. “To see things authentically as a conservative.” Mannheim writes, “is to experience events in the past.” Perfect history is represented not in linear and chronological fashion, but in the continuity of structures, communities, habits and prejudices generation after generation. The justification of history r of experience for that matter is a persisting conservative emphasis. This has been illustrated by Burke, Rourke, Oakeshott and Voegelin. Social reality can be interpreted through a historical approach. “We cannot know where we are, much less where we are going, until we know where we have been. That is the bedrock position of the conservative philosophy of history. History is expressed in traditions, and traditions comprise an essential constituent of history. As such, a main topic of conservatism is, in relation to history, its shield of traditions, its aspiration to preserve its established customs and institutions. Burke was speaking about tradition when he contemplated society as a partnership between “those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born.” Chesterton defines tradition as ‘a democracy of the dead.’ In this regard, tradition reflects the accumulated wisdom of the past. The institutions and practices of the past have been experimented by time, and should the conservatives aver, be preserved for the wellbeing or the living and for future generations.

Human Imperfection, Prejudice and Reason

Conservatism is a philosophy of human imperfection; the roots of man’s basis lay more in bias than in logic. While the liberals judge of human beings – moral, rational and social, the conservatives estimate men to be both imperfect and unperfectable. Human beings, the conservatives believe, are dependent creatures, always fearing isolation and insecurity, and therefore always search safety, stability and what is a familiar, prepared at all time to relinquish liberty for social stability. The conservatives would say the people are, by their very nature, are skeptical of abstract ideas and prefer to ground their ideas in experience and reality; they have usually a beforehand devised vision unfolded from the past, a predisposition-made structure. “Prejudice,” Nisbet disputes or debates for the conservative, “has its own intrinsic wisdom, one that is anterior to intellect. Prejudice is of ready application in the emergency; it’s previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom.” Reason springs from knowledge that is learnt than imparted. The Conservatives speculated that imparted knowledge leads to abstractions, abstract knowledge, and for human beings, it is too intricate and obtrusive to be fully grasped. Learnt knowledge is rooted in practical acquaintances and is limited to the doing of something, to the learning of something through trial and error.

Organic Society, Liberty and Equality

The conservative estimation of society is an organic view of society: the individuals do not and have not any existence out of society, but they are planted in society and assign to it: they are portions of social groups and these groups allot the individuals’ lives with security and importance. The conservatives’ notion of liberty is not ‘leaving the individual alone; but is one where there is voluntary approval of social obligations and ties. For the conservatives, liberty is primarily ‘doing one’s duty.’ When the parents, for example, advise their children to behave in a particular way, they do not constrain their liberty, but they are facilitating a ground for the liberty the children would enjoy when they become matured. The conservative theorizing of liberty is neither atomistic nor rootless; it is the enjoyment of rights together with the observance of duties, either before or after or both. The conservatives conceptualize society as a living thing, an organism whose parts are not proportionate, function as a whole and enable the human body operate properly; each part of the organic society (i.e. Family, government, a factory) plays a specific role in sustaining and maintaining soundness of society. Heywood clarified “If society is organic, its structure and institutions have been shaped by natural forces and its fabric should therefore be preserved and respected by the individuals who live within it.”
The conservative view of organic ‘society’ is an union made of varieties, such a society is always in a hierarchical form where liberty functions effectively and significantly. In such a socially heterogeneous society, organic, as it is, equality has no room “…most group, liberties which are inseparable from the built in differentiation, variety, and variable opportunity…’ (Nisbet). Burke’s instruction, in this context is: “Those which attempt to level never equalize.”


QNO21:-Write a short note on Communitarianism.


ANS: – Communitarianism is an ideology that emphasizes the connection between the individual and the community. That community may be the family unit, but it can also be understood in a far wider sense of personal interaction, of geographical location, or of shared history.

Communitarianism has been traced back to early monasticism, but in the twentieth century began to be formulated as a philosophy by Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement. In an early article the Catholic Worker clarified the dogma of the Mystical Body of Christ as the basis for the movement’s communitarianism. Communitarianism is also related to the personalist philosophy of Emmanuel Mounier.

Later secular communitarians began from analysis of classical republicanism, focusing on ancient Greek and Classicist writers. Since 1990 they became the apologists of the idea of civil society as a result of work of communist propaganda in Poland using it as a tool of neoliberal transformation, legitimizing development of the third sector as a substitute for the welfare state. Soon, due to work of Robert Putnam, they started to treat Tocqueville as a main theoretician of civil society and their primary ancestor. Thus they got under influence of neoliberal ideologies since Tocqueville was a liberal, not a republican theorist, giving new impetus to their work.

Communitarianism cannot be classified as being wholly left or right, and many theorists claim to represent a sort of radical center. Progressives in the American sense or social democrats in the European sense generally share the communitarian position on issues relating to the economy, such as the need for environmental protection and public education, but not on cultural issues. Communitarians and conservatives generally agree on cultural issues, such as support for character education and faith-based programs, but communitarians do not support capitalism generally embraced by American conservatives.

QNO22:- Explain the different types of democracy. OR Trace the evolution of democracy.


ANS: – Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows people to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.

Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives. The supporters of direct democracy argue that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue. A direct democracy gives the voting population the power to:

  1. Change constitutional laws,
  2. Put forth initiatives, referendums and suggestions for laws,
  3. Give binding orders to elective officials, such as revoking them before the end of their elected term, or initiating a lawsuit for breaking a campaign promise.

Of the three measures mentioned, most operate in developed democracies today. This is part of a gradual shift towards direct democracies. Elements of direct democracy exist on a local level in many countries, though these systems often coexist with representative assemblies. Usually, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law.

Representative democracy:-Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented. If the head of state is also democratically elected then it is called a democratic republic. The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes.

Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the entire electorate through proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in the people’s interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so.

Evolution of democracy:-Several philosophers and researchers outlined historical and social factors supporting the evolution of democracy. Cultural factors like Protestantism influenced the development of democracy, rule of law, human rights and political liberty (the faithful elected priests, religious freedom and tolerance has been practiced).

Others mentioned the influence of wealth (e.g. S. M. Lipset, 1959). In a related theory, Ronald Inglehart suggests that the increase in living standards has convinced people that they can take their basic survival for granted, and led to increased emphasis on self-expression values, which is highly correlated to democracy.

Recently established theories stress the relevance of education and human capital and within them of cognitive ability to increasing tolerance, rationality, political literacy and participation. Two effects of education and cognitive ability are distinguished: a cognitive effect (competence to make rational choices, better information processing) and an ethical effect (support of democratic values, freedom, human rights etc.), which itself depends on intelligence.

Evidence that is consistent with conventional theories of why democracy emerges and is sustained has been hard to come by. Recent statistical analyses have challenged modernization theory by demonstrating that there is no reliable evidence for the claim that democracy is more likely to emerge when countries become wealthier, more educated, or less unequal. Neither is there convincing evidence that increased reliance on oil revenues prevents democratization, despite a vast theoretical literature called “The Resource Curse” that asserts that oil revenues sever the link between citizen taxation and government accountability, the key to representative democracy. The lack of evidence for these conventional theories of democratization have led researchers to search for the “deep” determinants of contemporary political institutions, be they geographical or demographic.

In the 21st century, democracy has become such a popular method of reaching decisions that its application beyond politics to other areas such as entertainment, food and fashion, consumerism, urban planning, education, art, literature, science and theology has been criticized as “the reigning dogma of our time”. The argument is that applying a populist or market-driven approach to art and literature for example, means that innovative creative work goes unpublished or unproduced. In education, the argument is that essential but more difficult studies are not undertaken. Science, which is a truth-based discipline, is particularly corrupted by the idea that the correct conclusion can be arrived at by popular vote.

In 2010 a study by a German military think tank has analyzed how peak oil might change the global economy. The study raises fears for the survival of democracy itself. It suggests that parts of the population could perceive the upheaval triggered by peak oil as a general systemic crisis. This would create “room for ideological and extremist alternatives to existing forms of government”.

QNO23:- Attempt an assessment of civic republicanism.


ANS: – Civic Republicanism is a tradition of political thought which emphasizes participation in civic and political life. It contrasts with the liberal tradition’s focus on the individual pursuing his or her private interests and with the communitarian emphasis on the cultural community and shared identity. On its left, civic republicanism merges with radical democracy which proposes that not only should political life be participatory, but also that economic life should also be subject to democratic control and participatory ‘management’. Civic republicans look to an idealised Greek city state in which all citizens participated equally in the affairs of the ‘polis’. Contemporary civic republicans would seek to broaden the citizenry by moving barriers of class, gender etc. The key to citizen participation in ancient Greece was freedom for the citizens from want and unnecessary labour. However, this depended on the labour of others, including slaves. In the modern world, the problem is how to create the social and economic conditions that would allow the vast majority the freedom to participate in political life. The most well-known of modern civic republicans, Hannah Arendt, saw workers’ councils as the basis of such a policy.


QNO24:- What are the features of fundamentalism? Explain.

ANS: – Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, primarily to promote continuity and accuracy. The term “fundamentalism” was originally coined by its supporters to describe a specific package of theological beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy of that time. The term usually has a religious connotation indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs. “Fundamentalism” is sometimes used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase “right-wing fundamentalists”).

Five features of fundamentalism:-

Human beings are at the same time, and ambivalently, alike and different. What divides us are also the things that we share. What divides us, in other words, are not so much differences as similarities. But it can be more difficult to acknowledge sameness than to recognise difference, and fundamentalists work with this difficulty in a particular way: by disavowing difference in the name of sameness. They offer a retreat from, or a withdrawal from, difference by insisting that everything should be the same – the same as them (and many of them are prepared to die to achieve this). The command they issue is that all should conform to their way of life, worship their God (who is the only true God), share their beliefs, and their ideals.

This is connected to what Sigmund Freud called “the narcissism of minor differences”. We are narcissistically fascinated with minor differences because, at root, we all desire to be the same. Fundamentalism connects with this desire and offers an idealised version of its possible applicability in a real world of unimaginable diversity and plurality – of difference.

This offer carries with it five consequences for the way fundamentalists think about and relate to the world: extremism, leader-fixation, sacrifice, aggression, and endurance.

First, “idealisation” is closely linked to extremism and the disregarding of others’ views. Fundamentalists’ pursuit of an ideal or principles can also promote blind faith as against pragmatic reason, and form a basis for an extreme, exclusive refusal to accommodate perspectives different from their own.

Second, when fundamentalists invest these ideals and principles in the figure of a single leader (as they often do), this too can encourage extremism. Those close to the leader, who exist in his shadow or proximity, understand and offer deference to him, are the ground troops of extremism. Those not so close are the same but ignoble; they need to be converted.

Third, in order to realise their ideals, fundamentalists (particularly religious ones) need to engage in sacrifice: both of the search for meaning that entraps others, and indeed of the “meaning of life” itself. This suggests why the mentality (and occasionally the practice, as in suicide / “martyrdom” operations) of self-sacrifice is so central to fundamentalism.

Fourth, fundamentalists may share a fear of aggression and violence (again like everybody else) but in their case this fear takes a particular, acute form: the urge to eliminate what they see as the source of aggression, namely difference. For them the only way to eliminate violence is for us all to be the same.

Fifth, fundamentalists pride themselves on enduring (or “tolerating”) pain and suffering in the name of their intolerance of other attitudes or aspirations. This connects too to the issue of sameness and difference: for fundamentalists, endurance of pain, suffering and the struggle itself recommits them to the ideal of making sameness from difference.

QNO25:- Describe the basic characteristics multiculturalism.

ANS: – Multiculturalism is a public policy approach for managing cultural diversity in a multiethnic society, officially stressing mutual respect and tolerance for cultural differences within a country’s borders.

As a policy, multiculturalism emphasizes the unique characteristics of different cultures, especially as they relate to one another in receiving nations. The word was first used in 1957 to describe Switzerland, but came into common currency in Canada in the late 1960s. It quickly spread to other English-speaking countries.

Multiculturalism relates to communities containing multiple cultures. The term is used in two broad ways, either descriptively or normatively. As a descriptive term, it usually refers to the simple fact of cultural diversity: it is generally applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place, sometime at the organizational level, e.g. schools, businesses, neighbourhoods, cities, or nations. As a normative term, it refers to ideologies or policies that promote this diversity or its institutionalisation; in this sense, multiculturalism is a society “at ease with the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit.” Such ideologies or policies vary widely, including country to country, ranging from the advocacy of equal respect to the various cultures in a society, to a policy of promoting the maintenance of cultural diversity, to policies in which people of various ethnic and religious groups are addressed by the authorities as defined by the group they belong to. However, two main different and seemingly inconsistent strategies have developed through different Government policies and strategies: The first focuses on interaction and communication between different cultures. Interactions of cultures provide opportunities for the cultural differences to communicate and interact to create multiculturalism. (Such approaches are also often known as interculturalism.) The second centers on diversity and cultural uniqueness. Cultural isolation can protect the uniqueness of the local culture of a nation or area and also contribute to global cultural diversity. A common aspect of many policies following the second approach is that they avoid presenting any specific ethnic, religious, or cultural community values as central.

Multiculturalism is often contrasted with the concepts of assimilationism and has been described as a “salad bowl” or “cultural mosaic” rather than a “melting pot”.

QNO26:- Evaluate the concept of Civil Disobedience.


ANS: – The Civil Disobedience Movement led by M K Gandhi, in the year 1930 was an important milestone in the history of Indian Nationalism. There are three distinct phases that mark the development of Indian Nationalism. In the first phase, the ideology of the moderates dominated the political scenario. This was followed by the prominence of the extremist ideologies. In the third phase of Indian Nationalism the most significant incident was the rise of MK Gandhi, popularly known as Mahatma Gandhi, to power as the leader of Indian National Movements. Under his spirited guidance, the National Movements of the country took shape.

The Indians learnt how apparently philosophical tenets like non violence and passive resistance, could be used to wage political battles. The programs and policies adopted in the movements spearheaded by Gandhi reflected his political ideologies of ahimsa and satyagraha. While the Non-Co-Operation Movement was built on the lines of non violent non co operation, the essence of The Civil Disobedience Movement was defying of the British laws. Through his leadership to the National Movements, he not only buttressed his political stance but also played a crucial role in unification of the country, awakening of the masses, and bringing politics within the arena of the common man.

Factors Leading to the Civil Disobedience Movement

The prevalent political and social circumstances played a vital role in the launching of the Civil Disobedience Movement. The Simon Commission was formed by the British Government that included solely the members of the British Parliament, in November 1927, to draft and formalize a constitution for India. The chairmanship of the commission rested with Sir John Simon, who was a well known lawyer and an English statesman. Accused of being an ‘All-White Commission’, the Simon Commission was rejected by all political and social segments of the country. In Bengal, the opposition to the Simon Commission assumed a massive scale, with a hartal being observed in all corners of the province on February 3rd, 1928. On the occasion of Simon’s arrival in the city, demonstrations were conducted in Calcutta. In the wake of the boycott of the recommendations proposed by Simon Commission, an All-Party Conference was organized in Bombay in May of 1928. Dr MA Ansari was the president of the conference. Motilal Nehru was given the responsibility to preside over the drafting committee, appointed at the conference to prepare a constitution for India.

Barring the Indian Muslims, The Nehru Report was endorsed by all segments of the Indian society. The Indian National Congress pressurized the British government to accept all the parts the Nehru Report, in December 1928. At the Calcutta Session of the Indian National Congress held in December, 1928, the British government was warned that if India was not granted the status of a dominion, a Civil Disobedience Movement would be initiated in the entire country. Lord Irwin, the Governor General, after a few months, declared that the final objective of the constitutional reforms was to grant the status of a dominion to India. Following this declaration, Gandhi along with other national leaders requested the Governor General to adopt a more liberal attitude in solving the constitutional crisis. A demand was made for the release of the political prisoners and for holding the suggested Round Table Conference for reflecting on the problems regarding the constitution of the country.

None of the efforts made by the Congress received any favorable response from the British government. The patience of the Indian masses were wearing out. The political intelligentsia of the country was sure that the technique of persuasion would not be effective with the British government. The Congress had no other recourse but to launch the Civil Disobedience Movement. In Bardoli, the peasants had already taken to satyagraha under the guidance of Sardar Patel in the year 1928. Their non tax agitations were partially successful. The Congress took the decision to use the non violent weapon of satyagraha on a nationwide scale against the government.

The Launch of the Civil Disobedience Movement

MK Gandhi was urged by the Congress to render his much needed leadership to the Civil Disobedience Movement. On the historic day of 12th March 1930, Gandhi inaugurated The Civil Disobedience Movement by conducting the historic Dandi Salt March, where he broke the Salt Laws imposed by the British Government. Followed by an entourage of seventy nine ashramites, Gandhi embarked on his march from his Sabarmati Ashram to Dandi that is located on the shores of the Arabian Sea. On 6th April 1930, Gandhi with the accompaniment of seventy nine satyagrahis, violated the Salt Law by picking up a fistful of salt lying on the sea shore. They manually made salt on the shores of Dandi.

Dandi Salt March had an immense impact on the entire nation. Each and every corner of the country was gripped in a unique fervor of nationalism. Soon this act of violation of the Salt Laws assumed an all India character. The entire nation amalgamated under the call of a single man, Mahatma Gandhi. There were reports of satyagrahas and instances of law violation from Bombay, Central and United Provinces, Bengal and Gujarat. The program of the Civil Disobedience Movement incorporated besides the breaking of the Salt Laws, picketing of shops selling foreign goods and liquor, bonfire of cloth, refusal to pay taxes and avoidance of offices by the public officers and schools by the students. Even the women joined forces against the British. Those from orthodox families did not hesitate to respond to the call of the Mahatma. They took active part in the picketing exercises. Perturbed by the growing popularity of the movement, the British government imprisoned Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, in a bid to thwart it. Thus, the second struggle for attaining Swaraj launched by the Congress, under the able guidance of Mahatma, served the critical function of mobilizing the masses on a large scale against the British.

Garndhi-Irwin Pact

In the March of 1930, Gandhi met with the Viceroy, Lord Irwin and signed an agreement known as the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. The two main clauses of the pact entailed; Congress participation in the Round Table Conference and cessation of The Civil Disobedience Movement. The Government of India released all satyagrahis from prison.

Renewal of the Civil Disobedience Movement

Gandhi attended The Second Round Table Conference in London accompanied by Smt. Sarojini Naidu. At this Conference, it was claimed by Mahatma Gandhi that the Congress represented more than eighty five percent of the Indian population. Gandhi’s claim was not endorsed by the British and also the Muslim representative. The Second Round Table Conference proved to be futile for the Indians and Gandhi returned to the country without any positive result. The political scene in India thereafter assumed an acute dimension. The Viceroy, Lord Willingdon, in the absence of Gandhi, adopted the policy of repression. The Gandhi-Irwin Pact was violated and the Viceroy took to the suppression of the Congress. The Conservative party, which was in power in England, complied with the decision to assume a repressive stance against the Congress and the Indians. The Congress was held responsible by the government to have instigated the ‘Red Shirts’ to participate in The Civil Disobedience Movement, led by Khan Abdul Ghaffar and provoking the cultivators of U.P to refuse to pay land revenue. Adding to this was the serious economic crisis that took hold of the country. Under such circumstances, the resumption of The Civil Disobedience Movement was inevitable.

The Congress Working Committee took the decision to restart The Civil Disobedience Movement, as the British government was not prepared to relent. Gandhi resumed the movement in January 1932 and appealed to the entire nation to join in. The Viceroy was also informed of the stance assumed by the Congress. Four ordinances were promulgated by the government to deal with the situation. The police was given the power to arrest any person, even on the basis of mere suspicion. Sardar Patel, the President of Congress and Gandhi were arrested, along with other Congressmen. The second phase of The Civil Disobedience Movement lacked the organization that marked its first phase. Nonetheless the entire nation put up a tough fight and the movement continued for six months. Gandhi commenced his twenty one days of fast on May 8th, 1933, to make amends for the sins committed against the untouchables by the caste Hindus. The Civil Disobedience Movement was suspended, when Mahatma Gandi withdrew mass satyagraha on July 14th 1933. The movement ceased completely on April 7th 1934.

Although The Civil Disobedience Movement failed to achieve any positive outcome, it was an important juncture in the history of Indian independence. The leadership of Mahatma Gandhi had a beneficial impact. The warring factions within the Congress united under the aegis of The Civil Disobedience Movement, led by Mahatma Gandhi. Satyagraha was put on a firm footing through its large scale usage in the movement. Last but not the least India rediscovered its inherent strength and confidence to crusade against the British for its freedom.

QNO27:- Discuss the Marxian concept of dialectical materialism. Revolution.

ANS:- Dialectical materialism is a strand of Marxism, synthesizing Hegel’s dialectics, which proposes that every economic order grows to a state of maximum efficiency, while simultaneously developing internal contradictions and weaknesses that contribute to its systemic decay. Philosophically, dialectical materialism — that Man originates History through active consciousness — was originated by Moses Hess, and developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Moreover, Joseph Dietzgen developed the hypotheses of dialectical materialism independent of Marx, Engels, and Hess.

Marx’s doctoral thesis concerned the atomism of Epicurus and Democritus, which (along with stoicism is considered the foundation of materialist philosophy. Marx was also familiar with Lucretius’s theory of clinamen.

Materialism asserts the primacy of the material world: in short, matter precedes thought. Materialism is a realist philosophy of science, which holds that the world is material; that all phenomena in the universe consist of “matter in motion,” wherein all things are interdependent and interconnected and develop according to natural law; that the world exists outside us and independently of our perception of it; that thought is a reflection of the material world in the brain, and that the world is in principle knowable.

“The ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.” —Karl Marx, Das Kapital, Vol. 1.

Marx endorsed this materialist philosophy against Hegel’s idealism; he “turned Hegel’s dialectics upside down.” However, Marx also criticized classical materialism as another idealist philosophy due to its transhistorical understanding of material contexts. According to the famous Theses on Feuerbach (1845), philosophy had to stop “interpreting” the world in endless metaphysical debates, in order to start “changing” the world, as was being done by the rising workers’ movement observed by Engels in England (Chartist movement) and by Marx in France and Germany. Thus, dialectical materialists tend to accord primacy to class struggle. The ultimate sense of Marx’s materialist philosophy is that philosophy itself must take a position in the class struggle based on objective analysis of physical and social relations. Otherwise, it will be reduced to spiritualist idealism, such as the philosophies of Kant or Hegel, which are only ideologies, that is the material product of social existence.

QNO28:- How are liberty, equality and justice related to each other?


ANS: – “Liberty, Equality, and Justice in National and International Contexts” is a four-week college and university faculty seminar for sixteen participants examining the meanings of liberty, equality, and justice, and the ways in which these concepts should be applied within and between nations. The seminar seeks to explore liberal democratic conceptions of justice, in terms of how states should treat their own citizens, but also in terms of how they should interact with other states and the citizens of other states. The seminar discusses the following questions in its four week period: Does justice demand liberal democracy? What are the arguments against liberal conceptions of liberty, equality, and justice? What role should the values of liberty, equality, and justice play in shaping the world order of the twenty-first century?  What responsibilities do citizens of wealthy countries have to assist the world’s poor? Seminar readings are drawn from the work of prominent philosophers, political scientists, legal theorists, and economists such as Charles Beitz, Jürgen Habermas, Thomas Nagel, and Michael Walzer.  In addition to taking on the common readings, seminar participants pursue individual research projects or teaching plans. Seminar director Christopher Wellman is a professor of philosophy at Washington University whose books include A Theory of Secession: The Case for Political Self-Determination.  Co-director Andrew Altman is a professor of philosophy at Georgia State University, whose books include Critical Legal Studies: A Liberal Critique as well as A Liberal Theory of International Justice, co-written with Wellman, and included among the assigned readings.  Each week includes a guest speaker, philosophers who teach at the University of Michigan (Elisabeth Anderson), the University of Washington (Michael Blake), Duke University (Allen Buchanan), and the University of Pennsylvania (Samuel Freeman).


QNO29:- Examine the contemporary debate on the welfare state.

ANS: – A welfare state is a “concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. The general term may cover a variety of forms of economic and social organization.”

Modern welfare states include the Nordic countries, such as Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland which employ a system known as the Nordic model. The welfare state involves a transfer of funds from the state, to the services provided (i.e. healthcare, education) as well as directly to individuals (“benefits”). The welfare state is funded through redistributionist taxation and is often referred to as a type of “mixed economy”.

The ideological debate over the future of the welfare state, that emerged in the late 1960’s/early 1970’s in the US, needs to be looked at in the context mentioned above. As argued, social welfare (not to be confused with the commonly accepted social security) is not rooted in the American society. This allows for an intense debate with little constraints; colloquially said, everything is open for grabs. But this alone would be insufficient to explain the welfare debate, especially when the ideological component is taken into consideration. Every ideology, which can be defined as a comprehensive and mutually consistent set of ideas by which a social group makes sense of the world around them, arises in a time of a perceived crisis. Circumstances, that have formerly been accepted, become subject of intense debate and are being questioned. In a sense, every ideology needs a counterpart from which it can distinguish itself, a tendency that is very visible in the American welfare debate. In short, one can say that the current welfare system is the mainstream counter-ideology. From across the political and ideological spectrum there is now almost universal acknowledgment that the American social welfare system has been a failure. The underlying reasoning runs as follows. Since the start of the “War on Poverty” under the Johnson administration (only possible due to a historically unique situation) more than $ 3.5 trillion have been spent trying to ease the plight of the poor. Yet, it seems that despite these massive transfer payments the only payoff was more poverty and more poverty related crimes. In other words, the vision of the “Great Society”, that is the belief that the fate of the nation can be determined via social engineering by the federal government has lost its advocates and slowly, in the eyes of the majority, turned into the source of the problem. In the following I will name three groups that shape the current debate, map out their main arguments and, at last, try to evaluate their influence in order to be able to offer an educated guess what the social welfare system of the US will most likely look like in the near future. Needless to say that the distinction between the groups becomes more and more problematic when we move away from the core beliefs. Just like in every political mass party there are wings and fractions; due to structural causes the ideological spectrum within the parties is much wider than for instance in Germany.

QNO30:-Explain the term power related with karal marx.

ANS: – The word power is a common word in everyday speech and we think little of its meaning. Its meaning is for many unproblematic, so unproblematic that it’s hardly worth consideration. The concept of power is self evident, part of our commonsense (taken for granted) knowledge about the world in which we live. We talk of some people having power while others do not. Power is talked of as if it was something inherent in people! Yet as we shall see power is many thing to many people. Once we have come to some understanding of what power is, or what Marxists believe it to be, we will look at the more important question of how is power distributed and the mechanisms of power.

Before we go any further some features of the commonsense definition of power must be taken to task. We are apt to think of power as something that some people have, just like some people have physical strength or a bad temper. This is not the most useful way to think of power. Power should be thought of as existing in social relationships, that is, within the realm of social interaction. To put it simply, Robinson Crusoe did not have power until he met Man Friday, then he became a powerful man, at least with regard to his newly found “friend”. Power exists within social relationships not outside of them. Power does not reside within people nor does it float about landing on the unsuspecting. Thus, when I speak of people or classes having power what I mean is power within a social relationship.

The Marxist or Radical View of Power:-Marxists and conflict theorists criticize this pluralist definition of power, and their methods of determining the distribution of power, for a number of reasons.

  1. Non-decision making
    2. Outcome of decisions
    3. Shaping desires

Non-Decision Making:-Marxists criticize the pluralist method/conception of power because it ignores non-decision making. Power is more than just the ability to make sure certain decisions reflect your own preferences. Power is also the ability to make sure that certain decisions are never reached, the ability to set the agenda. By controlling what is discussed, what issues and what solutions, you can control the eventual outcome of any decision making process. Marxists would argue that the fact that there has never been a genuine debate about the relative merits of the two systems, socialism and capitalism, as evidence that some can set the agenda.

A good example of setting the agenda, one that I personally experienced, is with regard to the local press and education. In Northern Ireland we still have the education system that Britain got rid of many decades ago. The education system is so unjust and unfair that a majority of all teachers and the population now oppose it. The local media, however, support it with every column inch printed. When interested parties, those who wish to see a change in the local education system, write into the paper in order to start some sort of debate the letters are not printed. The editor simply gets the letters and puts them in the bin. As a result the agenda is set and a change in the education system is not on it. You can discuss the state of the roads (how important!) but not the state of your child’s education.

Outcome of Decisions:-Marxists are also critical of the pluralist method of determining the distribution of power because they look only at the decision itself. It may well be that many decisions (this can be disputed!) reflect the interests of the working-class, and other less “powerful” pressure groups, yet this means little. To give a rather good contemporary example, the Foreign Secretary may well decide upon an ethical foreign policy but his actions would suggest otherwise. The state may well reach a number of decisions but what is important is if they are put in place, their effectiveness. For example, the government (not the present Labour one!) might decide to try and achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth by taxing the wealthy and making employers pay more. They might legislate this policy through parliament. Yet, the wealthy may just get their accountants to work the books so that they pay as little as possible. Employers may just break the law and refuse to pay their workers anymore. If the government does not enforce the legislation, or does not enforce it strongly enough, then their decision is null and void.

Marxists argue that it is not enough to simply look at the decision reached you also have to look at the results of such decisions. We might reason that if a given decision is never really put into effect that the social group concerned has the power to prevent it.

Shaping Desires:-The last aspect of the Marxist or Radical criticism of the pluralist method neatly dovetails with Steven Lukes radical definition of power. Steven Lukes has formulated a definition of power that most Marxists would probably accept. Power for Lukes has three aspects or as he calls them “faces”. First, this is how Lukes defines power:

“A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B’s interests.” (even if B is unaware of this).

The first face is that of decision making which we already know about. Lukes would accept, to a certain extent, that if an interest groups interests are reflected in the decision making process than they have a degree of power in relation to the decision making body.

The second face is that of non-decision making which we have also examined. Lukes would also accept that power is more than just the ability to shape decisions it can also involve setting the agenda so that certain decisions are never reached.

The third face of power involves something of a radical departure from the Weberian definition of power. Power is also according to Luke the ability to shape the desires of others so that they accord with your own, and are contrary to the individuals or social groups interests.

Marxists and the Third Face:-Lukes definition of power is a definition that most Marxists could probably agree with. Most Marxists would agree with the view that power is more than mere decision making, it is also the ability to shape desires. Where there is agreement pluralists call it consensus Marxists prefer to call it what it is, false consciousness. In order to understand this shaping of desires we must first examine the concept of interests. What are interests?

By interests I do not mean their hobbies! Interests refer to certain things which are beneficial to a given individual, social group or class.  For Marxists classes have certain interests, members of classes thus have interests in common. Classes, however, do not share common interests because they do not share a common relationship to the means of production. In capitalist society some own the means of production (capitalists) while other must sell their labour-power for a wage (the workers). One seeks to raise profits by keeping wages low the other seeks high wages in order to keep their living standard high. Marxists hold an objective conception of interests, that is, there are certain interests which are the workers real interests whether they realise it or not. The worker may well think that a minimum wage and good working conditions are not in their interest but for Marxists it is obvious that such measures are in their interests.

Let’s say that a person is told to stick their head in the fire. This person is utterly convinced that sticking their head in the fire is what they should do. Those around the person have told them that by doing this they will benefit themselves to a great extent. The Marxist is the kind of person who stands up and says: “Don’t stick your head in the fire it will burn you!” The Marxist thus has an objective conception of interests. Is the worker who votes for a conservative party time after time, while opposing every effort by the trade unions to increase wages, any different from the man or woman who wishes to stick their head in the fire?

The Marxist View of the Distribution of Power:-Marxists do not believe that power is fragmented in capitalist societies like the pluralists argue. For Marxists, such as Ralph Miliband, power is held by the capitalist class. Power derives from wealth making political equality one of the many myths that dominate our conception of capitalist society. Those who own the means of production form a ruling class. The state is not the honest broker but an instrument of the capitalist class or at the very least the state takes those decisions which in the majority favour the interests of the capitalist class. But how is ownership of capital translated into power?

The Mechanisms of Power:-The capitalist class, those who own and/or control the means of production it is true do not “govern but contents itself instead with ruling the government”. There are three mechanisms by which this can be achieved:

Control over Resources:-The capitalist class has at its disposal certain resources, that is, the means of production. It controls the means of production or to put it slightly differently it controls the flow of capital. It can if it wishes invest its capital but equally if it so wishes it can withdraw its capital from circulation. The decision of when to invest, where to invest and how much to invest is one that is made by the capitalist class. If the state were to seriously challenge the interests of the capitalist class then the capitalist class could quite conceivably withdraw its capital from circulation. As a result capital accumulation would slow, output would fall, and unemployment would soar. The government of the day would be ruined. Even if it survived it would be promptly voted out of office at the next general election. The state also has its own project which it can only achieve with the cooperation of the capitalist class. As a result the state will not take decisions that go against the interests of the capitalist class.

Capitalist control over the means of production also means that one class has much greater wealth than the other. This wealth, in the form of profit, can be used in the political sphere. It is well known that the conservative parties of the world are financed largely by private industry. It now appears that many former Left wing parties, such as the British Labour party, are increasingly attracting big business investment. This money acts as a kind of tacit bribe, in some cases a rather explicit and manifest bribe. If you don’t annoy the capitalist class they will reward you generously. Any party receiving large sums of money from private industry is unlikely to be critical towards the same system that brings such money flowing into their funds.

Control over Ideas:-Any regime which rules by might alone is never a regime that will last the course of time. Might must, to give a cliché, be turned into right. compulsion into duty. The process by which this is achieved, whether it be in China or  “free” America, can be called indoctrination. The means of mental production, the media, do not have to be totally monopolized in order that indoctrination occur. There need only be a one sided domination of the media, and other institutions of civil society, in order that indoctrination occur. In capitalist societies we find that, as in China, the media is owned, and controlled, by a particular section of society. The capitalist class control the means of mental production and through this control they propagate and foster what Marxists call a ruling class ideology.

What exactly is this ideology? Marxists use the term in a slightly different way to how most people would use the term. For Marxists ideology is a set of beliefs and values which mask and distort the truth, and which function to preserve the status quo. Such beliefs might include the belief that capitalism is the most efficient economic system or that the free market ensures democracy.

With this in mind even a cursory glance at the national press reveals that the vast majority of newspapers, judged in terms of circulation and number of titles, reflect the interests of the capitalist class. It may well appear, in the case of the tabloids, that political news is almost completely lacking from the newspaper. This is a misleading argument as even within the most sleazy tabloid newspaper there is to be found political journalism. In some articles that appear not to favour any political party it is clear that a certain state of affairs, parliamentary democracy and the free market economy, are supported. Implicit within many “apolitical” articles is to be found a subtext.

By controlling the beliefs and values of a population you control their actions. Control over the thoughts of an entire population is the most complete form of control. If people are convinced enough of the virtues of capitalism and the free market economy then they will never question any aspect of it. The capitalist class need never actually intervene in any given situation as those who occupy positions of political power hold the same outlook as they do. The state need never shoot down a single protesting worker if the worker so encultured with ruling class ideology never actually protests about any issue. Ideology is both an example of the power of the capitalist class and a mechanism for maintaining that power.

Control of the State:-Many people use the term state and government interchangeably. One potential consequence of this is the assumption that a change in government equals a change in the whole state system. This is not the case. Only a certain number of institutions and positions of power within the state system are ones based on election. Ralph Miliband, in his early work at least, argues that one of the reasons why the state is an instrument of the ruling-class is because those who occupy state elite positions are predominantly drawn from the ranks of the upper and middle classes.

There are a given number of positions within the state system which bring with them power and authority. Such positions are what Miliband calls the state elite. The state elite consists of: judges, cabinet ministers or government, senior civil servants, top military officers and senior ranking police officers. Those who occupy such positions tend to be drawn from a certain background. Many will actually come from the capitalist class itself and there is no shortage of former businessmen in politics.

In his book, The State in Capitalist Society, Miliband points to the fact that as you ascend the hierarchy of any political party you find that as you go up each level there are less and less people from humble backgrounds. Even those from humble backgrounds will have to have gone through a process of bourgeoisification, that is, they must have become like the capitalist class in their outlook. The capitalist class is also a ruling class because it seeks, and occupies, the state elite positions. Its power derives from the fact that it has assumed the positions of authority and power within the state system.

QNO31:- Explain Marx’s ideas on surplus value.

ANS: – Surplus value is a concept written about by Karl Marx. Although Marx did not himself invent the term, he developed the concept. It refers roughly to the new value created by workers in excess of their own labour-cost, which is free appropriated by the capitalist and is the base of the profit and thus the basis of capital accumulation.

For Marx, the gigantic increase in wealth and population from the 19th century onwards was mainly due to the competitive striving to obtain maximum surplus-value from the employment of labor, resulting in an equally gigantic increase of productivity and capital resources. To the extent that increasingly the economic surplus is convertible into money and expressed in money, the amassment of wealth is possible on a larger and larger scale (see capital accumulation and surplus product).


Marx’s solution was to distinguish between labor-time worked and labor power. A worker who is sufficiently productive can produce an output value greater than what it costs to hire him. Although his wage seems to be based on hours worked, in an economic sense this wage does not reflect the full value of what the worker produces. Effectively it is not labour which the worker sells, but his capacity to work.

Imagine a worker who is hired for an hour and paid $10. Once in the capitalist’s employ, the capitalist can have him operate a boot-making machine using which the worker produces $10 worth of work every fifteen minutes. Every hour, the capitalist receives $40 worth of work and only pays the worker $10, capturing the remaining $30 as gross revenue. Once the capitalist has deducted fixed and variable operating costs of (say) $20 (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), he is left with $10. Thus, for an outlay of capital of $30, the capitalist obtains a surplus value of $10; his capital has not only been replaced by the operation, but also has increased by $10.

The worker cannot capture this benefit directly because he has no claim to the means of production (e.g. the boot-making machine) or to its products, and his capacity to bargain over wages is restricted by laws and the supply/demand for wage labour. Hence the rise of trade unions which aim to create a more favourable bargaining position through collective action by workers.

QNO32:-Write an essay on Rawls’s Liberal Egalitarian Principles of Social Justice.

ANS: – Social justice is justice exercised within a society, particularly as it is exercised by and among the various social classes of that society.

A socially just society is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, understands and values human rights, and recognizes the dignity of every human being. Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system. The Constitution of the International Labour Organization affirms that “universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice.” Furthermore, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action treats social justice as a purpose of the human rights education.

The term and modern concept of “social justice” was coined by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in 1840 based on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and given further exposure in 1848 by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati. The word has taken on a very controverted and variable meaning, depending on who is using it. The idea was elaborated by the moral theologian John A. Ryan, who initiated the concept of a living wage. Father Coughlin also used the term in his publications in the 1930s and the 1940s. It is a part of Catholic social teaching, the Protestants’ Social Gospel, and is one of the Four Pillars of the Green Party upheld by green parties worldwide. Social justice as a secular concept, distinct from religious teachings, emerged mainly in the late twentieth century, influenced primarily by philosopher John Rawls. Some tenets of social justice have been adopted by those on the left of the political spectrum.

John Rawls

Political philosopher John Rawls draws on the utilitarian insights of Bentham and Mill, the social contract ideas of John Locke, and the categorical imperative ideas of Kant. His first statement of principle was made in A Theory of Justice where he proposed that, “Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others.”. A deontological proposition that echoes Kant in framing the moral good of justice in absolutist terms. His views are definitively restated in Political Liberalism where society is seen “as a fair system of co-operation over time, from one generation to the next.”.

All societies have a basic structure of social, economic, and political institutions, both formal and informal. In testing how well these elements fit and work together, Rawls based a key test of legitimacy on the theories of social contract. To determine whether any particular system of collectively enforced social arrangements is legitimate, he argued that one must look for agreement by the people who are subject to it, but not necessarily to an objective notion of justice based on coherent ideological grounding. Obviously, not every citizen can be asked to participate in a poll to determine his or her consent to every proposal in which some degree of coercion is involved, so one has to assume that all citizens are reasonable. Rawls constructed an argument for a two-stage process to determine a citizen’s hypothetical agreement:

  • The citizen agrees to be represented by X for certain purposes, and, to that extent, X holds these powers as a trustee for the citizen.
  • X agrees that enforcement in a particular social context is legitimate. The citizen, therefore, is bound by this decision because it is the function of the trustee to represent the citizen in this way.

This applies to one person who represents a small group (e.g., the organiser of a social event setting a dress code) as equally as it does to national governments, which are ultimate trustees, holding representative powers for the benefit of all citizens within their territorial boundaries. Governments that fail to provide for welfare of their citizens according to the principles of justice are not legitimate. To emphasize the general principle that justice should rise from the people and not be dictated by the law-making powers of governments, Rawls asserted that, “There is … a general presumption against imposing legal and other restrictions on conduct without sufficient reason. But this presumption creates no special priority for any particular liberty.” This is support for an unranked set of liberties that reasonable citizens in all states should respect and uphold — to some extent, the list proposed by Rawls matches the normative human rights that have international recognition and direct enforcement in some nation states where the citizens need encouragement to act in a way that fixes a greater degree of equality of outcome.

The basic liberties according to Rawls

  • Freedom of thought;
  • Liberty of conscience as it affects social relationships on the grounds of religion, philosophy, and morality;
  • Political liberties (e.g. representative democratic institutions, freedom of speech and the press, and freedom of assembly);
  • Freedom of association;
  • Freedoms necessary for the liberty and integrity of the person (viz: freedom from slavery, freedom of movement and a reasonable degree of freedom to choose one’s occupation); and
  • Rights and liberties covered by the rule of law.


QNO33:- Describe causes and forms of political violence.

ANS: – Political violence is a common means used by people and governments around the world to achieve political goals. Many groups and individuals believe that their political systems will never respond to their political demands. As a result they believe that violence is not only justified but also necessary in order to achieve their political objectives. By the same token, many governments around the world believe they need to use violence in order to intimidate their populace into acquiescence. At other times, governments use force in order to defend their country from outside invasion or other threats of force. Political violence can take a number of forms including but not limited to those listed below. Non-action on the part of the government can also be characterized as a form of political violence. Some would argue that political violence and the modern nation-states are inseparable, as the drastic increase of political violence in the 20th century shows.[

Genocide:-One form of political violence is genocide. Genocide is commonly defined as “the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group” though what constitutes enough of a “part” to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars. Genocide is typically carried out with either the overt or covert support of the governments of those countries engaged in genocidal activities. The Holocaust is the most often cited historical example of genocide.

Human Rights Violations:-Human rights violations occur when actions by state (or non-state) actors abuse, ignore, or deny basic human rights (including civil, political, cultural, social, and economic rights). Furthermore, violations of human rights can occur when any state or non-state actor breaches any part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights treaty or other international human rights or humanitarian law. In regard to human rights violations of United Nations laws, Article 39 of the United Nations Charter designates the UN Security Council (or an appointed authority) as the only tribunal that may determine UN human rights violations.

Human rights abuses are monitored by United Nations committees, national institutions and governments and by many independent non-governmental organizations, such as Amnesty International, International Federation of Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, World Organisation Against Torture, Freedom House, International Freedom of Expression Exchange and Anti-Slavery International. These organisations collect evidence and documentation of alleged human rights abuses and apply pressure to enforce human rights laws.

Wars of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity, including genocide, are breaches of International humanitarian law and represent the most serious of human rights violations. In efforts to eliminate violations of human rights, building awareness and protesting inhumane treatment has often led to calls for action and sometimes improved conditions. The UN Security Council has interceded with peace keeping forces, and other states and treaties (NATO) have intervened in situations to protect human rights.

War:-War is a state of organized, armed, and often prolonged conflict carried on between states, nations, or other parties typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality. War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence. Three of the ten most costly wars, in terms of loss of life, have been waged in the last century: the death toll of World War II, estimated at 60 million plus, surpasses all other war-death-tolls by a factor of two. It is additionally estimated that 378,000 people died due to war each year between 1985 and 1994.

Police Brutality:-Police Brutality is another form of political violence. It is most commonly described in juxtaposition with the term excessive force. Police brutality can be defined as “is a civil rights violation that occurs when a police officer acts with excessive force by using an amount of force with regards to a civilian that is more than necessary.” Police brutality and the use of excessive force are present throughout the world and in the United States alone, 4,861 incidences of police misconduct were reported during 2010. Of these, there were 6,826 victims involved and 247 fatalities. Most recently, police actions taken when trying to remove protesters of the Occupy movements have come under fire for use of excessive force. Eleven passive protesters at UC Davis were pepper sprayed by campus police and an 84-year-old-woman was also pepper sprayed by police in a separate Occupy protest in Seattle.

Famine:-Famine is a result of a set of conditions that occurs when a large number of people in a region cannot obtain sufficient food, resulting in widespread, acute malnutrition and death. Famine can be initiated by government’s inefficient distribution of food and resources or policy making, whether it be intentional or not. Elements such as poverty, a suppressive political regime, and a weak, under-prepared government make a particular region more vulnerable to famine. In the 20th century alone, an estimated 70 million people died from famine across the world. Between 16.5 and 46 million people perished in the Famine of China in 1958-61, the largest famine in history and also one that resulted from government policies and a lack of response that perpetuated the problem. North Korea is another example of misappropriation of resources resulting in widespread famines, but there is not an accurate number of deaths because of the government’s willingness to mask the issue.

Counter-insurgency:-Counter-insurgency, another form of political violence, describes a spectrum of actions taken by the recognized government of a nation to contain or quell an insurgency taken up against it. There are a many different doctrines, theories, and tactics espoused regarding counter-insurgency that aim to protect the authority of the government and to reduce or eliminate the supplanting authority of the insurgents. Because it may be difficult or impossible to distinguish between an insurgent, a supporter of an insurgency who is a non-combatant, and entirely uninvolved members of the population, counter-insurgency operations have often rested on a confused, relativistic, or otherwise situational distinction between insurgents and non-combatants. Counter-insurgency operations are common during war, occupation and armed rebellions.

Torture:-Torture is the act of inflicting severe pain (whether physical or psychological) as a means of punishment, revenge, forcing information or confession, or simply as an act of cruelty. Torture is prohibited under international law and the domestic laws of most countries in the 21st century. It is considered a human rights violation and is declared unacceptable by Article 5 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention have officially agreed not to torture prisoners in armed conflicts. National and international legal prohibitions on torture derive from a consensus that torture and similar ill-treatment are immoral, as well as impractical. Despite international conventions, torture cases continue to arise such as the 2004 Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal committed by military police personnel of the United States Army. Organizations such as Amnesty International and the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims monitor abuses of human rights and reports widespread violations of human torture in by states in many regions of the world.Amnesty International estimates that at least 81 world governments currently practice torture, some of them openly.

Capital Punishment:-Capital punishment is the sentence of death upon a person by the state as a punishment for an offense. This does not include extrajudicial killing which is the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process. The use of capital punishment by country varies, but according to Amnesty International 58 countries still actively use the death penalty, and in 2010, 23 countries carried out executions and 67 imposed death sentences. Methods of execution in 2010 included beheading, electrocution, hanging, lethal injection and shooting. In 2007 the United Nations General Assembly passed the UN moratorium on the death penalty which called for worldwide abolition of the death penalty.




Leave a Reply