PAPER I : PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Syllabus
UNIT 1: Political Science: Definitions, Nature and Scope; Methods and Approaches
– Traditional & Modern.
UNIT 2: State: Its Elements and Nature; Theories of the Origin of the State, Constitution and its
Classification, Forms of Government and organs of Government
UNIT 3: Sovereignty: Monism: Juristic, Historical, Philosophical Pluralism

UNIT-1: POLITICAL SCIENCE (INTRODUCTION)

 DEFINITIONS:

 Polity-
 Polity denotes an organization where rules are made and decisions are taken for the
whole community, and authority is exercised over each member of the community.

 ‘Political’-
 The term 'political' refers to something that is 'public', as distinguished from private
or something applicable to a limited number of persons.

 The terms 'polity', 'politics' and 'political' are derived from the Greek word 'polis' which
denoted ancient Greek city-state.

 Political Science -
 Paul Janet( a French political philosopher):
Political Science is that part of social science that deals with the foundation of the
state and the principles of government.
 Garris (German thinker):
Political Science deals with the origin, development, purpose and all political
problems of the state.

 Political Science is a social science and like other social sciences, it revolves around man
and his social (political) environment. Being one of the oldest social sciences its nature and
scope of study has undergone several changes over the centuries.
 ‘Political science begins and ends with the state’ – Dr. Garner (American Professor of
Political Science)
 Political science is also called the master science because politics determines the
environment within which every person will organize his/her life. No one can escape from
the perimeters set by politics.

 Politics-
 Andrew Haywood:
Politics can be defined as an activity through which people make, preserve and
amend the general rules under which they live.
 NATURE OF POLITICAL THEORY:

 As Political Science –
 It is a science because the concepts and norms applied in it are both observable and
testable. The theories of this discipline fulfil the requirements of reason and
rationalism.
 Political theory is a science as its conclusions are drawn after ‘study’, ‘observation’, and
‘experiments’. It is a science in its approach, methodologies, and in its analysis.
 Political theory is characterised by objectivity, facts and research. It generates neutral,
dispassionate and objective knowledge.

 As Political Philosophy –
 Political theory is a philosophy as it not only seeks to know the nature of things but also
attempts to explain as to why things really exist i.e. it gives an impetus to evaluation. An
action or a thought can be understood only by evaluating it.
 Political theory as a philosophy not only attempts to know the nature of political things but
also studies the way those political things should be i.e. the right, or the good, political
order.
 As a philosophy, political theory seeks to replace opinions or assumptions about political
things with the appropriate knowledge of the nature of political things.
 Political theory is evaluated not only on the basis of facts, but also on the basis of values.
The philosophical values that are included in the evaluation of a political activity are as
important as its factual aspects. Thus, values and facts go hand in hand in political
theory.

 As a Social Science –
 Political theory is a social science because it is applied to a social gathering and has as
its essence the interaction, aspirations and behaviour of humans in the society. Without
these elements there will be no relevance of political theory.
 As in any social science, in political theory, definitive rules of exact science are applicable
only within the limitations as there is a great influence of varied human behaviour and
aspirations on the application of political theory.
 Political theory is constantly evolving and is dynamic in nature. The changes in
society’s thinking patterns, behaviour patterns, and aspirations give rise to modifications in
the political theories, thus validating the fact that social structures, unlike natural
structures, do not exist independent of the activities they govern.
 SCOPE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE:

 Study of the nature and formation of state and the forms and functions of government. It
involves a systematic study of the relationship between the state and the government
(which is an element of state).
 Study of political behaviour of human beings (citizens) under the political system with
respect to one another and with respect to the political authorities.
 Study of concepts of power, authority and influence.
 Study of associations and institutions in an organized way. It involves a systematic
analysis of the nature, history and forms of political institutions.
 Study of laws and trends of political growth and development and also takes into account
the national and international problems associated with it.

 METHODS AND APPROACHES:

Approaches consist of criteria for selecting problems and relevant data whereas methods are
procedures for getting and utilising data.

 APPROACHES:

1. Traditional Approach:
The traditional approach is value based and lays emphasis on the inclusion of values to
the study of political phenomena. The adherents of this approach believe that the study of
political science should not be based on facts alone since facts and values are closely
related to each other. Since the days of Plato and Aristotle “the great issues of politics”
have revolved around normative orientations. Accordingly there are a large number of
traditional approaches like legal approach, philosophical approach, historical approach,
institutional approach etc.

 Philosophical Approach-
This approach lays stress on ethical and normative study of politics. It deals with the
problems of nature and function of state, issues of citizenship, rights and duties etc.

 Historical approach believes that political phenomena could be

 understood better with the help of historical factors like age, place,
situations etc
 Historical Approach-
This approach believes that political phenomena could be understood better with the
help of historical factors like age, place, situations etc. The historical analysis
provides a chronological order of every political phenomenon.

 Every past is linked with the present and thus the historical analysis
 provides a chronological order of every political phenomenon.
 Institutional Approach-
It lays stress on the study of political institutions and structures like executive,
judiciary, political parties, interest groups etc.

 Legal Approach-
It regards state as the creator and enforcer of law and deals with legal institutions,
and processes.
 ethical and normative study of
politics and is idealistic in
nature. It deals with the
problems of nature and function
of state, issues of citizenship,
rights and duties etc.
Philosophical approach to the
study of political science could be
traced in the
writings of ancient philosophers
like Plato and Aristotle.
Philosophical approach to the
study of political science could be
traced in the
writings of ancient philosophers
like Plato and Aristotle.
2. Modern Approach:
The modern approach is fact based and lays emphasis on the factual study of political
phenomenon to arrive at scientific and definite conclusions. The modern approaches
include sociological approach, economic approach, psychological approach, quantitative
approach, behavioural approach, Marxian approach etc.

 Behavioural Approach-
- It searches for pure knowledge and theory.
 - The knowledge that is searched for is not sought for implementing it in actions; it
is sought only for understanding.
- It is a micro level analysis and is used in the process of decision making.
- It is interested in status quo, and does not take interest in social change.

 Post - Behavioural Approach-

- It searches for applied knowledge and practice.
- The knowledge that is searched for is action oriented for solving social problems.
- It is a macro level analysis and encompasses the content of decisions that are
made.
- It is interested in social change for solving social problems.

 METHODS:

1. Descriptive method:
- The scientific method
- Studies political institutions and behaviour
- Involves observation of facts

2. Normative method:
- The philosophical method
- Political concepts and ideas
- Determines what we ought to do

UNIT-2: THE STATE

 DEFINITIONS:

 ‘Political science begins and ends with the state' – JW Garner

 State-
 A territorial area in which a population is governed by a set of political authorities,
and which successfully claims the compliance of the citizenry for its laws, and is able
 to secure such compliance by its monopolistic control of legitimate force. – Geoffrey
K Roberts
 A state is a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate
use of physical force within a given territory.- Max Weber

 NATURE OF STATE:

1. Liberal theory of state:

The liberal theory of state assigns due role to individuals, their natures, activities, interests
and objectives. The state is seen as a necessity, an institution – evil or otherwise – which
may establish law and order, peace and justice in society. The state is there to serve the
general interest of society as a whole. It is regarded as an agency of human welfare, which
will secure life and property of man. It is regarded as a contributor to moral and social
development of man. Liberalism distinguishes between state and society and maintains
that state is for society and not otherwise.

Liberal views on the functions of state have been changing from time to time. Classical
liberalism of the 18th and the early 19th century, which supported the negative state with
minimal functions, changed to modern liberalism in the later half of the 19th and the early
20th century that supported the positive state with welfare functions. Classical liberalism is
also known as the theory of ‘laissez-faire’ or the theory of individualism that regards the
state as a necessary evil. The state and individual freedom are seen as each other’s
opposite and classical liberalism wants to give more freedom to the individual by
increasing the sphere of his activities and decreasing the sphere of the state. The function
of the state is to provide physical security to the individual so that he can develop his
personality without state interference. In brief, it means minimal state function and
maximum individual liberty. Later liberalism or modern liberalism is also called the ‘theory
of welfare state’ Here, the state is not regarded merely as a necessary evil, but it is
assumed that the state can perform various functions of social welfare, can bring
equilibrium and can satisfy socio-economic demands of the masses.

2. Marxist theory of state:

The Marxist theory of state emerged as a criticism of, and as an alternative to the liberal
theory of state. Liberalism was a socio-economic and political philosophy of the working
class; Marxism was a product of the capitalist economic system itself. According to the
Marxist theory, the state is a product of class division and class struggle and serves only
the interest of one particular class, because all the classes cannot have a single
interest/common interests. It rejects the state and suggests that by a revolution and the
establishment of a classless society, the institution of the state would be done away with.
The Marxian theory of state does not glorify the state; rather it is a theory of its overthrow
 in a classless society. According to the theory, politics and state are parts of the
superstructure which is based on the economic system or the mode of production of a
given society. Marxian theory of the origin of state is also based on this general view of
state and politics. The state has, thus, originated with the birth of classes and class
struggle in society and is merely an instrument of exploitation in the hands of a dominant
class. With the help of the state, ruling classes maintain their power over economically
poor classes.

3. Idealist theory of state:

The basic principle of this theory is that the state is an end and the individual is a means.
According to Hegel, the individual can perfect himself only in the state. Idealist theory
vests absolute power in the state and regards state as an ethical institution. Its earliest
trace is found in the writings of Plato and Aristotle .Both of them regard state as natural

and necessary element. This theory was explained in better way by the German
philosophers of the 18th and 19th centuries. The tenets of the idealist theory of state are-

- State is an ethical institution.

- State is the best friend of the people.
- State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth.
- State has got its independent will and personality.
- State is a natural, necessary and absolute association.
- State possesses an organic unity.
- State is the creator and protector of the rights and freedom of the individuals.
- The basis of state is will, not force.

 ELEMENTS OF STATE:

1. Population:

The state is a human institution. The population is, therefore, an essential element of the
state. However, the population can constitute a state only when it is united by the condition
of interdependence, consciousness of common interest, and general regard for a set of
common rules of behaviour and institutions. The size of population for constituting a state
cannot be fixed, yet it is always better that such population is self-sufficient to meet all the
needs of life. If it is required to procure any goods or services from other states, it should
usually be able to pay for them. Economic self-sufficiency is essential for the stability of a
state. The population of a state need not belong to a single race, religion, language or
culture. A homogeneous population is no longer considered an essential feature of the
modern state. The modern state claims to reconcile the interests of various groups of its
citizens.

2. Territory:

Territory is another essential element of a state. Other associations either exist within the
state or they extend their sphere to several states; they do not need separate territory. But
the state must possess a territory where its authority is accepted without dispute or
challenge. A state comes into existence only when its population is settled in a fixed
territory. The organization of citizens according to locality is the common feature of all
states. International law regards possession of a fixed territory as the essential attribute of
 the state. Demarcation of physical boundaries is, therefore, essential for establishing the
real identity of a state. The territory of a state includes the land, water and air-space within
its boundary. It also extends usually to a distance of 12 nautical miles into the sea from its
coast, and is known as territorial waters, which may be sought to be extended further in
times of war. Territory symbolizes the sphere of sovereignty of the state. Territory provides
for natural resources for the sustenance of the population of the state. Like population, the
size of the territory of a state cannot be fixed. Territory is usually a geographical
phenomenon, dividing different states by sea, mountains or other big natural barriers.
Sometimes territories are demarcated mainly on a political basis rather than on a
geographical basis.

3. Government:

Government is still another essential element of the state. According to J.W. Garner,
'Government is the agency or machinery through which common policies are determined
and by which common affairs are regulated and common interests promoted'. The
authority of the state is exercised by government; functions of the state are performed by
the government. The government makes, declares and enforces the laws. Government is
responsible for the maintenance of law and order and for the provision of common
services— defence, issue of currency, foreign relations, roads, bridges, and even
transport, communications, water, electricity, health and education, etc. and it is entitled to
levy taxes for the provision of all such services. A citizen has to deal with government of
the state; any transaction between different states, including war, takes place through the
medium of their governments. Governments may rise and fall without disturbing identity of
the state, so long as they are formed and dissolved according to the established custom,
procedure or constitution of the state. But a state will lose its identity if it is suppressed by
an alien power so much so that the established procedure of forming a government is also
suspended.

4. Sovereignty :

Sovereignty also constitutes an essential element of the state. Sovereignty denotes the
supreme or ultimate power of the state to make laws or take political decisions. It
encompasses the power of also enforcing such laws and decisions by the use of legitimate
force. In fact, sovereignty denotes the final authority of the state over its population and its
territory. This authority may be exercised by the government of the day, but it essentially
belongs to the state from which it is derived by the government. A state continues to exist
so long as it is armed with sovereignty. If a state loses its sovereignty because of internal
revolt or external aggression, the result is anarchy and disappearance of the state as such.
It is by virtue of its sovereignty that a state declares (through the agency of the
government) its laws and decisions which are binding on all citizens, claims obedience,
and punishes the offenders. It is also by virtue of its sovereignty that a state similarly deals
independently with other states.

 THEORIES OF ORIGIN OF STATE:

1. DIVINE ORIGIN THEORY:

The Divine Origin theory is the oldest theory that attempts to explain how the state came
to be. The divine origin theory predates the establishment of the state. This theory
strongly believes that the state is a divinely created institution. This theory held that it was
 God's will for humans to live in a political society, and that as a result, God created the
state to save humanity from extinction. The state was created by God for the benefit of all
people. This theory holds that the state is governed by God Himself, who sends His
representative to do so. As a result, the theory holds that the King is God's divinely
appointed agent and representative, and that he is therefore accountable to God rather
than the people. On Earth, the King has unrestricted power, and no one can challenge his
authority. The King's actions and orders are supposed to be just and beneficent. All of the
King's powers and authority come from God, and resisting the King's authority is a form of
disobedience to God, and thus a sin. People's obedience to the King, according to this
theory, is a religious duty. The supporters of the Divine Origin theory believed in a
hereditary monarchical form of government, which meant that all of a King's powers and
rights should be passed down from father to son. As a result, the theory establishes the
state's divine sanctity and elevates the King above all people and laws.

The state was widely believed to be God's creation during the ancient period. During that
time, the state's authority was linked to unseen powers, and the ruler was a hybrid of a
priest and a king. The King's order was supposed to be supreme, and defying the King's
authority was seen as a sin against God.

Criticisms of the Divine Origin theory

1. Critics have argued that the Divine Origin theory's claim that the state is a divine
institution created by God has no relevance in the current context, because the state is
essentially a human institution.

2. The Divine Origin theory, which tries to justify the king's unlimited and arbitrary
powers, may give rise to despotic rulers.

3. This Divine Origin theory is only applicable to absolute monarchical governments.

However, in today's world, such monarchical government is no longer relevant.

4. The Divine Origin theory advocates for the King's absolute power over the people.
This reflects the fact that people in such a state had no personal freedom.

2. SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY:

In terms of the state's origins, the Social Contract Theory claims that the state is the result
of a contract or agreement between people. This theory considers the state of nature to
be mankind's original state. There was no organisation or authority in the state of nature
to regulate human behaviour and relations with one another. People felt the need for
some sort of authority or civil society to escape such a deregulated life, where everyone
could live in peace and stability. As a result, the people entered into a deliberate contract
 or agreement, and thus the state was born. The state, according to the social contract
theory, is a human institution and the result of a human contract. The state is established
by the people for the benefit of the people. The Social Contract theory was popularised by
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.

 Thomas Hobbes’ Social Contract theory:

Thomas Hobbes, an English political philosopher, discussed the origin of the state through
the theory of social contract in his book "Leviathan". People, he claims, lived in the state of
nature prior to the establishment of the state. According to his theory, human beings were
poor, nasty, brutal, and selfish in their natural state. Principles of law, justice, and
tolerance were absent. Everyone was at odds with everyone else, and people lived in
constant fear of war. With the passage of time, however, people themselves entered into a
contract to form a civil government in order to escape such a miserable life in the wild.
People gave up their natural rights, to a person or group of people who remained
sovereign. The contract did not include the sovereign. He was not bound by any rules and
wielded unrestricted power. The sovereign was in charge of safeguarding the people's
lives and rights. And, because the people had voluntarily entered into the contract, they
had no legal right to break it. The sovereign's power and authority under this social
contract was absolute and unlimited as he was the sole source of law. As a result, Hobbes
believed that a contract between people led to the formation of a state and sovereign
authority.

 John Locke’s Social Contract theory:

John Locke, an English political philosopher and another proponent of the Social Contract
theory, explained the emergence of the state in his book "Two Treatises on Civil
Government". He disagreed with Hobbes because according to him in the state of nature,
people lived in peace without fear of warfare. The people were cooperating and
understanding one another and had same rights. Since there was no law court to interpret
the laws at the time, issues such as anarchy arose in the natural world. People entered
into two contracts to get out of this difficult situation: one was a civil contract, and the other
was a governmental contract. These two agreements resulted in the formation of the state.
Under the Civil contract, people agreed to respect one another in order to live in peace
and harmony. Under the government contract, People pledged to obey one person or
assembly of persons in the form of the sovereign authority, which was then empowered to
protect the people's right to life, liberty, and property and the people would have the right
to remove the government from power if the sovereign authority failed to protect these
rights.

 Jean Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract Theory:

The great French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau discussed the origin of the state in
his book "The Social Contract" .Rousseau, like the other proponents of the social contract
theory, believed that people lived in the state of nature prior to the formation of the state.
People lived peacefully in the natural world with unrestricted freedom and equality
prevailed. There was no concept of personal property. With the passage of time, the
 population of the natural world grew, and the concept of private property was born. As a
result, there were disagreements and conflicts started to arise. So, people formed
contracts among themselves to get rid of the state of nature's misery.

To be considered a sovereign authority, people surrendered all of their natural rights to

themselves or the community, not to some other higher person or group of persons. So,
according to Rousseau, the community or the common people retained sovereign
authority. Rousseau coined the term "General Will" to describe the people's sovereign
power. For their own good, people gave up all of their rights to the community. The
General Will reflects the will of the majority. The General Will is unbreakable, inalienable,
and irreversible.

Criticisms of the Social Contract theory:

- The theory of the social contract is not founded on any historical evidence. When we trace
the origin of an institution like the state, it is not proper to rely on mere fiction, like that of a
social contract. There is no historical validity of the assumption that men originally lived in
a so-called state of nature, and then they thought of creating political institutions by mutual
agreement to establish order and security.

- The theory of the social contract postulates the existence of natural liberty and natural
rights in the state of nature that is before the formation of the state. This does not stand up
to logic. Rights are the product of a developed social consciousness and are enforced by
institutionalized law. Natural rights could not have existed in the earliest stage when
political awareness and institutionalized law were totally absent.

- A contract, in order to be valid, requires the force or sanction of the state, which exists
above and apart from the contracting parties. The so-called social contract had no such
sanction behind it, because it precedes the establishment of the state itself.

3. Evolutionary theory:
The state is a natural institution, according to evolutionary theory. In terms of the state's
emergence, this theory contends that the state did not emerge suddenly, but rather as a
result of past evolution and is evolving slowly and gradually over time. It explains that the
state is the product of growth, a slow and steady evolution extending over a long period of
time and ultimately shaping itself into the complex structure of a modern state. Kinship,
 war, religion, property, economic activities and political consciousness have all played a
role in the evolution of the state.

 Kinship:
Kinship, or blood relationships, is an important factor that has contributed to the
emergence of the state. People who were related by blood used to live together long
before the formation of the state. The earliest human organisations were based on blood
relationships and kinship. People who shared a common ancestor lived in a community.
Thus, during the primitive period, the family was at the heart of human organisation.
Eventually, a family evolved into a household, then into clans, and the clans were grouped
into tribes, which eventually led to the formation of a state. Family relationships bred traits
like loyalty and obedience, both of which are important factors in the evolution of the state.

 War:
War is another factor that has played a significant role in the emergence of the state.
Force or might was the determining factor in every aspect during the primitive period, and
only the physically strongest survived. A more powerful group of people could overthrow
the weaker group and take control. Historical evidence also suggests that a group of
warriors established their dominance by occupying a territory by force. Many modern
states were founded as a result of this factor of force or war. War has been a major factor
in the formation of states since the beginning of time.

 Religion:
Religion has played an important role in the evolution of the state. Religion ruled almost
every aspect of human life during the ancient period. Religion contributed to the
strengthening of bonds of unity among families, clans, tribes, and kingdoms. Religion
instilled a sense of unity among them. People followed religious norms superstitiously
during the very primitive period due to their ignorance. As a result, religion can be said to
have united people from the beginning of time through common religious practises and
rituals that they followed under the direction of priestly authorities, eventually leading to the
formation of the state.

 Property and defence:

Property played a vital role in the evolution of state in ancient times particularly among the
people who were nomads and tribal. The necessity of acquiring property by the members
of society and protecting the property acquired led to making adjustments in the social
system and relationship between the members of different groups. The need to protect
property ultimately compelled the ancient people to establish the state.

 Political Consciousness:
The emergence of political consciousness among the people has also played a significant
role in the evolution of the state. People wanted to live a better and more settled social and
moral life as time passed. Furthermore, people began to recognise the importance of
maintaining peace and order, and political consciousness developed as a result. People
realised that the only way to progress was to form some sort of political organisation.
People began to work together to meet their needs and aspirations as a result of their
increased political awareness. In due course, this political consciousness led to the
establishment of the state.

 Economic Activities:
Economic activities have also played an important role in the evolution of the state. From
the very dawn of human civilization, men have a number of economic needs and
aspirations and for fulfilling these needs and aspirations they have to depend on one
another and as a result of this dependency, economic relations grew among the people. In
such economic relationships, disputes arose among the people and then there came the
 need of the state authority to regulate the economic relations among people. Thus,
economic activities also helped in the evolution of the state.

Criticism of Evolutionary theory:

 The evolutionary or historical theory, according to critics, has simply explained the factors
that led to the formation of the state. The theory does not provide an explanation for when
and how the state came into being.

 The factors that led to the emergence of the state are universal, according to evolutionary
or historical theory. However, critics argue that these factors are not universal.

 Though this theory is useful in explaining the state's origins, it does not account for the
primitive stage prior to the state's formation.

 CONSTITUTION AND ITS CLASSIFICATION:

 DEFINITIONS:
- A constitution is a basic design which deals with the structure and powers of the
government it also includes the rights and duties of citizens.
- A constitution is also defined as a definitely formulated document or documents and is
sometimes found in an established body of rules, maxims, traditions and practices, in
accordance with which its government is organised and its powers are exercised.

- According to contemporary political scientists, Constitution is the process by which

governmental action is effectively restrained. It is a “technique of effective regularized
restraint upon governmental actions.”
- There can be no state without a constitution.
- The constitution need not be written.

 Definition by different scholars:

- Aristotle: The way by which all citizens or constituent parts of the state are organised in
relation to each other
- George Cornewell Lewis: System and distribution of sovereign power as community or
government
- Leacock: Constitution is the form of government
- Austin: It fixes the structure of Supreme government

 FEATURES OF CONSTITUTION:
- Fundamental law of the land
- May be written or unwritten
- It deals with the structure and power of govt.
- It deals with the rights of citizens
- It deals with the relationship b/w Govt and people
- It is the supreme law that must be followed

 NEED/IMPORTANCE OF CONSTITUTION:
- To protect the rights of individuals
- For the establishment of the principle of “Rule of Law”
- To save the state from anarchy
- To define the operations of sovereign powers of the state
- Restricting the powers of Govt by fundamental law

 ESSENTIALS OF A GOOD CONSTITUTION:

- Clarity or definiteness:
Every sentence or clause written in the constitution should be in simple language. The
meaning of each clause should be express clearly without leaving any scope for confusion.
- Brevity:
The formation of the constitution should not be too long. The constitution should include
only important things
- Independence of Judiciary: The independence of the judiciary is another quality of a good
constitution. The judiciary must act independently and act as a protector of the
fundamental rights of the people without any fear.
- Comprehensiveness:
The constitution should apply throughout the country. It should demarcate the structure
and power of the central and provincial govt. (in a federation).
- Flexibility:
 The constitution should not be too rigid to interfere with the necessary amendment
process.
- Directive principles of state policy:
Directive principles of state policy have to be mentioned in a good constitution as it helps
in the creation of a welfare state.
- Declaration of Rights:
People should have fundamental rights in a good constitution. Such declarations have
been made in the constitution of countries like India, Russia, China, America and Japan.

 CLASSIFIFCATION OF CONSTITUTION:

1. Difference between written and unwritten constitution

Written constitution Unwritten constitution

The written constitution is found in legal An unwritten constitution contains principles

documents duly maintained in the form of law. of government that have never been
implemented as law.

Merit: It is precise, definite and systematic. It is the Demerit: It is indefinite, unsystematic and un-
result of efforts made by the people conscious and precise. Such a constitution is not the result of
deliberate. the conscious and deliberate efforts of the
people.

It is created by a representative body elected by It is not created by a representative

the people at a particular period in history. component assembly. So, it is sometimes
called a developed or cumulative constitution.

It is always promulgated at a specific date in It has no fixed date, as it has evolved over
history. time.

The Constitution of India is the best example of a The Constitution of England is the best
written constitution (announced on 26 January example of an unwritten constitution.
1950).

Demerit: A written constitution is generally rigid The unwritten constitution is not rigid and its
and its amendments require constitutional laws. In amendments do not require any law. In other
other words, the distinction between constitutional words, the distinction between constitutional
law and common law is maintained. The first is law and common law is not maintained.
considered superior to the second.

A written constitution can also be called an An unwritten constitution can also be called
enacted constitution. an un-enacted constitution.
 Merits of a Written Constitution:

1. The most important merit of a written constitution is that it is very definite. There is not
uncertainty. The constitution provides all fundamental principles in written and people can
refer to it as and when they want. As the powers and organization of the various organs
are well defined there is very little scope for confusion and disputes. If a dispute arises it
can be referred to the judiciary.

2. A written constitution is drawn with great care and after long deliberation. It means it is the
result of experience and knowledge. There is no place for the temporary emotions and
hasty decision.

3. A written constitution protects the rights of the individuals. Rights are incorporated in it
making them superior to the ordinary law and saving them from being changed by different
government as they wished.

4. A written constitution is stable and guides through difficult situations. It is more suitable for
emergency period.

5. For a federal government written constitution is more suitable because there is provision
for the central and state power separately.

 Demerits of a written constitution:

1. Generally, written constitutions are difficult to amend, thus introducing rigidity and
conservatism.

2. In a written constitution judiciary is quite conservative and interpretations are merely to see
whether a law conforms to the constitution or not. This might prove ineffective for a nation
which needs to change according to the times.

3. It tries to encompass all rules and ideals of a nation, which may not be suitable for all the
ages. Thus the future growth may be neglected.

4. It sometimes becomes too exhaustive to conform to each and every big and small norm
mentioned in the constitution, leading to legal jugglery.
 Merits of an Unwritten Constitution:
1. They are quite easily adaptable to changing circumstances. Law can be added as and
when required. There is no limitation of any pre-documented constitutional law. Thus they
are progressive.

2. They are flexible and people can bring about changes without undertaking revolutions. As
these constitutions evolve themselves with the changing time, public opinion finds suitable
place in constitution and it terminates possibility of revolution.

3. Unwritten constitution can undergo changes, without basic framework being sidelined. This
is useful especially in case of unforeseen situation.

4. Historically they seem to stand the test of times and keep up the traditions of a nation state
as it is said about the British constitution that it has unbroken history. It's a continuous
process of development.

 Demerits of an unwritten constitution:

1. The serious defect of an unwritten constitution is that it is vague and indefinite. Common
man may not understand the constitutional system of the country. He cannot refer to any
document in which he can find all that he requires to understand the structure of the
government of his country. An unwritten constitution requires a very high degree of political
consciousness among the people to understand its spirit, and ordinarily that is not easy to
find.

2. Sometimes unwritten constitutions are quite unstable.

3. The judiciary may play more role than is warranted. It becomes the playthings of judicial
tribunals. The judiciary can interpret the unwritten laws as it suited to its desire and will.

4. It also contended that an unwritten constitution is not suited to democracies. The masses
need a well- defined document under which they have to live. They may be suited for
aristocratic societies but not for democracies.
 Difference between rigid and flexible constitution
Rigid constitution Flexible constitution

A rigid constitution cannot be easily amended. It has A flexible constitution can be amended
very complex modification procedures. with the same ease as the general laws.

A rigid constitution cannot be accommodated A flexible constitution can be adjusted to

according to the changing needs of society. No suit the changing needs of people and
legislature can tamper with them, because they are society.
superior to the common law.

A rigid constitution is essentially a written constitution A flexible constitution is very useful for a
composed of experienced and learned people. Thus it developing country because it will not be
is a symbol of national efficiency. a hindrance to progress due to its
adaptability.

A rigid constitution does not develop and expand. A flexible constitution grows and expands
People consider it as a sacred document and they are as nature matures.
ready to work according to its provisions.

A rigid constitution does not reflect the changing pulse A flexible constitution reflects the
of public opinion. In other words it represents the changing pulse of public opinion. In other
minds of experienced and learned people who initially words it represents the mind of the
implicated it. people.

Accordingly, legislatures should not have a constitution A flexible constitution is based on the
in their hands. So, a rigid constitution is based on the sound assumption that there cannot be a
assumption that it is the perfect constitution for all time. right constitution for all time.

 Merits of a flexible constitution:

1. A flexible constitution can be amended with the same ease and facility with which ordinary
laws are altered. It makes possible the adjustment of the constitution to the new and the
changing needs of the society.
2. A flexible constitution can easily adapt the needs of people with the change of time
because of its elasticity. When the demands of people are fulfilled by the constitution there
is hardly any change of revolution. It is the flexible character of the British constitution,
which has saved Britain on so many occasions for the danger of revolution. The transfer
from a monarchy to parliamentary system also was free from violence. Whereas France,
which is very close to Britain experienced a revolution and so far five constitutions have
been enacted because of revolutions and odd circumstances.
3. A flexible constitution is very useful for developing a country, because it is a great
expression of its development. It does not hinder progress due to its adaptability. At the
same time it protects the basic principles of the constitution. A flexible constitution is based
on the sound assumption of some socio-political change and premise that there cannot be
a perfect constitution for all times, to tackle the socio-political changes.
4. Flexible constitution is moulded by the conventions of national life. It represents the
historical continuity of the nation's life and incorporates within it the changes as and when
 the need arises. A flexible constitution can, thus, claim to feel the pulse of public opinion. It
represents the minds of people.

 Demerits of a flexible constitution:

1. Due to its flexible nature the constitution keeps on changing. The constitution may be
changed just to satisfy the people who are in majority ignoring the welfare of minority. It
fails to provide a stable system in administration, which results in the poor performance of
the government.

2. When the procedure of amendment is simple and easy, it is liable to be seriously

affected by ever changing popular passion and popular passions are guided by emotions,
not by reasons. Decisions, which are based on emotions, may disturb the harmony and
balance of a nation. It may divide the society and there may be a possible threat to the
integration of the nation itself.

3. Flexible constitution is not suitable for a federal system, because the rights of
constituent units are not guaranteed due to flexible nature of the constitution. There are
two possibilities if a federation is having flexible constitution.
- The units may lose their independence and freedom and centre may become more
powerful, which is against the spirit of federal system.
- The units may act very independently without respecting the constitution, as it is not
stable.

4. As the constitution can be changed by following a simple procedure, there is no

guarantee that fundamental rights will not be disturbed. Any government can very easily
change the provision of fundamental rights or even may delete it from the constitution.

 Merits of a Rigid Constitution:

1. A rigid constitution possesses the qualities of stability and performance. A rigid constitution
is essentially a written constitution which is the creation of experienced and learned
people. It is a symbol of national efficiency. People regard it as a sacred document and
they are ready to work according to its provisions.
2. A rigid constitution prevents legislative encroachment; Constitution should not be a
plaything in the hands of legislatures. A rigid constitution also safeguards fundamental
rights effectively. Fundamental rights are part of constitution. No legislature can tamper
them.
3. A rigid constitution protects the rights of minority. Minorities cannot be expected to agree
to their rights being imperilled by a majority action. If the majority ventures it, the judges
perform their function of guardianship.
4. A rigid constitution is free from dangers of temporary popular passion. Because of complex
amendment procedure the constitution may not be swept away by the emotions of the
people which in most of the cases are not based on wisdom and reasoning.
5. A federal set up of government essentially needs a rigid constitution for the safety of the
rights of the units as well as for the strength and integration of the federation. Under rigid
constitution units of a federation feel secure and at the same time there is a check on their
activities also in order to stop them from violating each other's jurisdictions.
 Demerits of a Rigid Constitution:

1. Sometimes changes in the constitution become inevitable but a rigid constitution cannot
be amended easily.

2. The framers of the constitution hardly foresee the future. A rigid constitution is not suitable
for a progressive nation where changes take place frequently.

3. Under the rigid constitution, the main concern of the judiciary is to see whether the law
conforms to the provisions of the constitution or not.
 FORMS AND ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT:

(Refer “Elements of state” for intro of govt.)

 Difference between state and govt. :

1. Government is only an element of the state (State has 4 elements, govt is one of them)
2. Government is an Agency or Agent of the State (Govt acts on behalf of state)
3. Government is organized only by a portion of the population of State (Govt includes only
representatives of the population)
4. Membership of a State is compulsory but not of Government (All citizens are members of
state, membership of govt is voluntary)
5. Sovereignty belongs to State and not to Government (Govt acts on the basis of the
sovereignty of state)
6. Territory belongs to the State, not govt.

 Functions of Government:
1. Law Making
2. Military defence of the country
3. Provision of employment
4. Maintenance of law and order
5. Promotion of economic growth and development
6. Maintaining good relations with other sovereign states or countries (foreign diplomacy)
7. Protection of civil liberties
8. Protection of lives and properties
9. Administration of justice
10. Formulation and implementation of policies
11. Provision of social-welfare services
 PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT
A parliamentary system, often known as parliamentary democracy, is a form of democratic
administration in which the executive gains political legitimacy by commanding the support
("confidence") of the legislative, usually a parliament, to whom it is accountable.
The head of state in a parliamentary system is generally separate from the head of
government. Parliamentary government, also known as a cabinet government, responsible
government, or the Westminster model of government, is popular in the UK, Japan & India.

 Features of Parliamentary System

1. Formation of Cabinet
When general election is over and prime minister is elected, then prime minister nominates
his council of ministers or cabinet. This responsibility of the prime minister is of prime
significance. The list of ministers is presented before head of state for his approval. They
are commonly taken from the party's ring leadership. Well experienced, alert and learned
members are given preference because of the sensitive nature of parliamentary System.

2. Team Work Spirit

In parliamentary system all ministers work in a. team spirit. They must agree on an issue in
cabinet meeting. The cabinet members must stay united. It is required from all cabinet
ministers & other members of the Parliament to refrain from discussing the Parliament
proceedings outside. All differences must be kept secret.

3. Supremacy of Prime Minister

In parliamentary system, Prime Minister is very important and has a lot of powers. In
legislature, he is leader of the house while in executive he is leader of the council of
ministers. Prime Minister is to appoint, remove, allot portfolios and supervises the activities
of his ministers. He acts as a bridge between cabinet and president. On his resignation,
the council of ministers must resign.

4. Coordination of Powers
It is the basic principle of this system that two organs, legislature and executive share their
powers. In this system, both the organs (legislature and executive) are dependent upon
each other. In different constitutional ways, they interfere in each other affairs. For
example, maximum bills are presented in the legislature by the ministers; they can take
part in legislation, address legislature to call its meetings. On contrary, parliament can
question the activities of the cabinet members, present various motions and remove
cabinet through no confidence. Both govt. organs have strong check upon each other.

5. Political Collective Responsibility

The cabinet is collectively responsible before legislature. Activities of the cabinet can be
questioned and checked by legislature through various constitutional means. Cabinet
members (ministers) are responsible before people through their elected representatives.
People can present their grievances through their representatives and ministers are
accountable before people.

6. Term
Term of cabinet is fixed by the constitution but not in rigid sense. A minister may be
removed or changed any time. Parliament can be dissolved during the national
emergencies. If parliament is dissolved, government no longer remains in office.
 Parliament, through no-confidence movement against any particular minister, Prime
Minister or against the whole cabinet, can remove the ruling government.
7. Two Executives
Another characteristic of parliamentary system is, that there are two types of executive i.e.
titular executive and real executive. Titular executive (also called de jure) is head of the
state for example the President. This type executive is mere a symbolic or constitutional
head of state. On the other side, the Prime minister is the real executive (de facto
executive). The Prime Minister is to exercise real powers of the state and is head of govt.

 MERITS:

1. Harmony between Legislature and Executive:

The greatest advantage of the parliamentary system is that it ensures harmonious
relationship and cooperation between the legislative and executive organs of the
government. The executive is a part of the legislature and both are inter dependent
at work. As a result, there is less scope for disputes and conflicts between the two
organs.

2. Responsible Government:
The parliamentary system establishes a responsible government. The ministers are
responsible to the Parliament for all their acts of omission and commission. The
Parliament exercises control over the ministers through various devices like question
hour, discussions, adjournment motion, no confidence motion, etc. Being conscious
of this, they try to remain ‘clean’. The opposition, being the watchdog of the
government, will expose a corrupt / inefficient government.

3. Prevents Despotism:
Under this system, the executive authority is vested in a group of individuals (council
of ministers) and not in a single person. This dispersal of authority checks the
dictatorial tendencies of the executive. Moreover, the executive is responsible to the
Parliament and can be removed by a no-confidence motion.

4. Wide Representation: In a parliamentary system, it is possible to provide

representation to all sections and regions in the government. The prime minister
while selecting his ministers can take this factor into consideration.

5. Educational Value:
The policies and programmes of the government as well as various problems of
people are discussed on the floor of the legislature through speeches and questions
and answers. The ministers, being the members of the legislature, have to respond
to the issues raised by the members of the legislature. Further, at the time of
elections, several important and critical issues are discussed by different political
parties while trying to get the votes of people. All this helps in increasing people’s
political consciousness and moulding the public opinion. Thus, the Parliamentary
form of government has great value from the point of view of people’s political
education.

 DEMERITS:

1. Political instability:
Parliamentary government is commonly associated with political instability. If there are
three or more parties and none of them is in clear majority in the parliament, coalition
governments may be formed. Coalition governments are constantly under the threat of
losing the support of allies and their major efforts are directed towards satisfying these
allies at the cost of national programme. These governments may have short life as they
 tend to collapse because of infighting. No effective governance is possible when
governments change quickly.
2. No separation of powers:
Firstly, it violates the theory of separation of powers. As the ministers are the members of
the ruling party or coalition, they dominate policy-making though, in principle, policy-
making is the domain of the legislature.

3. Dictatorship of Cabinet:
The common party affiliation of the Executive and majority of the Legislature also leads to
what is famously called the tyranny of the Cabinet. If the Cabinet is sure of majority
support in the parliament, it may take decisions according to its own interests, unheeding
to prudence or public opinion. The Executive often becomes dictatorial. It may ignore not
only criticism by the opposition but even public opinion.

4. Failure to Take Prompt Decision:

There is no question that with a parliamentary form of government, the prime minister's
term is always uncertain since the parliament may fire him at any time with a "vote of no
confidence". As the Council of Ministers does not enjoy a fixed tenure, it is not able to
adopt any bold, long-term policy. The problem is compounded in a coalition government
which is often unstable. The coalition partners tend to fight among themselves. As a result,
they fail to adopt any bold policy.

5. Government by amateurs:
The Parliamentary government lacks competence and effectiveness, because the
ministers are mostly amateurs. As the ministers have to be appointed from among the
members of the legislature, the scope for appointing talented and competent people as
ministers is limited. Many times, important considerations in appointing ministers are not
skill, competence and talent but caste, religion, community faction and influence in the
party.

 PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT:

The Presidential form of government is the kind of government where the President
holds the executive power and complete authority over the functioning and administration
of the country. This system is also known as the single executive system. In this system of
government, the President is independent of the legislature on a constitutional basis. The
President acts both as the Head of State and Head of Government in this form of govt. A
Presidential system of government provides complete power to the President of the nation.
Unlike in the Parliamentary form of government, where the Prime Minister possesses all
the executive authority, here the President controls the administration and functioning of
the government and is the Head of the Government along with being the Head of State.

 Features of Presidential System :

1. Single Executive: In a presidential system of Government, one of the features is the

existence of a single executive which means that the executive arm of the government is
headed by a single person who is the head of state and the head of the government which
means he performs both the ceremonial functions and the governmental functions, he is
known as the president.

2. Fixed Term of Office: In a presidential system of government, the president is elected

for a particular term of office, which differs in countries as each country has a different
constitution. The president is therefore elected for a constitutionally accepted fixed term in
office. The elections which are held periodically cannot be triggered by a vote of no
confidence or other parliamentary procedures, however, in some countries; there is
 provision for an exception which provides for the impeachment i.e. express removal of the
president who has broken the law.
3. Presidential Pardon: A feature of a presidential system of government is presidential
pardon. A president can grant pardon to a convict who has a life sentence, death sentence
or a long sentence and this is solely at his own discretion.

4. Political homogeneity not necessary: It is not necessary that all cabinet members
should belong to same political party.

5. Veto power: Acts of the legislature can be vetoed by the executive i.e. the President,
who has the power to veto acts or laws passed by legislature. In essence, veto refers to
the President's ability to accept, refuse, or pass a joint resolution to block the passage of a
bill.

6. Ministers are Accountable to the President: In a Presidential government, the

President has real administrative powers and exercises all of the authorities granted
to him by the constitution and the law. The President picks his ministers and these
ministers are not members of the legislature. They are chosen based on their
experience and expertise. The minsters assist the president in administration, and
whether or not the president accepts or rejects their advice is up to the president. If
the President is dissatisfied with them, he has the authority to remove them from
office.

 MERITS:

1. Expert Government: In the presidential system of government, the president uses his
discretion to appoint his ministers and other government appointees. Ministers could be
chosen from outside the president’s party. This confers a high degree of latitude on the
president to select the best materials from any part of the country.

2. Stability: The fixed tenure in the office enjoyed by the president under the presidential
system makes for the stability of the government and the continuity of policies. A stable
government allows for both medium- and long-term planning, rather than the instability that
characterizes a parliamentary system of government.

3. Promptness in Decision-making: The presidential system of government makes for

decisive actions. The president is at liberty to either consult his ministers or any of them or
refuse to seek their opinion in taking decisions. This promptness in decision-making
therefore makes the response of the government to issues quick and decisive, especially
in situations where any delay in taking action may be dangerous.

4. Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: The mechanism of separation of

power that exists in this form of govt. enhances the performance of each organ of
government in its functions because there is clear demarcation between the three organs
of government. Checks and balances also ensure that a dictatorial president can be
brought under constitutional checks. The combination of the two mechanisms improves
the performance of government.
 DEMERITS:
1. Prone to Dictatorship: The presidential system is prone to dictatorship or abuse of office,
which is dangerous to the democratic process. This is a result of enormous power that is
constitutionally allotted to the office of the president. Presidential system focuses too much
on the personality of the president and his capacity, and when the individual is
undermined, the office is undermined and the system may even be threatened.
2. Friction among Government Organs: Separation of powers can cause delays in the
execution of government policies and programmes, especially in situations where
executive-legislative relations are not properly managed. In less matured democracies of
the developing world, this problem is more acute when different political parties are in
control of the executive and the legislature.

3. Inelastic: The biggest demerit of this system is that it is inelastic structure and uncertain in
fixing up the final responsibility. It is inelastic because, once the President has been
elected, the nation must continue with him, no matter whether it likes or dislikes his
policies. The process of impeachment is highly rigid and complicated and thus the
successful impeachment of a dissatisfactory president is a rare case.

4. Lack of accountability: There is no continuous accountability of the executive to the

representatives of the people in the legislature. The fixed term of office of the executive
also curtails responsiveness to public opinion and results in complacence on the part of
the executive.

5. Rigidity: Presidential systems are often accused of being rigid. It lacks flexibility.
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PARLIAMENTARY AND PRESIDENTIAL GOVT. :

Parliamentary Form of Presidential Form of

Basis
Government Government
It is a form of governance in
It is a type of governance in which
which the executive, judiciary,
the legislative and the executive
and legislature all act
branch are intimately correlated.
independently of one another.
Meaning
It is a form of government in which
The President serves as the
citizens elect representatives to the
chief executive and is directly
legislative body.
chosen by the people.
Dual executive as leader of the
a single executive as the
state and leader of the government
head of the state and the
are different.
head of the government is the
same.
Executive The executive is divided into two
components under parliamentary
The President is the head of
government: the Head of State
the Presidential form of
(President) and the Head of
government.
Government (Prime Minister).
Belong to the ruling party and are
Members of Parliament. Can be chosen from outside
Ministers the legislature, and are
Generally, no outsider is allowed to usually industry experts.
become a minister.
Executive not accountable to
Executive accountable to
Legislature.
Legislature.
With contrast, in a
The parliamentary system of
Accountability presidential form of
government is one in which the
government, the three
legislative and executive bodies
branches of government
work in tandem, but the judiciary
operate independently of one
branch operates independently.
another.
Dissolution of The Prime Minister is able to The President cannot
the lower house dissolve the lower house. dissolve the lower house.
Prime Minister’s tenure depends
Tenure upon majority support in the Fixed tenure for President.
Parliament. Thus, it is not fixed.
Separation of The principle of Separation of
No clear-cut separation of power.
Powers powers is strictly followed.
Party discipline is
Party Discipline Stronger party discipline
comparatively less
Autocracy Less autocratic More autocratic.
Costa Rica and the United
Examples India and The United Kingdom
States
 ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT:
The organs of the government are so structured so that they can adequately perform their
functions. The system of dividing powers among various organs of government is called
“Separation of powers”
Three organs of Government:
1. Legislature (makes laws)
2. Executive (implements laws)
3. Judiciary (interprets laws and decides cases)

1. LEGISLATURE:
The legislature is that organ of the government which passes the laws of the government.
It is the agency which has the responsibility to formulate the will of the state and vest it
with legal authority and force. In simple words, the legislature is that organ of the
government which formulates laws. Legislature enjoys a very special and important in
every democratic state. It is the assembly of the elected representatives of the people and
represents national public opinion and power of the people. The term “parliament” is used
synonymous to legislature because in practice the legislature exists in the form of
parliament (in parliamentary form of govt.)

 FUNCTIONS OF LEGISLATURE:
1. Legislative or Law-making Functions:
The first and foremost function of a legislature is to legislate i.e. to make laws. In ancient
times, laws used to be either derived from customs, traditions and religious scriptures, or
were issued by the kings as their commands. However, in the contemporary era of
democracy, legislature is the chief source of law. It is the legislature which formulates the
will of the state into laws and gives it a legal character. Legislature transforms the
demands of the people into authoritative laws/statutes.

2. Deliberative Functions:
To deliberate upon matters of national importance, public issues, problems and needs is
an important function of a modern legislature. Through this function, the legislature reflects
the public opinion over various issues. The debates held in the legislature have a great
educative value for the people.

3. Custodian of National Finances:

A near universal rule is that “the legislature of the state is the custodian of national purse.”
It holds the purse of the nation and controls the finances. No money can be raised or spent
by the executive without the approval of the legislature. Each year the executive has to
prepare and get passed from the legislature the budget for the coming financial year. In
the budget, the executive has to place the account of the actual income and expenditure of
the previous year and estimated income and expenditure for the New Year.

4. Electoral Functions:
A legislature usually performs some electoral functions. The two houses of the Indian
Parliament elect the Vice-President. All elected MPs and MLAs form the Electoral College
which elects the President of India. In Switzerland, the Federal Legislature elects the
members of the Federal Council (Executive) and the Federal Tribunal (Judiciary).
 5. Ventilation of Grievances:
A legislature acts as the highest forum for ventilation of public grievances against the
executive. Besides representing every interest and shade of opinion, the legislature acts
as the national forum for expressing public opinion, public grievances and public
aspirations. Parliamentary debates and discussions throw a flood light over various issues
of public importance.

 TYPES OF LEGISLATURE:
There are two types of the legislature: unicameral and bicameral.

1. Unicameral Legislature
The practice of having only one parliamentary or legislative chamber to perform functions
of legislature such as passing a budget, enacting laws, overseeing the administration, and
discussing matters of national or international importance is referred to as a unicameral
legislature. Most countries globally, such as Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, Iran,
Hungary, China, and Sri Lanka, have a unicameral legislature.
This type of the legislature is thought to be the most productive because the legislative
process is straightforward, and there are fewer deadlocks or gridlocks. Furthermore, a
one-chamber government requires fewer resources and can be controlled by fewer MPs,
allowing the government to save money and time.

2. Bicameral Legislature
A country’s law-making body with two different houses, assemblies, or chambers to
execute legislative responsibilities such as enacting laws, passing the budget, and so on is
known as a bicameral legislature. Its primary goal is to represent individuals from all walks
of life in the country. India, Canada, Japan, Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom are
among the countries that have adopted the bicameral legislature. To choose members of
the two chambers, each country has its system. The number of seats, powers, voting
methods and other characteristics of these chambers or houses vary. Eg- The two houses
of Parliament in India are Lok Sabha (House of the people or lower house) and Rajya
Sabha (Council of states or Upper House).

2. EXECUTIVE:
It is that organ which implements the laws passed by the legislature and the policies of the
government. In common usage people tend to identify the executive with the government.
In contemporary times, there has taken place a big increase in the power and role of the
executive in every state. The executive includes the political executive (Ministers and
Head of State) and the non-political permanent executive (Civil Service or Bureaucracy).

(i) The Political Executive (Ministers):

It consists of the executive head of the state and other heads of the executive departments
is ministers. Ministers are political leaders. They are mostly elected representative of the
people and responsible for all their decisions and policies before the public.
It acts as a temporary executive in the sense that it changes after every election. After
completing their tenure, ministers have to again contest elections. The ministers are
amateurs, non-experts and non-professionals. Their function is to formulate policies and
get these policies and laws approved from the Legislature. Each minister is head of a
department or some of the government. Thus, political executives head the government.
 (ii) The Non-political Permanent Executive (Civil Servants):
It consists of the civil servants (Bureaucracy) from the lowest to the highest levels. It
carries out the day to day administration by working in the government departments. The
civil servants do not owe allegiance to any political party. Their job is to carry out the laws
and policies of the government without any political consideration. They are specially
educated and trained persons. They give expert advice and opinion to the political
executive on the basis of which the latter takes all decisions. Once appointed, the civil
servants remain in office till the attainment of the retirement age. They get regular and
fixed salaries and are hierarchically organised into higher and lower relationships.

 FUNCTIONS OF EXECUTIVE:
1. Enforcement of Laws:
The primary function of executive is to enforce laws and to maintain law and order in the
state. Whenever a breach of law takes place, it is the responsibility of the executive to plug
the breach and bring the offenders to book. Each government department is responsible
for the implementation of the laws and policies concerning its work. For maintaining law
and order in the state, the executive organises and maintains the police force.

2. Treaty-making Functions:
It is the responsibility of the executive to decide as to which treaties are to be signed with
which other countries. The executive negotiates the treaties in accordance with the
procedure defined by international law and also in accordance with the provisions the
constitution of the state. Each treaty is signed by a member of the executive. Most of the
treaties also require ratification by the legislature of the State. It is again the responsibility
of the executive to secure legislative approval for the treaties signed by it.

3. Defence, War and Peace Functions:

One of the key functions of the state is to defend and preserve the unity and integrity of the
country and protect it in the event of an external aggression or war. It is the responsibility
of the executive to undertake this work. To organise military for the defence of the state, to
prepare for and fight the war, if it becomes necessary, and to negotiate and sign peace
settlement after every war, are the functions performed by the executive. It has the prime
responsibility to take all such steps as are needed in the interest of the security and
integrity of the state. The chief executive of the state is also the supreme commander of
the armed forces of the state.

4. Foreign Policy-making and the Conduct of Foreign Relations:

The function of formulating the foreign policy of the state and maintaining foreign relations
is also performed by the executive. The executive formulates the goals of national interest
and fixes the priorities. It first formulates the foreign policy of the nation and then
implements it for securing the defined goals of national interest. The executive appoints
the ambassadors of the state to other states.

5. Financial Functions:
The executive exercises a number of financial functions. It has the responsibility to prepare
the budget. It proposes the levy of new taxes or changes in tax structure and
administration. It collects and spends the money as sanctioned by the legislature. It
formulates all economic policies and plans. It takes suitable measures for regulating the
production and distribution of goods, money supply, prices and exports and imports. It
 contracts foreign loans, negotiates foreign aid and maintains the financial credibility of the
state.
6. Semi-Judicial Functions:
The appointment of judges by the executive is regarded as the best method for ensuring
the independence of judiciary. In almost all democratic systems, the chief executive has
the power to appoint judges. Further, he has the right to grant pardon to criminals. Under
the system of administrative adjudication, the executive agencies have the power to hear
and decide cases involving particular fields of administrative activity.

7. Grant of Titles and Honours:

Another important function of the executive is to grant titles and honours to the people in
recognition of their meritorious services to the nation. Such persons who do commendable
work in their respective spheres of activity—Art, Science, Literature etc. are granted titles
by the executive. It also grants titles to such defence personnel who show exemplary
courage and devotion to duty during war or peace. Even ordinary citizens are granted
honours in recognition of their meritorious work for the society. All decisions in this respect
are taken by the executive.

3. JUDICIARY:
It has the responsibility to apply the laws to specific cases and settle all disputes. The real
‘meaning of law’ is what the judges decide during the course of giving their judgements in
various cases. From the citizen’s point of view, Judiciary is the most important organ of the
government because it acts as their protector against the possible excesses of legislative
and executive organs. It has the role of guardian-protector of the constitution and the
fundamental rights of the people.

 FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIARY:

1. To Give Justice to the people:

The first and foremost function of the judiciary is to give justice to the people, whenever
they may approach it. It awards punishment to those who after trial are found guilty of
violating the laws of the state or the rights of the people. The judiciary fixes the quantity
and quality of punishment to be given to the criminals.

2. Interpretation and Application of Laws:

One of the major functions of the judiciary is to interpret and apply laws to specific cases.
In the course of deciding the disputes that come before it, the judges interpret and apply
laws. Every law needs a proper interpretation for getting applied to every specific case.
This function is performed by the judges. The law means what the judges interpret it to
mean.

3. Equity Legislation:
Where a law is silent or ambiguous, or appears to be inconsistent with some other law of
the land, the judges depend upon their sense of justice, fairness, impartiality, honesty and
wisdom for deciding the cases. Such decisions always involve law-making. It is usually
termed as equity legislation.

4. Protection of Rights:
The judiciary has the supreme responsibility to safeguard the rights of the people. A citizen
has the right to seek the protection of the judiciary in case his rights are violated or
threatened to be violated by the government or by private organisations or fellow citizens.
 In all such cases, it becomes the responsibility of the judiciary to protect his rights of the
people.
5. Guardian of the Constitution:
The judiciary acts as the guardian of the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law
of the land and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to interpret and protect it. For this
purpose the judiciary can conduct judicial review over any law for determining as to
whether or not it is in accordance with the letter and spirit of the constitution. In case any
law is found unconstitutional, it is rejected by the judiciary and it becomes invalid for future.
This power of the court is called the power of judicial review.

6. Power to get its Decisions and Judgements enforced:

The judiciary has the power not only to deliver judgements and decide disputes, but also to
get these enforced. It can direct the executive to carry out its decisions. It can summon
any person and directly know the truth from him.
In case any person is held:
(i) Guilty of not following any decision of the court, or
(ii) Of acting against the direction of the court, or
(iii) Misleading the court, or
(iv) Of not appearing before the court in a case being heard by it, the Court has the power
to punish the person for the contempt of court.

7. Advisory Functions:
Very often the courts are given the responsibility to give advisory opinions to the rulers on
any legal matter. For example, the President of India has the power to refer to the
Supreme Court for any question of law or fact which is of public importance.

8. To Conduct Judicial Inquiries:

Judges are very often called upon to head Enquiry Commissions constituted to enquire
into some serious incidents resulting from the alleged errors or omissions on the part of
government or some public servants. Commissions of enquiry headed by a single judge
are also sometimes constituted for investigating important and complicated issues and
problems.

9. Arbitration of Centre-State disputes in a federal government:

In a federal system, the judiciary has to perform an additionally important role as the
guardian of the constitution and the arbiter of disputes between the centre and states. It
acts as an independent and impartial umpire between the central government and state
governments as well as among the states. All legal centre-state disputes are settled by the
judiciary.
 UNIT-3: SOVEREIGNTY
 Definitions:
- The term 'sovereignty' is derived from the Latin word ‘superanus’ meaning supreme. Thus
sovereignty denotes supremacy or supreme power of the state.

- JW Garner has defined sovereignty as the 'characteristic of the state in virtue of which it
cannot be legally bound except by its own will or limited by any other power than itself.’

- Sovereignty basically refers to the ultimate authority, in the decision-making process of

the state and in the maintenance of order.

- The sovereign (the person, assembly or group which holds the power of sovereignty within
a state) acts according to his own will and conscience but in accordance with sense of
morality and justice and regard to prevalent customs, social values, norms and ideals and
must also align with public interest and needs.

- Sovereignty arms the state with supreme legal authority in both internal and external
spheres. The two aspects of sovereignty are explained as follows:

- Internal Sovereignty:
It establishes supremacy of the state over all individuals and associations. It permits
exercising supreme control over all citizens, organisations, and associations within the
state’s territory. The state can exercise control by establishing laws, enforcing laws, and
punishing those who violate them. In other words, internal sovereignty ensures or
authorises a state to have the final word in all the matters that involve the state’s internal
affairs.

- External Sovereignty:
External sovereignty means “sovereign equality” of all states. It upholds independence of
the state from the control or interference of any other state in the conduct of its
international relations. Externally, all the states enjoy the same status on the international
level, and no state can exercise control or authority over any other state. Any state is free
to pursue its independent foreign policy and declare war and peace. In other words, in
external sovereignty, a state will not face any interference from the other state.

 CHARACTERISTICS/FEATURES OF SOVEREIGNTY:

• Absoluteness:
Sovereignty is held in high regard. This means that no power exists within or outside the
state that is greater than the sovereign. In the state, the sovereign's will is supreme. It is
independent of any individual or group within the state. No other authority within the state
can claim sovereignty, and no outside authority can intervene in the affairs of a sovereign
state. It also implies that the state’s obedience to international law is because of its own
consent and not because of being subordinate to any other entity. Both inside and outside
the state, the state wields absolute power.

• Permanence:
Sovereignty is permanent. A state's sovereignty lasts for the same amount of time as an
independent state. Because the ruler exercises sovereign power on behalf of the state, the
death of a king or president, or the overthrow of the government, does not mean the end of
sovereignty. Sovereignty lasts as long as the state lasts. A state cannot exist without
sovereignty. Sovereignty is required for the state to exist.
 • Universality:
Universality is another important feature of sovereignty. In the sense that it extends to all
individuals, groups, areas, and things within the state, sovereignty is a universal, all-
pervasive, or all-comprehensive quality. The state has sovereign authority over its entire
territory. No individual or group of individuals can claim automatic exemption. Extra
territorial affairs such as embassy and diplomatic immunity granted to diplomats from other
countries, are a matter of international courtesy rather than necessity, and are thus a part
of sovereign’s will.

• Inalienability:
Sovereignty cannot be taken away. It implies that the state cannot to relinquish its
sovereignty. If a state transfers its sovereignty to another state, it ceases to exist as a
sovereign institution. There will be no state if sovereignty is separated or alienated from
the state. They exist in the same space as one another. Thus, when a state loses a part of
its territory, the lost area’s sovereignty isn’t separated from it but replaced a different
sovereignty of another state.

• Indivisibility:
Because sovereignty is an absolute power, it cannot be divided among individuals or
groups. Every state's sovereignty must be vested in a single legally competent body
capable of issuing final orders. As a result of the division of sovereignty, there will
inevitably be conflicting and ambiguous commands. Supremacy is destroyed when
sovereignty is divided or fragmented. Sovereignty does not exist in parts; it exists as a
whole. It must also be noted that a federal structure of government does not mean
divisibility of sovereignty; it only implies division of power. Sovereignty lies with the state,
power lies with the government.

 ASPECTS/KINDS/TYPES OF SOVEREIGNTY:

• Titular Sovereignty and Real Sovereignty:

A titular sovereign is one who is only sovereign in name and not in reality. Although power
is vested in one person outwardly, the real power is held by another. This is the case in
constitutional monarchies like England. In England, the King or Queen is only the nominal
ruler; he or she has no real power. The Prime Minister is the real sovereign who wields
actual powers. In the case of India, the President is the nominal sovereign, while the real
power is held by the Council of Ministers, led by the Prime Minister, who is the true
sovereign.

• De facto and de jure Sovereignty:

In some cases, such as in the case of a military takeover, the existing regime in a state is
overthrown through unconstitutional means. In such a situation, there may be two
sovereigns—one in the legal sense, who has lost his real powers, and the other in the
practical sense, who has not yet been legally established. Although the de-facto sovereign
has no legal claim to obedience, he is a practical sovereign whose authority is based on
physical force or moral persuasion, and the people are forced to obey him. The legal or
formal sovereign retains de-jure sovereignty while the actual sovereign is said to be the
de-facto sovereign in such circumstances. The military general or the conqueror becomes
the de-facto or actual sovereign with real powers, while the dethroned regime retains de-
jure sovereignty and remains the legal or formal sovereign. The de-facto sovereign may
eventually become a de jure sovereign by securing the consent of the people through
elections or other means. The case of Spain under General Franco, who captured the
state's authority by defeating the Republican Government of Spain, is a classic example of
de-facto sovereignty. Though he began to rule by force, he gradually attempted to become
a de-jure sovereign by gaining the people's consent.
 Legal Sovereignty:
Legal sovereignty is that authority of the state which has the legal power to issue final
commands. It is the authority of the state to whose directions the law of the State attributes
final legal force. In every independent and ordered state there are some laws which must
be obeyed by the people and there must be a power to issue and enforce these laws.
Legal sovereignty is the power which encompasses the legal authority to issue and
enforce these. The authority of the legal sovereign is absolute and law is simply the will of
the sovereign. The authority of the sovereign is unrestrained. It is the legal sovereign who
grants and enforces all the rights enjoyed by the citizens and, therefore, there cannot be
any right against him. The legal sovereign is, thus, always definite and determinate. Legal
sovereign could be a monarch or a body of persons in the form of parliament in a
democracy.

 Political Sovereignty:
Dicey believes that “behind the sovereign which the lawyer recognises, there is another
sovereign to whom the legal sovereign must bow. Such sovereign to whom the legal
sovereign must bow is called political sovereign. Political sovereign in the representative
democracies, means the whole mass of the people or the electorate or the public opinion.
But at the same time, it cannot be emphatically asserted that political sovereignty can
definitely be identified with the whole mass of the people, the electorate or the public
opinion because public opinion is highly variable, inconsistent and susceptible to influence
and also electorate is influenced by a lot of factors like religion, caste, party politics etc
while voting and decision making process. Political sovereignty is a vague and
indeterminate term.

 Popular sovereignty:
Popular sovereignty basically means the power of the masses as contrasted with the
power of the individual ruler of the class. Popular sovereignty means that sovereignty lies
in the hands of the people. The basis of the governing power of the government is public
support. It implies manhood, suffrage, with each individual having only one vote and the
control of the legislature by the representatives of the people. In popular sovereignty public
is regarded as supreme. In the ancient times many writers on Political Science used
popular sovereignty as a weapon to refute absolutism of the monarchs.
 MONISM/JOHN AUSTIN’S THEORY OF SOVEREIGNTY:

John Austin was an English writer. In the 19th century, he gave the theory of sovereignty
from legal point of view in details. In 1832 he established his point of view in his "Lectures
on jurisprudence." Austin’s ideas were impacted by the ideas of Bentham and Hobbes.

Features of his theory:

1. Sovereignty is inevitable in a state.

According to Austin, the presence of sovereignty is essential in a political society or state.
This sovereignty resides in a person or a group of persons. In the absence of a definite
sovereign, the society cannot be called independent and political. This very sovereign
frames the laws and gets them obeyed.

2. Sovereignty must be definite.

According to Austin, sovereignty must reside in a definite person or group of persons,
which may be recognised and may be shown. If sovereignty resides in a group of persons,
that group of persons must be definite because the form of Austin's sovereignty is legal.
Therefore, it is necessary that, in a state, there should be a definite authority that should
be the source of law.

3. The sovereign power is unlimited.

According to Austin, the sovereign has the unlimited power. On the one hand, his orders
are obeyed by all the persons and associations; on the other hand, he does not obey the
orders of anyone else like himself. Therefore, the will of the sovereign is supreme and
unrestrained.

4. Sovereignty is indivisible.
Austin says that sovereignty is a unit in itself and it cannot be divided. It cannot be divided
among various associations because its division will destroy it.

5. Freedom from internal and external control.

The sovereign need not obey the orders of any superior person. All the individuals and
associations within the state have to obey his orders. His power is supreme; therefore, he
is free from external and internal control.

6. The sovereign is not bound by laws.

The order of the sovereign is law. In fact, the show of his will is laws, because law
indicates his will. Therefore, law can neither bind him, nor control him.

 Criticism of this theory:

Austin's theory has been criticised on various grounds. Lord Bryce, Sir Henry Maine,
Sidgwick etc. are the main critics. Austin does not limit the authority of the sovereign,
whereas, according to his critics, every government of the world is limited.

(1) Sovereignty cannot be definite. (Point 2)

According to Austin, it is necessary for sovereignty to be definite. It is possible that Austin
was right from legal point of view. But, in democracy, which is more based on popular
sovereignty, the sovereignty cannot be definite. According to John Chipman Gray, "The
real rulers of the society are undiscoverable".

(2) Sovereignty is limited. (Point 3)

According to Austin sovereignty is fully free internally and externally. Its power is unlimited,
but actually it is not so. In fact, sovereignty in every country is limited by many factors such
as associations, international law etc. Laski says that "The associations are in their sphere
not less sovereign than the state itself."
(3) It is not applicable to democracies. (Point 4)
According to Sir Henry Maine, sovereignty resides in the people, but Austin does not admit
it. Austin considers only the legal aspect of it, but ignores the existence and importance of
popular sovereignty and political sovereignty in a state. The theory of popular sovereignty
is the supporter of democracy, but the state discussed by Austin cannot be democratic.

(4) It is not applicable on federations. (Point 4)

In federations, the powers being divided between the centre and the states, the power is
issued at both the places, and sovereignty lies in the constitution, not in a person or group
of people. This point is applicable in India and the U.S.A.

(5) Basis of obedience is not power. (Point 5 and 6)

According to Austin, sovereign is supreme. Therefore, it gets the laws obeyed on the basis
of his power, and the people obey the laws mostly because of the fear of sovereign power.
But the basis of obedience of laws is the will of the people not force.

(6) Order of the sovereign is not law. (Point 6)

According to Austin, an order issued by the sovereign is law. But this is not true. There are
certain moral, religious and traditional such laws which are more effective than the laws
framed by the state. Besides, the laws are not orders of some supreme person. Laws are
framed by the people on the basis of public opinion.
 PLURALISTIC THEORY OF SOVEREIGNTY:
The Pluralistic theory was given primarily by Harold. J. Laski. According to him, a state
does not have a single source of authority that is all competent and comprehensive.
According to the Pluralists, sovereignty resides not just with the state but with many other
institutions. Pluralistic theory advocates division or sharing of sovereignty on group basis,
and limited sphere of state action, implying that State is not the only supreme institution.

- Pluralists view modern society as a web of associations. These associations, which

emerge naturally to fulfil the diverse needs and aspirations of the members of a society,
must have functional freedom and the state which is just one among numerous
associations must not claim monopoly over sovereignty.

- There exist many social, political, cultural and economic institutions in society and many of
these institutions have existed prior to the State. For example, Family and Church have
existed prior to the origin of State. Thus, like other institutions the State is also one of the
institutions of society and not an supreme authority.

- Pluralists believe that laws do not emanate from a single source but are to be seen as an
expression of multiple associations that make up the community.

- The pluralists pointed out that the concept of state claiming legal omnipotence, is invalid.
They argued that no matter however majestic and powerful the state is, yet it was only one
of many associations in society. Thus, practically there were always limits to powers, and
these were set by the relation between the purpose the state sought to fulfil and the
judgment made by men of that purpose.

- The Pluralistic theory emphasizes on the sociological aspect of the state, in contrast to the
monistic theory which emphasizes on the legal aspect of the state.

- The Pluralists believe that the state is an amalgam of agencies and persons with different
objectives and means of decision.

- It is tyrannical to treat state as the only source and upholder of power.

- State is not the absolute sovereign because all the other associations and institutions
existing alongside are also sovereign in their own respective areas.

- State shouldn’t have the absolute authority but it should act as a coordinator between
other associations. Pluralists do not wish to abolish the state but to just limit its functions.

- As regards to the social structure, the pluralists believe that society is associational and
the state cannot be an alternative to associations. Also, state is man made so it must be
controlled by men, not vice versa.

 Criticism of this theory:

- It is said that the logical conclusion of the theory of pluralism is anarchism. Anarchism is
an ideology that is defined by the central belief that political authority in all its form and
especially in the form of the state is both evil and unnecessary. Anarchy literally means
‘without rule’.

- The pluralists forget that the state is a unifying force which cannot be challenged by others
in order to avoid social conflict unified power must be given to the state.
- The pluralistic theory of sovereignty implies superiority of the interest of the dominant
group over those of the vulnerable groups or sections of the society.

- This theory equates the power of the state with other associations and puts them in the
same category but the reality is that it is in the interest of associations that more power is
vested in the State.

- Division of sovereignty among different associations is not only impossible but also
improper division of sovereignty in fact will lead to destruction of sovereignty.