An Introduction to Insect Behavior

By:

Dr. Muhammad Irfan Ullah

Dr. Muhammad Afzal

Department of Entomology

University of Sargodha, Sargodha

HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION

ISLAMABAD – PAKISTAN
 Copyrights @ Higher Education Commission

Islamabad

Lahore Karachi Peshawar Quetta

All rights are reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form
or by any means – including, but not limited to, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording,
or, otherwise or used for any commercial purpose what so ever without the prior written permission
of the publisher and, if publisher considers necessary, formal license agreement with publisher
may be executed.

Project: “Monograph and Textbook Writing Scheme” aims to develop a culture of writing and to
develop authorship cadre among teaching and researcher community of higher education
institutions in the country. For information please visit: [Link]

HEC – Cataloging in Publication (CIP Data):

Irfan ullah, Muhammad.

An Introduction to Insect Behavior. / Dr Muhammad Irfan ullah.

1. Insects Behavior. 2. Insects- Evaluation.

[Link]. II. Muhammad Afzal

595.7.—ddc23.

ISBN: 978-969-417-204-0

First Edition: 2018

Copies Printed: 500

Published By: Higher Education Commission – Pakistan

ii
Disclaimer: The publisher has used its best efforts for this publication through a rigorous system of
evaluation and quality standards, but does not assume, and hereby disclaims, any liability to any person
for any loss or damage caused by the errors or omissions in this publication, whether such errors or
emissions result from negligence, accident, or any other cause.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ VII

PREFACE ....................................................................................................................................... IX
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................. XI
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................................XIII
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................XIII
CHAPTER 1: INSECT BEHAVIOR .................................................................................................. 1
HISTORY ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Case study: Why beetles have high numbers? .............................................................................. 3
TYPES OF BEHAVIOR .................................................................................................................................. 4
Innate behavior .................................................................................................................................... 4
Fixed action Patterns (FAPs)............................................................................................................. 5
Learned behavior ................................................................................................................................ 5
Complex Behavior ............................................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 2: MECHANISM OF INSECT BEHAVIOR .................................................................... 7
SENSORY PERCEPTION IN INSECTS ............................................................................................................ 7
Mechanoreceptors .............................................................................................................................. 7
Hygroreceptors .................................................................................................................................... 8
Chemoreceptors .................................................................................................................................. 8
Thermoreceptors ................................................................................................................................. 9

iii
 Photoreceptors .................................................................................................................................... 9
NEURAL CONTROL OF INSECT BEHAVIOR ................................................................................................. 11
Mechanism of Neural control of Behavior ...................................................................................... 11
GENETIC CONTROL OF INSECT BEHAVIOR ................................................................................................ 13
Defined circuits .................................................................................................................................. 13
PHYSIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF INSECT BEHAVIOR .................................................................................... 13
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF INSECT BEHAVIOR................................................................................... 13
Weather .............................................................................................................................................. 13
Light ….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..13
Temperature ……………………………………………………………………………...……...... 14
Wind .………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...………………… 14
Rain …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14
Habitat ................................................................................................................................................. 14
Shortage of Food ............................................................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 3: PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR ...................................................................................15
COMMUNICATION ...................................................................................................................................... 15
Visual Communication ...................................................................................................................... 15
Acoustic communication .................................................................................................................. 16
Tactile communication ...................................................................................................................... 17
Chemical communication ................................................................................................................. 18
CHAPTER 4: BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF BEHAVIOR.............................................................21
HOST FINDING BEHAVIOR ......................................................................................................................... 21
Non-directed behavior ...................................................................................................................... 21
Directed behavior .............................................................................................................................. 21
Host selection in phytophagous insects ......................................................................................... 21
Sequential behavioral responses .................................................................................................... 21
Experience and learning .................................................................................................................. 22
Habituation ......................................................................................................................................... 22
Sensitization ....................................................................................................................................... 22
Associative learning .......................................................................................................................... 22
Induce preferences ........................................................................................................................... 23
Case Study: Detection of host plants in Homalodisca coagulate ............................................... 23
FEEDING BEHAVIOR .................................................................................................................................. 24
Why insects have discrete meals? ................................................................................................. 25
Start by feeding ................................................................................................................................. 25
Size of a meal .................................................................................................................................... 25
End of a meal ..................................................................................................................................... 26
Changes in feeding behavior ........................................................................................................... 26
REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR ....................................................................................................................... 27
Locating mates .................................................................................................................................. 27
Courtship ............................................................................................................................................ 27
Copulation .......................................................................................................................................... 27
Sexual differences in mating behavior ........................................................................................... 28
Mate rejection .................................................................................................................................... 28
Genetic quality and mate choice ..................................................................................................... 28
Aggregation signal ............................................................................................................................ 28
DEFENSE BEHAVIOR ................................................................................................................................. 28
Caterpillars ......................................................................................................................................... 29
Order Phasmatodea .......................................................................................................................... 29
Case Study: Defense behavior of honeybee against Vespa Velutina ....................................... 30
Order Hymenoptera .......................................................................................................................... 30

iv
 Blister Beetle ...................................................................................................................................... 30
OFFENSE BEHAVIOR ................................................................................................................................. 31
Physiological and morphological traits of herbivores ................................................................... 32
Morphological Adaptations............................................................................................................... 32
Galls and Induced Plant Susceptibility ........................................................................................... 32
PREDATION BEHAVIOR .............................................................................................................................. 33
Predator-prey interactions ................................................................................................................ 33
Insect Predator-Prey Interactions ................................................................................................... 34
Case Study: Predatory behavior of an araneophagic assassin bug .......................................... 34
Feeding Habits of Insect Predators ................................................................................................ 35
Habitat & prey location by insect predators ................................................................................... 35
Searching behavior ........................................................................................................................... 35
Prey Acceptance ............................................................................................................................... 36
DISPERSAL................................................................................................................................................ 36
MIGRATION ............................................................................................................................................... 37
The insect sun compass .................................................................................................................. 38
Time compensation by the circadian clock .................................................................................... 39
A magnetic compass for insect migration ...................................................................................... 39
Wind selection and drift compensation .......................................................................................... 39
SOCIAL BEHAVIOR .................................................................................................................................... 39
Cooperative living of Social insects ................................................................................................ 40
Altruism and Aggregation ................................................................................................................. 41
Altruism: the basis of eusocial insect societies ............................................................................. 41
Kinship and the origin of eusociality ............................................................................................... 41
AGGREGATION .......................................................................................................................................... 42
Case Study: Aggregation and environmental conditions ............................................................ 42
Aggregation of a mating strategy .................................................................................................... 43
Aggregation as a defensive strategy .............................................................................................. 43
Parental caring................................................................................................................................... 43
CHAPTER 5: BEHAVIOR AND ENVIRONMENT .........................................................................45
ORIENTATION ............................................................................................................................................ 45
MIGRATION AND NAVIGATION ................................................................................................................... 46
RESOURCE PARTITIONING AND TERRITORIALITY...................................................................................... 48
TERRITORIAL BEHAVIOR ........................................................................................................................... 49
RECOGNITION ........................................................................................................................................... 50
RECRUITMENT .......................................................................................................................................... 50
Competition among young colonies drives mortality.................................................................... 51
Territorial competition reduces colony growth .............................................................................. 51
Territorial competition can lower survivorship of established colonies...................................... 51
CHAPTER 6: BEHAVIOR AND PEST MANAGEMENT ...............................................................53
SAMPLING AND MONITORING ................................................................................................................... 53
Parameter-estimating sampling ...................................................................................................... 54
Decision-making sampling ............................................................................................................... 54
MONITORING STRATEGIES AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................... 54
SURVEYS, fiELD BASED AND fiXED POSITION MONITORING ....................................................................... 54
Sampling ............................................................................................................................................. 54
Random, stratified random and systematic sampling .................................................................. 55
Mass Trapping ................................................................................................................................... 55
PEST CONTROL ......................................................................................................................................... 55
Attract-and-Kill ................................................................................................................................... 55
Mating Disruption .............................................................................................................................. 55

v
 How Does Mating Disruption Work? .............................................................................................. 56
Use of Mating Disruption Products ................................................................................................. 56
Sprayable Pheromone Products ..................................................................................................... 56
Advantages of Mating Disruption .................................................................................................... 57
ATTRACTANTS .......................................................................................................................................... 57
HOST-PLANT VOLATILES AND IPM .......................................................................................................... 57
REPELLENTS ............................................................................................................................................. 58
HERBIVORE-INDUCED PLANT VOLATILES ................................................................................................ 58
PUSH-PULL STRATEGY ............................................................................................................................ 59
DISRUPTION OF HOST FINDING ................................................................................................................ 59
FARMER EDUCATION AND ADOPTION ...................................................................................................... 59
FUTURE DIRECTIONS................................................................................................................................ 60
CHAPTER 7: RESEARCH TOOLS AND EXPERIMENTATION ...................................................61
MATING BEHAVIOR ................................................................................................................................... 61
Attraction............................................................................................................................................. 61
The process of mating ...................................................................................................................... 61
MECHANISM OF ACHIEVING CHEMICAL COMMUNICATION......................................................................... 61
COURTSHIP BEHAVIOR ............................................................................................................................. 62
SOCIAL BEHAVIOR .................................................................................................................................... 63
COLONY ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................................................... 64
COLONY FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................ 64
Swarming ............................................................................................................................................ 64
Swarm intelligence ............................................................................................................................ 64
Locusts ................................................................................................................................................ 64
OTHER COLONIZING METHODS ................................................................................................................. 64
CHEMICAL COMMUNICATION .................................................................................................................... 64
Mechanism of Communication ........................................................................................................ 65
HOST FINDING BEHAVIOR ........................................................................................................................ 66
EXPERIENCE AND LEARNING .................................................................................................................... 67
ODOR PERCEPTION AND BEHAVIORAL SIGNIFICANCE .............................................................................. 67
TIME-DEPENDENT EFFECTS..................................................................................................................... 68
REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................69
INDEX .............................................................................................................................................87

vi
 DEDICATION

This attempt is dedicated to my teachers, collaborators and to all those who inspired me
for the completion of this task!

vii
viii
BLANK PAGE

ix
 PREFACE

For any living organism, behavior is considered the most important property due to its role in
biological adaptations. Behavior is principal aspect of organism for its interaction to surrounding
environment. This book represents the basic understanding about insect behavior. Study of insect
behavior is not only critical as a scientific field on its own, but this subject has also contributed to
other disciplines with applications to the study of human behavior, to the neurosciences, to the
environment and resource management, to the study of animal welfare and to the education of
future generations of scientists. Human curiosity is more interested in studying insect behavior than
neurons and neutrons. The amount of money and time spent on insect movies, films and nature
books clearly depicts that people are more interested knowing more about insects.

Research on insect behavior and behavioural ecology is growing in current years irrespective of
fewer amounts of funds available for research in this field. Molecular and physiological features of
biology and ecology are linked with insect behavior. This is important because environment and
organisms are bonded through behavior in way similar to that of nervous system and ecosystem.
Science Citation Index has ranked multiple journals of insect behavior in their impact like Animal
Behavior and Behavior Ecology and Socio-biology and zoological journals.

x
The key objective of this book is to prepare a brief draft to cater the needs of undergraduate and
graduate students. Many of the topics are supported with case studies to easily understand the
topic in debate. Many of the critical chapters are included in the introductory book like
communication, Foraging behavior, reproductive behavior, behavior and environment, types and
mechanism of behavior and so on. We are hopeful that the book on insect behavior will facilitate
the further study in this field with new research. Topics include characterizing how animals find and
defend their resources, how they avoid predators, how they find mates, how they mate, and how
some exist in highly ordered social settings.

The book is planned to supplement, and existing text books on the insect behavior. The writing of
this book is very essential but could not be undertaken to date. It is the (HEC) which inspired the
authors for this adventure.

The authors encourage all constructive criticism, suggestions and ideas for improving the future
version of the book.

Dr. Muhammad Irfan Ullah

Dr. Muhammad Afzal

xi
1
 BLANK PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

There are numerous individuals who have assisted in the completion of this book. We would like to sincerely
thank, Dr. W. Wyatt Hoback and Dr. John E. Foster for their assistance, guidance, expertise and support
over the years. I also owe the thanks to others who played an integral role in the completion of this book. I
would also like to thank and acknowledge, Dr. Shripat T. Kamble, and Dr. Mathew L. Brust for their advice
and guidance. Their guidance and insight over the period has been both valuable and highly appreciated.
I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Steven R. Skoda for his valuable suggestions and guidance. Thanks
to Dr. Molina-Ochoa, who always encouraged me to achieve my goals.

A special thanks to my colleagues and collaborators. We cordially appreciate their help during writing of

2
this manuscript. Our friends at UoS and beyond, and many more of you whom we are almost certainly
forgetting, we sincerely thank to all of you. We would also to extend our thanks and gratitude to Department
of Entomology, staff, graduate students and faculty for support throughout. More than anyone else there
were our Ph.D. Scholars Mr. Muhammad Arshad, Mr. Asad Abdullah and Mr. Abdul Khaliq, who have
assisted us in numerous ways and have truly made the completion of this book possible. The authors are
also thankful to Mahwish Razzaq from Zoology, Sana Majeed and Sufyan from Department of entomology
for sketching and capturing several images for this book.

We greatly acknowledge the support by University of Sargodha, Pakistan and Higher Education
Commission of Pakistan. We are extremely thankful to Higher Education Commission (HEC) Islamabad for
providing financial and technical support. No author can ever adequately thank all those who by their
constructive criticism have contributed to the improvement of the manuscript we are grateful to all
anonymous reviewers. Above all, we feel ourself inept to regard the blessings of Almighty Allah, our words
have lost their expressions and knowledge is lacking to express gratitude in the rightful manner to the
blessings and support of Allah the Almighty, who flourished our ambitions and helped us to attain goals.

3
4
BLANK PAGE

5
List of Figures Page
Figure 1.1: Phylogenetic tree 4

Figure 2.1: Trichoform sensillum and Campaniform sensillum 7

Figure 2.2: Ommatidium 10

Figure 2.3: Dorsal and lateral ocelli 11

Figure 3.1: Tandem running in ants 18

Figure 7.1: Structure of olfactory sensilla 62

Figure 7.2: Diverse backgrounds in clover (Trifolium spp.), influence host plant
finding by the cabbage root fly 67

List of Tables
Table 1.1: Percentage of described species 2

6
 CHAPTER – 1

PLATO
Life and Times
Plato (427-347 BC), the first and foremost systemic political thinker and philosopher is known as
Father of Idealism, presenting utopia in his political thought. However, he was first to write about political
problems which he personally came across at a relatively young age of 20 years. It was he who first founded
an Academy to teach the youth after he saw the poisoning of his teacher and mentor Socrates. Plato
believed that Socrates possessed the highest Knowledge an individual could ever have, and was killed as
punishment for political reason. This made Plato to believe that politics was dirty is as to take the life of the
noblest person he ever knew. This brought a turning point in his life. He quit participation in political
discussion the way he used to do during Socrate’s life and opened the Academy to educate the youth on
how to be good in search of truth through knowledge and justice.

Plato’s birth was eventful. He was born in around 427 BC in the City-State of Athens, Greece when
city life was at its peak of its height comprising of Sophists and intellectuals such as Pericles, a great
Athenian statesman and philosopher of Athens. Moreover, the Athens of that period was the highest form
of democracy in its political system, while being surrounded by militarism and dictatorialism of neighboring
city states. Moreover, Just after about 20 years of his birth there was a torturous war between Athens, his
native land and Sparta, an oligarchical city-state, called the Peloponnesian War of 404 BC. The war ended
with Spartan victory over Athens leaing Plato’s native land filled with humiliation and ruthlessness of a
tyrannical victor who killed Socrates on political reasons. Ironically, when Plato and his friends had asked
Socrates to escape from prison with their help, Socrates refused saying that he was prepared to die for the
truth and drank the bowl of poison as punishment. Athenians democracy thus turned into tyranny. The
youths of Athens had become completely demoralized in terms of fighting and learning the art of war and
turned their interest towards acquiring knowledge in search of good. Plato was in the forefront of this
emerging notion among the Athenian youth. This led him to establish the Academy to invite the youth
imparting education to them for the search of truth and goodness through knowledge and justice. He wrote
his famous treatise naming it The Republic Concerning Justice. He answered in this book his most
demanding question: what is it that constitutes a state? Presented in dialogue form, the book deals with
basically two topics of knowledge and Justice, but answers all questions of constituting a state elaborating
his philosophy of Ideal State.

Plato belonged to a noble family of Athens. His early youth was spent in the company of those
young men who were curious in search of knowledge and mostly spent their time in mastership of Socrates,
who was an established scholar, thinker, and philosopher of that time. Plato remained under the influence
of Socrates as much as his work on The Republic became intermingled with Socrates philosophy so much
so that platonic thought has been called Platonic- Socrates. Plato spent a good period of time from his
young age to maturity with Socrates. After execution of Socrates, he travelled outside Athens. He went to
Syracuse where he was hired by the king, Dionysius I to teach his son, Dionysius II who was a young boy.
Plato thought that he had got a good opportunity to prepare philosopher king of his own thought. But when
he punished the young prince while teaching him discipline, the complaint reached the king who arrested
him on this point. Plato having experience of Socrates execution escaped from the arrest and went back to
Athens. He finally gave thought to teach the youth and opened the Academy. It was found that when Plato
was in old age the young by Dionysis II who became the king of Syracuse invited a teacher from Plato’s
Academy to make a constitution for his City-State. This implies the importance of Platonic education and
also his philosophy of establishing a good state. Plato’s academy trained men in preparing statesmanship.

7
He gave knowledge with concept of bringing it into action, thereby making the teaching of philosophy an
inspiration of one’s life. Plato wrote many books and among them his main philosophy is found in The
Republic, The Statesmen, and The Laws. However his other two works, The Apology and The Crito were
also important which dealt with The Individual and The State.

Plato was a firm believer of Ideal State which was constructed in his political thought making it ruled
by the philosopher-king. He was a staunch enemy of oligarchy and democracy. To him the most poisoned
element for a good state was political selfishness which was a common element in these two kinds of states.
He believed in philosopher kings rule because with highest knowledge which is Virtue, the philosopher king
will always remain a truthful and just ruler to bring good for the State. He also believed that if the state is
good the people will become good. Therefore, an Ideal State is a perfect state having no political
selfishness, either in the philosopher-king or in the guardian class who were to be associated with the
philosopher-king to govern the State. He died at the old age of 80 in 347 BC leaving a legacy in his political
philosophy which became the foundation of political thought in the West and ultimately for the universe.
After him, there was no political philosophy which did not get influenced by Plato one way or the other.

Hence Platonic philosophy became foundation of governing the state system. Plato did not look
upon the practicability of his political theories. He was interested to see what a good state should be,
whether it could exist or not. That is why his philosophy is called Utopia. He remained an idealist realizing
the need of his time to establish a state as an Ideal State which he could a perfect State.
Influence on Plato
In the study of Platonic philosophy there seems to be unity of influence upon him as regard to the
similarities in his thought with other intellectuals. Prior to the rise of Platonic ideas the scholars and the
philosophers seemed to be similar in ideas to what Plato presented in a broad sense. All are dialogues
such Apology, the Crito , the Meno, the Symposium, the Republic, the Gorjas, the Laws and the Politics.
We find that Plato is influenced by his time one way or the other, directly or in directly.
Plato wrote during the period of depression of Greek civilization. He looked for a formula with the
application of which he could seek prevention in checking the forces of disintegration of Greek life. This led
him to seek pessimistic estimate of human nature. It occurred to him that intellectual men are not trusted
by the masses. Thus he believed that man is the worst animal having appetite and sensuality if he is
unrestrained by philosophy reason or law. He even distrusted the philosopher king of his own making and
therefore tried to ensure his efficiency and good behavior. He chained the philosopher king to a system of
community of wives and husbands and deprived him with all economic power.

It is interesting to note that a man distrusted his own ideal rules in his own Ideal state; it is surprising
that he condemns the ruler of majority in a democracy as Plato did. Plato like every philosopher was a child
of his time and prisoner of his own experience. Throughout his writings he sought to combat the false
notions and sophist propaganda. He also wanted to eradicate inefficiency in political administration by
prescribing a functional categorization in which a man was to be restricted to a particular function for which
he was fit by nature.

The second main influence on Plato has personal sources through Socrates which he embodied
on one hand and the mathematical outlook of Pythagoras on the other which resulted in to the style of his
academy. From Socrates he learnt that dialectical method of political studies and the rule of philosophy.
These two proved in Plato the importance of constructive society based on virtue.
From Socrates Plato also learned that a law which enshrines reason and philosophy is a law from
which none has a right to escape. Such examples Plato sought in his experience with the king of Syracuse
Dionysus; similarly seeking experience with Socrates death Plato preached political obedience and saw

8
Athenian democracy an intellectual aristocracy based on primary source of intellectual snobbery of
Socrates.

Similarly Plato owed much to Pythagoras. The Pythagoras doctrine of tripartite man formed
throughout and Plato’s ideal state is nothing but an extension of Pythagoras doctrine into political and social
sphere. Pythagoras division of human nature is transactional consisting of reason, courage and appetite.
Plato on this tripartite origin in man added the principle of justice putting those three aspects of man for
peace and harmony with each other. In other words Plato’s theory of justice was improvement and
extension of Pythagorean doctrine of tripartite man. Further his association with mathematics was in perfect
conformity of Pythagorean tradition. Plato’s belief in efficiency of the rule of the educated few and his faith
in discipline in mathematics and education were the contribution of Pythagorean teaching.

The third influence on Plato consisting of the slave civilization was through his experience. The
Spartan aristocracies and discipline became the model of the unquestionable bases of unhealthy society.
Further his concept of and integrated political association made him confined to the small population and
to the small territory with in the four walls of Greek city state. Moreover, like a true Greek, he refused to
give ethics and politics any separated meaning. Society to him was at once political and moral that was
because the Greek never conceived of an anti-thesis between individual’s morality and group morality.
Hence Plato’s republic was primarily an ethical treatise and he gave its alternate title “concerning Justice”
and like Greek, Plato believed that virtue is wisdom and can be imparted through education.

Plato’s concept of family life is also a personal influence of the environment where he was born
and brought up. He belonged to an aristocratic family atmosphere based on primitive romanticism. He had
immense respect for ancient traditions and myths based on wisdom as an instrument for the better world
that is why we find that in his political writings he yearned for the past. He wanted to save the past from the
degeneration of the present and his aim was to defend the idea of the city. State remained as an
independent, political, economic and social unit. Hence he appears to be a radical as well as a conservative
which was an influence that he derived from the family surroundings. Move over, the moderate and mixed
constitution Plato advocated to Solon in his the Laws was a direct influence of his family which took pride
in being connected with, an ancestor. Similarly Platonic “Apostle” reveals how the rich environment of his
family life has got another influenced the philosopher in making him conscious about money matters. Thus
above the study of Platonic Philosophy shows it has deep roots into the different influences of his life.

Methods of Plato
In the study of political science and political theory different methods have been used by the
scholars and philosophers. These are known as the methodology or style of philosophers based on their
experience, understanding and analysis on the basis of the competitive method, method of agreement and
differences, joint methods of agreement and differences. Deductive and Inductive methods of reasoning
have been developed.

It is interesting to note that Plato altogether developed peculiar methods of his own, as he presented
a peculiarity in his philosophical and political ideas. In general, certain methods to study social sciences
have been used which oppose each other. For example, in history of modern political science we use
methods of observation, empirical analysis through hypothesis and unification.
As suggested above in Plato there appears the following foundations of methodology. First by the
use of deductive method Plato develops his theory proceeding from ideal or universal to the particular. He
also used inductive method which was based upon the quality of the individual.
Second, his method was historical where in his book The Republic he presented a possible
historical evolution of a state through four main stages which were:

9
1. Stage of speech
2. Stage of Government
3. Economic independence of man
4. Stage of War.
Third, his method was analytical also where he divided the state into different classes to find out
the more reasonable of them for the art of government for which he analyzed the traditional concept of man
and society.

But in particular sense Plato has the method which was Platonic which followed the traditional
Greek pattern of conversation and agreement in a dialogue form through the forums of supposed dramatic
performance. Therefore his entire work with the exception of two is in the form of dialogue. These dialogues
are a continued search of truth developed through intellectual concept and exercise. In other words these
are thoughts in action where particular men in society are presented with such methods which are called
the society on their own. Therefore Plato used a dialogue form like Socrates.

At the later stage the dialogue method to interpret history was used by philosophers like Hegel and
Marx who were influenced by the dialogue of Plato. Like Plato Hegel and Marx implied a technique of
dialectical conflict in order to arrive at the truth. Thus the dialectical method used by them was based upon
the logical principles of contradiction for the principle of true and false.

Plato in this method also used another particular aspect that was analogy and myth e.g. he
expressed his argument based upon myth and used them as classification. In ideal state he compared the
soldiers and auxiliaries with watchdogs who loved their own people and guard them.

Plato also used teleological methods. Using this method Plato believed that ideal is real whereas
actual is imperfect hence not real. The ideal state is the real state whereas the existing state is imperfect
and therefore is not real stated. Thus Plato believed that the real state must resolve towards these ideas.
From this ideal or this perfection Plato thinks of the purpose behind every state and everything. He believed
that anything such as state, love, animal, and music is purpose to teleological.

Finally an interesting point in Plato method is that it is Utopian. Plato is not interested to describe
the state as it is or it has been rather he is interested to express what a state should be. He is interested in
the discovery of ideal. To him, the ideal state is the perfect idea of state. In his books, The Republic, The
Statesman and The Laws, there is conversation of persons in search of the perfect idea of the state. His
inquiry is for the sake of ideal, for understanding the true nature of the city state and not for showing such
things which can exist in fact. Therefore, his philosophy exists in imagination and is nowhere found in actual
sense.

As far as his methods of study are concerned we find two outstanding contributions of Plato. First,
he advanced the Socrates method of dialogue thereby directing Hegel and Marx and their way of approach.
Second, he gives his own teleological method thereby indicating Aristotle, Dante and Green in their peculiar
development of philosophical advancement.

Virtue is Knowledge
The Republic of Plato does not fit into any of the categories either of modern social studies or
modern science. Its range of subject matter is such that it said to deal with the whole of human life. It has
to do with the good man and good life in a good state and what these are and how can they be attained.

The Republic is not a treatise of any sort nor does it belong to politics, economics, ethics or
psychology but it includes all these and more like art, education and philosophy Plato wrote about these

10
sciences which he did not know that these will be assigned to the nation or the citizens. During his time in
the city state life itself was not classified and sub-divided so much as it now is. All activities of men were
connected with citizenship. According to Plato’s belief citizen’s religion was a religion of state and his art
was civic art. They could not be a sharp separation of this question which is faced today.

Plato tried to give a solution in his thought. The fundamental idea of the Republic came to Plato in
the form of his masters doctrine “ Virtue is Knowledge” This came from his own unhappy political experience
and to be founded the Academy to bring a spirit of true knowledge in his fellowmen believing that man is
the foundation for a philosophical statecraft.

The implication that “Virtue is Knowledge” gives us the idea that good is known by rational or logical
investigation rather than by intuition, guess work or luck. Plato says that the good is objectively real. What
anybody thinks about it, it ought to be realized not because man wanted it but because it is good. From this
follows that the man who knows philosophers, scholars and scientist ought to have decisive powers in
government which entitles him to do this?

It appears from analysis that association of man with man in the society depends upon mutual and
reciprocal needs and the resulting exchange of goods and services consequently, philosopher’s claim to
power is only important case for what is found wherever man lives together namely any corporate enterprise
depends upon everyone attending taking a part in the work. In order to know what sort of work is essential,
Plato thinks that it could only be done by the philosopher as he possess virtue which depends in two factors.

1. Natural Aptitude
2. Training

The first one is naturally inherent and the second is the matter of experience and education. In
other words, it depends upon best human capacity and to develop it by the best education. Therefore,
Plato’s theory is divisible in to two main points.
1. The government ought to be an art depending upon exact knowledge.
2. The society is mutual satisfaction of needs by persons whose capacities are dependable upon
each other.
Justice
The word Justice has a wider expression than used in English meaning. We think of Justice and
Injustice as qualities displaced in the exercise of judicial or administrative functions.

To Plato, Justice is very near to morality. According to him, it is the disposition which makes a man
refrains from an act recommended by desire or by his apparent interest through obedience to a belief which
he ought not to perform.

Plato raises the issue of Justice over the question of what is supreme rule of right or code of morality
by which a man should regulate his life. Therefore, question arises in what way Justice is better than
injustice. The answer was tried by Socrates who wanted to discover the nature of Justice through the matter
of large letter that is the state. He tried to find out Justice and morality in the individual by discovering Justice
in the state. But Plato believes otherwise that Justice is to be found form the small letter, in the individuals.

Plato reviews different traditions on Theories of Justice for these purposes which are the following:

1. Cephalous: He believes that justice or morality means being true in word and deed and paying
one’s debt.

11
2. Thrasymachus: he looks at Justice by not believing it to be a moral obligation. To him right and
Justice is the interest of the stronger. Since the stronger is the sovereign, his act and right is just.
3. Gloucon: in his view, morality is a good thing only because it serves the external end and therefore
is just.
4. Adeimantus: to him justice is giving a man his due without moral consideration. Plato dismisses all
these theories and like Socrates tries to discover the true nature and habitation of Justice because
for him, Justice is the only remedy against political and social evils of the city state. He separates
justice from the Ideal state because for him Justice is the soul and the ideal state is the body.
Justice is the condition of every virtue of the state and justice of the state is the citizen’s sense of
duty. Therefore, Plato’s concept of Justice does not embody a conception of individual's right rather
it consists of individual's duties.
The justice of individual means that each of his three elements i.e. appetite, spirit and reason are
kept within proper bounds. It is therefore both, public and private virtue because it preserves the highest
good of the society and of the individual. Therefore, to Plato, a member of the society as an individual
shows justice by performing his assigned duties perfectly.

An individual exhibits justice by keeping each of the three elements of his soul in its right place i.e.
appetite, spirit and reason, where he exhibits all the virtues of wisdom, courage and self-control when
occasion demands it. The individuals must be good in all things. By having virtue or excellence he should
become an expert like architect. When individual becomes just and has justice then it holds all men together
in a healthy social relationship by making them good and social.

Plato in his concept of Justice talks about two kinds of justice. They are as follows:

i. Legal Justice or Particular Justice

ii. Perfect Justice or Universal Justice
The legal or particular Justice is raised on law in a non-ideal state. It has no perfection which is
ensured by wisdom of a true king i.e. Philosopher King. The perfect or universal justice can only be obtained
in an ideal state which is based on right education, principle of communism, functional specialization and
perfect wisdom of philosopher king.
In short, his concept of justice is based upon.

1- Recognition of three classes i.e.

(i) Ruler representing reason

(ii) Soldiers representing spirit
(iii) Workers representing appetite
2- State regulated scheme of education
3- Organization of state in functional specialization i.e. one-man-one work.
4- Freedom of philosopher king from labor.
5- Unselfish interest of guardians through communism of property and family.
6- Emancipation of women
7- Service and devotion to the state
In this way Plato obtained his Justice as a perfect but not legal concept.
Criticism on Justice
It is not justice because self-control and devotion are moral principles and have no legal sanction
behind them.

12
 Plato does not visualize any safety from clash of individual will and conflict between one interest
and the other. It is based upon functional specialization but it ignores its evils. For example, it does not
sufficiently and properly recognize the wholeness of the human potential. He separates three elements in
men and thinks that man can live only on reason, spirit and appetite which does not seems to be natural.
He assigns ruling power to one class i.e. philosopher king. Such monopoly of political power in the hands
of one class will is bound to demoralize that class sooner or later and thus corrupt the state.

Communism
In Plato’s philosophy, the theory of communism has been largely misunderstood as compared to
any other of his ideas. Many writers on Plato believe that his concept of communism meant only a
community of wives and property which was a system in which the guardians of the Ideal state were
supposed to be holding their wives and property in common. Such writers including eminent scholars like
Barker, Nettle and Jowett have unfortunately given inadequate description of Plato’s theory of communism
leading to widespread misunderstanding.

With the concept of communism of family and property he ignores the essentials of human
psychology. A man can forget the loss of his father but cannot forget the loss of his property. The
communism of wives would make the society morally corrupt. It denies satisfaction to the fundamental
desire of the human soul. It makes too demanding on the devotion of an individual to his state and therefore,
it is unrealizable.

In fact, Plato’s theory of communism does not imply communism of wives and property rather it has
four folds of implications.

1. It is not a community of wives but a community of family. It is as much communism of husbands

and children as community of wives.
2. It is not community in possession but community in use. The philosopher guardians do not own
anything either collectively or individually. For example the food thus used in common is not
collective possession but a free gift extended to them to use not to own. It means they do not own
property whether collectively or individually.
3. Community of education is wrong to suppose that it is spiritual and his theory of communism is
materialistic. Both are different to each other. Rather it will be correct to say that Plato’s education
was a part of communism. Both male and female guardians have to live in equal and same
community life. In the republic he gave an organic theory in which his education is a part of his
justice.
4. Plato’s communism is a community in function. There must be functional equality between male
and female guardians and they must equally discharge their duties of governing the state.
By communism Plato never meant collective ownership. He only meant equality between men and
women, who have the capacity to rule. It is an equality which has four main directions.
1. In family status.
2. In the use of property
3. In education
4. In functions.
When Plato used the word “communism” he in fact meant community which means equality,
similarity, community and identity. Therefore his theory of communism is a theory of these four elements
between the male and female guardians, who must exercise joint partnership in governing the state.

13
 Platonic theory of communism is based upon his idea of achieving goodness by seeking good
morality among the people. He believed that men and women by nature are selfish enough to struggle for
their personal gain and comfort. Such selfishness leads to the second stage of guardians. To kill the instinct
of selfishness among both male and female guardians, he altogether desired to abolish the institution of
family and property because to him they were the real roots of selfishness and thus morality. Along with it,
he further believes that the other means of remedies to such selfishness could be through seeking
knowledge and discipline, which will lead to establishment of good society with good morality. He also
believes that involvement of the people of guardian class along with the workers, in defined functions of
their duties towards the state would make them continuously engaged towards the goodness of the state.
Hence for seeking justice that is good act of morality, Plato advocates the formation of such a healthy state
which comprised of a proper institutionalized society where justice could be maintained and good could be
achieved. With this belief Plato advocates his theory of particular community to be formed for achieving
justice and goodness.

His theory of communism was considered to be misleading and inaccurate considering it

responsible for confusion and misunderstanding. His critiques believed it to be something of joint ownership,
which was never a theme of Plato. On this ground his community was even compared to that of modern
communism. Plato never advocates joint ownership rather he desired joint partnership or joint fellowship
where the female guardians have everything in every way up to their power with the male guardian in the
Ideal state.

Further his theory was not communistic in essence and it is a misleading belief that it was meant
for entire community because it was directed exclusively for regulating the activities of the guardians of the
Ideal State. In short, it could be better called a theory of philosophic fellowship.

His theory of communism has been criticized by his student, Aristotle with particular reference to
abolition of family. Aristotle condemned it as a creation of immoral and corrupt state. Aristotle believes that
abolition of property could lead to further deterioration of individual’s enthusiasm.

However, Plato’s theory of communism has a novel approach in search of good and seeking good
act of morality for making a state a just state. He was interested in perfection of state and for that he desired
perfection of citizens for which to him its means was communism.

Education
The main function of the state is to positively help the individual in discharging satisfactorily his
duties of citizenship so that the individuals are fit mentally and physically. Plato distributes functions and
offices according to man’s nature which to him was justice and can only be given through education. Thus
to Plato, education was a means for attaining the ends and that is how he makes connection between
Justice and education.

His education is the education of individual citizen because through education he tried to discover
the individuality of man. He also believed that a healthy mind should be in a healthy body. Therefore, there
must be parallel development in man that is his physique and intellect. His theory of education takes into
account both mental and material conditions. It is not a process of introducing ideas and qualities into the
mind rather it is like turning the mind’s eye towards the light.

Therefore, Plato gives a detail description of his theory of education considering it essential for
individual and state, controlled with a uniform system for all the citizens. It does not mean that a producer
must be equally educated with a philosopher king. It simply means that different stages of education must
be integrated into one system under direct auspices of the state. Men and women are to be given the same

14
and equal education because women perform the same function as men and education is training in the
art of citizenship. Women are to be educated not to be good caretakers of the family but to become good
citizens of the state.

Education along with the training of mind and body also performs the tasks to uphold the basic
principles of the state. Plato gives education to teach the rule of philosophy and justice. Plato’s scheme of
education is exclusively meant for those who are to be ruler of the Ideal State. Therefore, art of citizenship
is defined with the art of ruling through Plato’s education.

Plato divides the guardians into two main sections as follows:

1. The auxiliaries
2. Perfect guardians
The scheme of education is also divided into two main stages and they are:

1- The guardians being equally trained in the art of military training.

2- The perfect guardians are trained further.

Thus in the first stage the element of spirit is developed and in the second stage there is
development of reason in mind or perfect guardians.

His scheme of education is arranged into different stages. In the first stage, music and gymnastic
are the prior concern of education. In the second stage mainly meant for auxiliaries from early childhood to
the age of twenty years beginning with storytelling & fables. Here training is for mature years confined to
the perfect guardians alone, where, with gymnastic, the teaching science and psychology with mathematics
are prescribed. Plato recommends teaching of mathematics and astronomy geometry from the age of
twenty to thirty.

After the completion of training to guardians, they are further taught psychology till the age of thirty-
five, where teaching is done which is self-taught for understanding the principle of being and becoming. At
the age of thirty-five the guardian is made who must not only believe but think himself. He may possess
pure reason for understanding reality and guardian action. The directing mind must understand the forces
of process and must be capable of independent thinking for deciding actions. At the age of thirty-five the
perfect guardians will dedicate themselves for fifteen years for services of the state. After that they must be
allowed the status of elder statesmen.

Criticism on Education
It has been pointed out that Plato’s theory of education is unjust and artificial. As far as, the class
of producers is concerned Justice and morality to no prevail. Plato does not allow education to them and
deprives compulsory education for the bulk of society.

In his stages of education he creates a complication not realizing the psychological conditions of
the childhood and creates a fix pattern for all. In his scheme of education between men practical reason
and his speculate reason is not considered. The result is perpetual shift from one to the other.

Plato gives a uniform system of education controlled by the state. This may not develop any efficient
thinking in the younger generation. They will learn what are taught and will end up as a machine. Still credit
goes to Plato that he at least set a pattern for the method of education and training.

15
Ideal State
The Republic of Plato is interpreted as Utopia where he has portrayed on Ideal but unattainable
state. The objective of Ideal state was the good life. The Republic is Utopia because he depicted in it a
state which was primarily an embodiment of the idea of good. He wanted the future statesman (ruler) to
know what was good and how to construct a good state. Therefore, his Ideal state was meant to be a state,
as such a type or model for all places and for all times. He did not worry about practical ability rather tried
to show what in principle and theory a state ought to be Plato believed that an Ideal state could be
constructed as an artist sketches an Ideal picture. Since ideal picture is not a reality, he did not bother
whether his state is capable of ever becoming a reality.

He meant to examine conditions which influence actual life and diagnosed the disease of the city
state and prescribed his own cure for them. The cures suggested were as follows:

1- The sovereignty of reason that is different from aptitude and some kind of remarkable work done by
one-man is better than others.
2- The second cause is that skill is gained when men work steadily at which they are naturally fit because
without natural aptitude, there is no specialization. Those then are the human forces upon which the
society and with it the state has to rely. Therefore Plato creates a perfect harmony in the society,
embracing three classes of people i.e. the workers, the soldiers and the rulers. These three classes
perform three functions and create three kinds of men who are fit by nature according to their aptitude
and training.
Constitution of ideal state
As the head of Plato’s ideal state is philosopher king (ruler) who is above passion and prejudice,
he represents virtue in action and his wise and beneficial rule is above the control of law.

Plato advocates a regular or consistent supply of philosophers for which he recommended a state
regulated scheme of education in his Ideal state. This scheme of education will not only train and educate
guardians but also help in making of the capable from the incapable which will confine men’s interest for
the state.

Plato proposed his Ideal with the following points:

1. Guardian class comprising of philosopher king, auxiliaries and soldiers with functional
specialization.
2. Classification of citizens based upon vocational (professional) specialization.
3. Emancipation of women by making them equal to men.
4. Abolition of private family and property for the guardians
5. Censorship of art and literature
6. Rule of philosopher king.
Plato’s Ideal state is absolute and totalitarian. There is hardly a sphere of life, mental or spiritual
which the state does not touch and regulate. Therefore, Plato is not an apostle of freedom of thought and
association. Through communism he desires to seek unity of the state and through education he finds the
only true way for the permanent stability of the state because education means to shape human nature in
the right direction to produce a harmonious state.

Criticism on Ideal State

Plato’s ideal State is autocratic being occupied by philosopher. It was too much collectivistic to
allow full freedom to all faults of human mind. Aristotle criticizes his Ideal Stat on various grounds. To him,

16
Plato’s communism of family is the most intolerable, corrupt immoral and unworkable theory. It is also
against the very nature of human beings.

In the modern age, there is a debate that only wisdom cannot run the government. Also wisdom
may not necessarily get particular power because it is not like specialized skill. Plato maintained that
wisdom consists of the knowledge of good. But what is good or what is bad depends on the general interest
of the people which may differ widely. If wisdom can form good constitution by a wise king then what will
happen if the king is a fool as such examples are found in history because the rulers committed serious
errors. Thus, Plato’s believe in wisdom defined by him for a ruler in Utopia. The use of wisdom in the present
political society is taken up by the process of democratic society, which ensures the rule supported by the
wishes of the masses through elections.

Philosopher King
Platonic Ideal State is an aristocratic state. Plato believed that all men did not possess an equal
capacity for virtue and therefore all were not entitled to participate in the function of government on the
basis of capacity. Those who possessed this capacity should rule over those who did not possess it.
Therefore, government in the ideal state, according to Plato, should be entrusted to person’s possessing
supreme wisdom which meant that Plato advocated the concept of government of the elite i.e. by the few
highly trained experts.

Plato emphasized that until philosophers were kings with political greatness and wisdom, cities will
never have rest from evils. With philosopher King the state would have a possibility of life and would hold
the light of the day.

The concept of rule of philosophy or the philosopher king is the most original and profound of all
Platonic concepts. As Plato emphasizes that government should necessarily be entrusted to a few highly
trained experts, he gave principles that there is necessity for sufficient qualifications for the function of
government which is based upon superiority or virtue. This requires abilities of peculiar kind which can be
found only in a small number of men. Plato assumes that philosophic nature can be found only among the
ranks of gentry and not among peasants and artisans. This is why he excludes the class of producers,
which is the largest in the state, from his scheme of education.

Plato’s rule of philosophy is described as despotic or absolute rule of the philosopher king. It is
absolute in the sense that it is not bound or limited by any written laws. It is not responsible or even
responsive to public opinion. The masses have no share in it. They have no voice in determining the policy
of the state. They only submit to the decisions taken by the ruling elite. Moreover, the citizens submit
themselves to the care and guidance of the philosopher king in the same way as the patient surrenders to
his doctor, after having once decided to put himself under his treatment. Plato frequently drew a comparison
between the government and an art.

Plato’s rule of philosophy is also considered to be not an unqualified absolutism. For example, the
Platonic given moral qualities which characterize the philosopher king are the most unlikely to make his
rule oppressive and look like despotic. Plato had a clear concept of the end to be achieved and of the
principle on which philosopher king has to realize it. The Philosopher king has love of truth which includes
all the virtues forming part of the perfect human nature. It includes the passion for reality and the desire to
know everything worth knowing. A truly philosophic nature would exhibit complete self-control and free from
hatred, meanness etc. Moreover, it would more obviously be just also. In Plato’s mid the philosophic
element is essentially the human element. It is what makes a man truly human. Thus Plato believed that
such a philosophic nature is fit to rule which may not be despotic or tyrannical rule.

17
 Plato excludes written law and public opinion from his Ideal state with certain reasons. He does not
have which rather it is demanded by free of logic. The validity of the presumption with which Plato starts
are:

1- The identity of virtue with knowledge.

2- The distinction between real and scientific knowledge and belief or opinion.
3- The superiority of scientific knowledge over belief or opinion takes for granted that the whole structure
of Plato’s Republic with its philosopher king at the top does not need public opinion and written law
because Plato gives specialist training to develop intelligence in his guardians. Therefore, his
argument in support of the Philosopher king is interesting towards a logical conclusion.

Criticism on Philosopher King

There have been a number of criticisms on Plato’s concept of rule of philosophy. Aristotle rejected
this idea completely and gave no room to philosopher king in his Ideal state. But it is also seen that Platonic
theory is given universal application with the view that government is a difficult art and requires a specific
education and training. To support this view, one can say that democracy of today could be a complete
failure without education and training of those who take up the state administration without having trained
reason to solve the problems of state and administration.

Plato realizes that unless politicians, power and reason are united together, or unless
statesmanship is combined with profound wisdom and education, states will never he safe from evils. The
principle with which Plato states seems to be right as reason should rule and society should be governed
with real knowledge. The defect lies in the application of this principle with Plato. No group of individuals
should be permanently debarred from participation in the exercise of political authority.

The rule of philosophy on the other hand, assures the union of reason and political power in the
highest organ of the state. On the other hand, with it Plato puts an emphasis on class war from which states
have suffered at all times. Class war results if the ruling power abuses political power and uses it for its own
selfish interests. Through rule of philosophy it is bound to be eliminated from a society where the rulers are
taught and trained to advocate themselves to the services of community and where people are promoted
in public services to carry on their responsibility. Plato conditions his philosopher king and guardians to get
away with their private pleasures and to devote themselves to the common good which is their highest and
truest happiness.

He asks the philosopher king and guardians to surrender everything to the state. If they have
political power it is at the sacrifice of their personal interest like the desire of wealth, bodily pleasure and
family life. On the other hand, he also asks the economic class to surrender political power and to lose civil
liberties. However, his concept of philosopher king is novel but impracticable for modern world.

Classification of Citizens
It is interesting to note that three classes advocated by Plato for his Ideal state are influence of
Pythagoras. According to his doctrine, there are tripartite requirements of the human being divided into
three classes. For example man has three requirements:
1- He must fulfill his basic physical needs
2- In satisfying them, he must be wise and must have good counsel.
3- His decision must result in action.
In other words, a man to be a man must eat, must deliberate and must act. To ensure these three
functions in Plato’s concept appears that man’s soul has been endowed with three corresponding faculties:
1- Appetite
2- Spirit

18
3- Reason
Appetite is ingrained in man from his birth. Gradually he develops spirit and lastly reason. Therefore,
by the time, he seeks reason his personality is fully developed. To Plato the best man is he whose actions
and appetite are governed by his rational faculties. Reason is the best of the three aspects of soul and is
destined to become the natural master of the other two. Hence, that man is natural whose passion,
prejudice, appetite, desire, action and enthusiasm are controlled by his reason. If a man whose appetite
and desire controls his action and take the best part of his reason, is the most un-natural person.

Plato with this concept transplanted the whole system of human soul into the life of human society
since Ideal State is an extension of ideal man who is characterized by the rule of reason. He believed that
if these distinctive qualities of representation of soul make man natural, the life and society in the ideal state
will become natural.

According to Plato, as in the case of individual, a state has three basic needs as well:

1- Productive i.e. appetite

2- Protective i.e. spirit
3- Deliberative i.e. reason
To fulfill these needs in an efficient manner, Plato suggests three specialized classes or professionals:

1- The producing or labor class

2- The military or auxiliary guardians
3- The most reasonable class of guardians i.e. Philosopher King.
The producing class is the earliest followed by the warriors and then the philosopher. Therefore, the
best state is that where the producing and fighting classes are governed by philosopher king, who has the
faculty of reason. Since the state is the creation of man, it must have a logical affinity which it creates.
Hence, Plato concludes that the state is at once an economic, military and rational organization of man.

1- The Philosopher Class

It consists of those persons of community of reason by virtue of which it is distinct to be the natural
ruler of the ideal state. The function of reason is to know and love. The philosopher knows the citizens and
their interests best and therefore, he loves them and pursues their interest for the interest of community.
Hence, kings are philosophers and under them citizens will never be evil because with his reason and
wisdom he will bring out the final salvation of mankind with rationalization. He has the natural right to govern
and also with his education and training he has natural capacities to rule. In other words, Plato advocated
the rule of reason and therefore, the divine right of the philosopher king is to rule. His ideal state thus
becomes an intellectual aristocracy. He exhibits that:
1. Philosopher king is the supreme legislature
2. He is lover of wisdom
3. He rules the ideal state through his reason.
4. He is like a fort to safeguard guardians.
Plato also learned that most people are unreasonable and are governed by desire and appetite.

2- The Auxiliary Guardians and the Military Class.

The second sociological pattern of the Platonic system is that corresponds to spirit and courage, in
the guardian class. It is military service of the Ideal State that consists of persons who are filled by nature
to guard the city. As an ideal man possesses spirit or action, he becomes an ally of reason and carries the
dictates of reason. Thus in the ideal state the military class serves the philosopher king. Hence, these two
classes are similar and together constitute the guardian class. The military guardians receive an education

19
like philosopher guardians but do not get education on mathematics, philosophy and psychology.
Philosopher guardians are chosen among military guardians and philosopher king is from amongst a very
few of the philosopher guardians. Further, they are also similar in respect of being in line to a system of
wives and property.

They differ are different in the way that philosopher guardians decide the policy of the state and
military guardians execute it. The philosopher guardians have the supreme knowledge of the idea of good
whereas, the military guardians have a vague notion of the good. The philosopher king contemplates and
directs, whereas the military guardians implement and act. In short, reason pre-dominates the mind of
philosopher guardians and influences, the military guardians.

3- Producer Class
It constitutes the last ingredient of the social set up in the Platonic ideal state. Historically, it is the
first class to come into existence as it is an association of men united on the basis of economic necessity
by comprising all productive forces such as land, labor and capital.

The state is primarily an economic organization; it finds its fulfillment in being simultaneously a
military and rational one. It is laboring class in the ideal state consisting of farmers, builders, cobblers,
weavers, instrument makers, physicians and traders, who fulfill the economic needs of the community under
the principle of specialization. These groups of labor class maintain a division of labor. It means every
individual sticks to a specific aspect of production for which his nature best fits him for seeking full
satisfaction.

In Plato’s Ideal state, economic class represents the element of appetite. It is incapable of higher
function of guarding the state but it is the main material springing from physical wants. The productive class
constitutes the greatest bulk of population and must be prosperous economically. Family and property are
not denied to this class by Plato.

Since Plato believed that ideal is a weapon for understanding the actual, he in his ideal state
maintains these three classes based on deliberative, protective and productive categories for the principle
of justice.

Oligarchy and Democracy

Plato’s theory of government is an attempt of the realist, in Plato, where he desired to free himself from
idealism. His theory of government is in his book The Republic and not in The Laws which indicates that
he has proceeded from idealism to realism earlier than where he wrote the Laws. He realized that idealist
points the ideals but the realist hesitates to believe upon its universal validity. Similarly, reason point
towards an ideal indeed but at the same time the experience points to another direction.

Plato tried to reconcile the idealist and the realist is as to compromise between reason and
experience. Consequently, the realist gained ground and the idealist was pushed into the background. This
conflict with in Plato came out with different forms of government and among them were Oligarchy and
Democracy.

1- Oligarchy
Plato’s idea on Oligarchy changed from time to time. In the republic, it is described as a government
based upon the appetite of a few rich persons and is a perversion of autocracy. In the politics, oligarchy is
believed to be aristocracy gone wrong and is based neither on consent nor on law but on the ruling
oligarchs. In The Laws it is sometimes declared worst form of government incapable of any improvement.

20
 However, Plato’s idea in the Republic may be regarded as repetitive. In this sense, Oligarchy is a
form of government represented by the wealthy and for the wealthy. It is a commercial government based
upon the explicit action of the poor and the rich. In such form of government rights and offices become
things to be bought and sold. The poor are debarred from every right of participation in the affairs of the
state and it is based upon the condition of property.

Such form of government by nature is inefficient because offices and responsibilities are restricted
to on any one, having sufficient sum of money and property, but not on those who have the capacity to fill
those offices on merit.

The basic principle of Oligarchy is wealth. Such government can seldom achieve external harmony
of the state because it creates a division between have and haves not. In an oligarchy, therefore every state
becomes two in one i.e. the state of rich and the state of poor. Such state is militarily weak because the
ruling oligarchy cannot muster sufficient confidence from the general body of the state population.

Ruling oligarchs are neither rulers nor servants of the state. They are only group of commercially
minded capitalists holding and utilizing political power for profit and riches. All oligarchies are full of crimes
because in it almost all persons are beggars and paupers, except the ruling circles. The oligarchs
themselves are money minded capitalists, who regard wealth above virtue and they dig their own graves
by policy of exploitation. In short, oligarchy perverts the state into a class state and its laws into class laws
and is ultimately destroyed by a democratic revolution.

2- Democracy
Plato’s idea on Democracy is interesting because both democrats and un- democrats alike profess
their belief in democratic principles. Plato was not sympathetic towards democracy. He identified
democracy with anarchy and condemned its two cardinal principles of liberty and equality. He condemned
it by simple Pythagorean formula as equality among un-equals. He attacked democracy with application of
democratic principles.

Plato’s idea on democracy originated from the experience of Greek democracy in action. Socrates
imprisonment and growth of individualism under solicit influence convinced Plato that a rule cannot be
accepted under the regime of demagogues because they mislead many, and exploit popular ignorance.
Plato believed that popular support can easily be achieved by passionate oration than by rational plea.

Democracy was identified with group conflict. The general assembly of entire citizens gave Plato
an idea that democracy in action is hardly different from mob rule. The democratic youth declared his
absolute equality with every citizen and put forward his claim to every office and every function. By this
Plato believed that in democracy everyone was jack of all trades.

Democracy in Greek life was a reaction against extreme oligarchy. In Plato’s time there was a
combination of democracy and oligarchy. But Plato did not find anything to choose between oligarchy and
democracy. To him both were ultimately based upon the principle of appetite. Oligarchy on the appetite and
the rich whereas democracy on the appetite of the many and the poor. Both are insufficient forms of
government because both did not believe in capacity and training as office becomes the reward of the
money for few in oligarchy and for many in democracy. Laws and state are equally perverted by both into
class weapons for class benefits.

21
 PLATO AND ARISTOTLE’S COMPARISON

Plato was Idealist and Aristotle was Realist

This distinction between Plato and Aristotle has been so profound much that it is said that all
thinking men must be either Platonists or Aristotelians. This implies that these two philosophers represent
opposite and contrasted poles of political thought. But looking at their philosophies minutely dimension; it
may not be seen as correct. Although, Aristotle has criticized his master, he is also influenced by him. For
example, both Plato and Aristotle looked towards the instability of the Greek political life and believed that
its main cause was moral anarchy. Both believed that the instability can be eradicated through education,
bringing better way of life. To both good life can only be lived in a state of moderate size. Both believed that
good life could not be attained by all men, but only by those who had sufficient means and sufficient
education to do so. Both believed in limited citizenship to make sufficient living and both thought it right that
all manual labor should be done by slaves or by the non-citizens.

Both commonly inherited the legacy from Homer to Socrates. Therefore, both wished to limit
citizenship. Both of them were conservative thinkers confining themselves to the city state as the ideal size
of the state. Both stressed upon the population control and believed that ethics and politics constitute a
single and indivisible science therefore, the only life which is worthy of man was a life of virtue.

Both believed that the greatest need of time was proper education of the rulers. For example to
Plato, education was the instrument through which the ideal state could be realized and to Aristotle
education is not the medium but occupies a prominent place in his best state.

Similarly in constructing his ideal state Aristotle considerably depended on the laws of Plato. Plato
had said in his book The Laws that man without laws are not different from savage beast. Similarly Aristotle
said that man is the best of all animals when he is perfected, but when he is separated from laws and
justice, he is the worst of all. And therefore, both of them made laws sovereign in their states.

But having being influenced by Plato, Aristotle took a different line in his study of political
philosophy. He did not remain a blind follower of Plato’s teaching. He rather developed them along the line
determined by his earlier biological studies and scientific temperament.

Major platonic thought was based in the notion of philosopher king with the conviction that the only
life which is worth of man is a life of virtue which was possible for an individual in the ideal state. Aristotle
believed that state comes in to being for the sake of life and continues for the sake of good life.

Both of them were committed to the state as a moral and spiritual entity and held that ethics and
politics constitute a single and indivisible science. Thus both of them approached the problem of the city
state from moral point of view and their political thought was ethical in character.

From here the major difference between Plato and Aristotle began taking them apart from each
other, Plato being an idealist or theorist and Aristotle a realist and pragmatist. Plato was a mathematician
and learnt the use of numbers and figures which remained static, fixed and unchanging. This made him to
conceive the real world as consisting of eternal, immutable and fixed essence of things. His universe is a
static universe with no place for growth and development. Thus Plato believed that sense and experience
are the source and basis of knowledge and reality.

Aristotle on the other hand, studied biology which deals with the fact of growth and development.
His universe is dynamic which is growing and developing. He regarded fully developed form of a thing as
its true nature. Hence, both Plato and Aristotle differ from each other.

22
 Political philosophy of Aristotle is empirical and descriptive in comparison with radical and abstract
nature of Plato’s philosophy. The central theme of Aristotle’s Politics is moderation or balance. Hence,
Aristotle is called apostle of common sense and golden means.

Aristotle’s theories are based on historical knowledge. He condemned Plato for paying insufficient
attention to history and for imagining scheme of government without due reference to the nature of human
being.

Aristotle gave due importance to facts with his biological training and scientific studies. This made
him a careful and systematic observer. Hence politics became empirical and inductive in his hands. This is
the reason, he is considered as the father of the study of comparative government. Moreover, he collected
facts and also stressed the value and importance of the fact in terms of the end or purpose of the state
because politics was to him the culmination of ethics. Unlike his idealist teacher Plato, he was the first
realist in the political thought. Hence, while Plato argued in the imaginary world of dreams or of idealism,
Aristotle dealt with reforming of the actual thus Aristotle’s love of facts checked him from becoming too
radical. He remained confined to reformation as he believed that the ideal must conform to actual facts. He
followed the middle path and separated ethics from politics.

Their style was greatly different from each other. Plato was a master artist in the use of words.
Aristotle cared nothing for the beauty of style. He intended upon the meaning of the words he employed.
Thus he did not allow his philosophy to be governed by poetry as Plato did.

We fundamentally draw distinction therefore between Plato and Aristotle saying that Plato was
theoretical and Aristotle was practical. Aristotle makes a threefold division of science into theoretical,
practical and productive. According to him, physics and chemistry are theoretical sciences. Social sciences
like ethics and politics are practical science. While building sculptures and painting maybe ranked as
productive sciences. Aristotle believed that man makes use of his rational ability which leads to different
types of knowledge and results in different kinds of sciences.

Plato being a mathematician gives importance to myths and poetry in the development of his
thought as he could not allow a rational explanatory approach. Whereas, Aristotle wanted definite and
scientific knowledge and his love for facts and scientific Spirit led him to get away from ideal and look for
the real. Ultimately Plato’s thinking was based on the pattern of abstract ideas while Aristotle built up his
system of thought on observation and analysis.

Aristotle was a middle class professional man, a husband and father and practical administrator.
Plato was an aristocrat, mystic, ascetic and Puritan. Therefore for Aristotle value of family life, importance
and value of property, respect for public opinion, test and preference of man and sense of possible have
been very significant in the city life for the sake of good life. This made Aristotle a realist and pragmatic
philosopher on the other hand, Plato was an aristocrat and so he comprehended the world of nature and
the working of mind. Hence, by it he desired to direct and control the conduct of other persons.

The first approach may be termed theoretical and the second practical. Plato uses the first one and
Aristotle, the second. Aristotle believed in scientific knowledge being used for the task of governing man.
To him from politics to state craft is a practical science and requires a faculty of mind different from that by
which knowledge of absolute is reached. He believed that the prime qualification of statesmen is not
knowledge but a practical wisdom, which is acquired by along acquaintance in the work of handling men
and their affairs.

Hence, it is widely accepted that Plato remained an idealist political thinker, whereas, Aristotle was
considered a realist.

23
 CHAPTER – 2
ARISTOTLE
Life and Times
Aristotle (384-322 BC), a Pragmatic political Philosopher is known as the first modern political
thinker in the history of political thought. He spent a long time with Plato in his Academy for over 20 years.
His association with Plato was a unique combination of three great philosophers of history namely Socrates,
Plato and Aristotle himself but there was a marked distinction between him and his master, Plato; though
he spent a long time in search of knowledge in Plato’s Academy. Plato was an idealist whereas Aristotle
was pragmatic. Plato was a mathematician who concentrated on mathematical calculations in his
philosophical approach. Aristotle was a biologist and so he explained humanity in terms of a good life by
understanding man and analyzing his psycho-biological growth. He believed that biologically a man has
birth, growth and finally decay (death). Similarly a state is born, grows and then it reaches the stage of
decay so, a state has to be studied and analyzed through biological means. It meant that a state is needed
to be examined through finding every aspect of its parts which it consist of. Thus he began analyzing the
state and how it continues to develop. Plato taught that if the state is good the people are good but Aristotle
taught that if man is good then the state becomes good. Therefore, the distinction between the two is clear.
Plato looked towards making a good state from above, whereas Aristotle did it from below.

Unlike Plato, Aristotle was not an Athenian. He was born in Stagira in 384 BC. His father was a
physician in the royal court of King Philip, father of Alexander the Great. Aristotle had palatial life. His house
was surrounded with properties, living and non-living that is slaves and wealth. This made him to the
determine that a happy and good life needs a house with property enough to enjoy, the leisure of life.
Further, Aristotle got married at the age of around 40 to a girl of 16 who was very beautiful and daughter of
his very good friend. He loved his wife very much and never wanted to see her in the arms of another man.
This background of his life made him to condemn the concept of Communism of Plato who declined the
ownership of property and emancipation of women believing to be immoral and unethical.

Aristotle wrote more than 400 books on the subject of all those topics which relate to the elements
of human life such as logic, metaphysics, ethics, politics, rhetoric, psychology and natural sciences. This
indicates that Aristotle was a biologist a in real sense. Consequently, his philosophy of politics became
both, descriptive and empirical. This made him the first modern political thinker in the world of political
philosophy. He was first to bring reconciliation between ideal and actual. In search of such reconciliation
he lost influence of Plato on him looking with the actualities of the modern states. He lived in a small city
state and believed that an Ideal State should be comprised of a small territory with a small population to be
controlled by the king easily. His political thought made him a realist in approach mainly because he
emphasized upon judgments and values. For judgments, knowing fact was necessary and similarly values
were important to understand ethics. Thus Aristotle’s major task remained with finding and reforming the
actual. This made him to be known as the father of political science. Aristotle, on the one hand, was
modernist with his approach to study state; but at the same time, on the other hand, he was a conservative
as well. He believed in the strong family life and moral obligation for the traditional values of parental dignity
and sacrifice for the state.

However, Aristotle was Platonist in a sense that he firmly believed that education for the rulers were
the greatest need of time. Plato used education as an instrument for making an Ideal State as a perfect
state. Aristotle, on the other hand, realized that education had a prominent place even for the average state
not only for the Ideal State. Plato dealt with education to a great extent in his book The Republic. However,
Aristotle failed to do so because of his early death. Though he gave education an important place to make

24
a state practicable, he unfortunately did not get opportunity to present its logical conclusion because of his
death. Unfortunately the world could not learn more about method of education from Aristotle because
throughout history till the nineteenth century no thinker could better develop the concept of education after
Plato.

Aristotle died in 322 BC at the age of 62 but his broaden vision made him to combine science and
mathematics with ethics and politics which Plato had not done. This developed his philosophy into both,
theoretical and practical framework. He was a political philosopher who seems to be a philosopher of today.
If one reads his book The Politics he would immediately notice that Aristotle is living in the present world
and has written this book looking at today’s socio-political and economic conditions of the contemporary
society. It implies that Aristotle was a visionary alive even today in the courtyard of the contemporary world.

Methods
Aristotle was the first thinker who used the method of science in the study of politics. Through this
method he desired to arrive at generalization and conclusion. In other words, his method was to examine
and observe the particular. To him particular was real and the knowledge of universe is sought only from
an examination of the particular.

Plato’s method was essentially deductive and Aristotle’s was fundamentally inductive. Plato
proceeded from universal to particular and Aristotle from particular to universal. For such a study,
investigations were necessary with the collection and observation of available data so that conclusion can
be derived through observation and analysis. Therefore, Aristotle’s method was scientific, inductive,
analytical and observatory.

Aristotle’s method was also teleological i.e. to understand the real nature of things and examine it
in the stage of fullest development. This method is based upon the fundamental principle that the nature of
the thing can only be found in its ends and purpose for which it is distinct and created.

Aristotle’s method was empirical. He is regarded as a father of historical method. It implies a

process of enquiry in which conclusions are drawn by a dispassionate study of history. It is a comparative
study of society, politics and anthropology. These are utilized as techniques not only to interpret history but
also to predict its future movement.

Historical method views the present as the product of the past and its suggested changes in the
present to mould the conditions of the future.

His method was also comparative by which he meant to study different theories of government, in
constitutions of states by comparison to come to a final conclusion in finding the best available state.

Finally, his method was evolutionary. He believed that the evolution of the state takes into account
the different stages of human development like that of the family and the village. He regarded the state as
the product of series of natural development of man-kind. He believed that man is a social animal and
therefore lived with other men and also made a family. A man is also a political animal and lives with the
process of exchange of services and affairs of the society. And in search of a good life, the man as a political
animal makes a state. This is a natural and evolutionary process.

Thus Aristotle’s method of study depicts a scientific approach to the study of politics based on
pragmatism and practicality which makes him differ from Plato, who used theoretical approach to the study
of politics.

25
Forms of Government
According to Aristotle, constitution is the essence of political association. It embodies the principles
and set goals for the common purpose of associating. Constitution of the state determines both, the forms
and the substance of the state, arranging the citizens and establishing the form of government. It
determines the way of life for all citizens.

Constitution is not merely a scheme for the arrangement of officers and citizens but it is by itself a
norm of good life. A way of life prescribed for all the citizens to attain or realize.

His concept of constitution has several implications such as political, administrative, social,
psychological, ethical, economic and legal.

Politically, a constitution is necessary ingredient of political association. It determines the political

form of the state as monarchy, oligarchy and democracy and it determines the nature of political rule by
explaining the Centre political power.

Administratively, a constitution implies an arrangement of the executive, legislative and judicial

offices of the state. It embodies the principles of distribution in which offices are distributed among citizens
based on agreed principle of capacity.

Socially, it implies the pre-dominance of a single class in society.

Psychologically, it requires a particular type in its citizens.

Ethically, it represents a particular notion of justice and injustice, balance between virtue and vice.

Economically, it represents principle of distribution.

Legally, it is a code of fundamental knowledge.

Thus Aristotle’s concept of constitution is broader than that of modern times.

Forms of Constitution
The constitution determines the form of government and state. Aristotle follows certain principles
classifying state constitution or government, such as:

1. State’s constitution or government can be classified in reference to their aim and end, and for the
respect of common interest. A state can be a monarchy, aristocracy and polity, which aims at the
betterment of the community as a whole with respect of law and attainment of good life. There may
be perverted or abnormal constitution which is class of state based on despotism and where there
is no common good. Such states are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy.
2. According to the principle of number, constitution can be divided into three main classes.
i. Government by one i.e. by birth which is pure loyalty and when prevented, it is despotism or
tyranny.
ii. Government by few i.e. by money which is aristocracy, when perverted it is oligarchy.
iii. Government by many i.e. by number is polity and when perverted it is democracy.
iv. State’s constitution or government can be classified with reference to the principle of class
representation. Having the ends of political power, material acquisition and economic

26
 exploration. A state may be broadly divided into two comprising two groups of people, the
few rich and the many poor.
v. Constitution can be classified on the grounds of psychological requirements e.g. monarchy
is based on virtue or honor, democracy is based on spirit of liberty, oligarchy is based on the
virtue of wealth and tyranny is based on slavery.
Aristotle’s concept of forms of government is of six types:
1- Monarchy: it is a government, when one wise or virtuous man or family rules for the best interest
of the society. He is a capable man with political wisdom and understands the social necessities. It
is a strong government with an efficient administration. It may be hereditary or elected. In both
cases it has the origin of the popular choice. It survives as long as it fulfills the requirements of the
common good and has capacity of achievements and integrity of the monarch.
2- Aristocracy: it is a government of few based on political privilege. It rules the state till its members
are alive. It exists for the good life of the citizens based on the principle of virtue, culture and
wisdom.
3- Polity: is government of mixed constitution. It is a moderate democracy in which the governments
of different forms are combined. Here political power is under military virtue, where the poor may
also be allowed to participate in judicial functions. It is a government by many for the wellbeing of
the community as a whole.
4- Democracy: it is the government by the many poor for the exploitation of the other class. It is a
perverted form of polity. Its motive is freedom or liberty. It arises as a revolt against tyranny and
despotism. Its psychological function is passion for freedom and equality.
5- Oligarchy: it is a form in which a rich minority enjoys the monopoly of political and economic power
therefore; it is the government of the wealthy by the wealthy and for the wealthy. It is a perverted
state of Aristocracy and is the worst form of class state and also the least stable.
6- Tyranny: it is the government of the despot or a dictator. It is the worst and most oppressive form
of government. It is a corrupt form of monarchy, which is open for personal and open ends. In it the
ruler maintains a reign of terror. It is based on force and fraud on the part of the ruler and fear and
slavery of the subjects.
In short, Aristotle believed that all these forms of government follow the process of change from
one form to another i.e. kingship to tyranny to aristocracy to oligarchy to polity to democracy and again to
[Link] Aristotle, the best form of government is kingship, which results in the most stable state.
Ideal State
Unlike Plato, Aristotle believed in practical reality of the Ideal State. To him it did not exist in heaven
rather existed in the nature of man and therefore, Aristotle’s Ideal State was possible.
Aristotle in his ideal state made a study of different categories on which it was based like
1. Teleological
2. Ethical and psychological
3. Functional
4. Geographical
5. Social and Economic
6. Educational

27
1. Teleological
By teleological he meant the determination of purpose of political institutions. A state is an institution
of man and has been created to fulfill certain basic requirements of his nature. A state is natural and exists
for the sake of good life. The good citizen in such a state is also a good man. The good man makes life
good. A good life can only be built with material self-sufficiency. Ideal state must have a physical good of
the physical fitness of the citizens. It would also assume intellectual and spiritual good for the good life.
2. Ethical and Psychological
The ethical and psychological base means that fraternal bond unite citizens of the state in a single
organic unity. It is a fellowship and a partnership which makes the citizens equal and ensures their mutual
dependence. Because no one is self-sufficient there must be mutual contribution to the social hold. Thus
the Ideal state is an organic unity where everyone is performing his own appointed function.
3. Functional Specialization
The ideal state of Aristotle has functional basis in which there is a functional partnership that is
based upon mutual dependence and division of labor. According to Aristotle there must be a specialization
in some sphere but a specialization should not be rigidly followed because extreme specialization could be
evil or have evil consequences. For this reason Aristotle created six classes in his ideal State which were:
i. Priest
ii. Legislature
iii. Military
iv. Capitalist
v. Producer and laborer
vi. Artisan
The producers and laborers and artisans though constitute necessary part of the ideal state are not
with leisure and culture enough to bear the responsibility of citizenship. The first four classes constitute the
body of citizenship and the enjoyment of political power is confined to them alone.
4. Geographical
The geographical basis of Aristotle’s Ideal state is essentially an application of the principles of
mean to the territory. A state is territorial association and because geography determines to some extent,
the nature of citizens, attention must be paid to climatic conditions. The ideal state must be territorially
limited. The lands must be sufficient to enable the state to live in self-sufficiency. The territory of the Ideal
State must be big enough that all the material necessities should be provided and also it must be small
enough to be easily defended.
5. Social and Economic
In its social and economic basis Aristotle’s Ideal State is flexible. He emphasized a private family
and property which were not the cause of evil. If there is evil in man, it exists not in the external or material,
but in man’s own mind and character. Private properties and other material goods must be allowed in the
ideal state along with private family.
Women’s place is only in their families and they must be commanded by men. Marriage must be
state controlled and on the grounds of health. The state must prescribe a minimum and maximum age limit
for the men and women. It must limit the undue growth and the decay of the population. Property must be
equitably distributed among them all.
6. Education
The educational basis of the ideal State consists of a system of state controlled education. The
state must teach the art of fellowship and must give training in the art of citizenship. Education must

28
inculcate in the citizen obedience and respect of law. It must develop the mind and character of the people
because without it individual can neither be a good man nor a good citizen. Therefore, education was to
give harmony. It was to develop the intellectual excellence in citizens for active participation in the affairs
of the state. With a calculated system of education the Ideal State must bring out the real man and surpass
the beast.
Aristotle’s ideal state seems to be aristocratic. He not only dislodged producers and artisans
classes, which are one third of the state population, he also ignored the natural slaves. The enjoyment of
political power is with the small section of the entire population. His state is not an aristocracy of psychology,
or reason, which Plato had described. It is an aristocracy of leisure and culture. Aristotle’s Ideal state also
seems to have some democratic elements. The citizens are bound by fellowship, equality and justice and
together they participate in all functions of the state. But it is a limited democracy which is operating with in
the aristocratic class. In short, Aristotle’s Ideal state is a democracy with a favored few in virtue, culture and
wealth, who are given political rights.
Family
Aristotle believes that private family is a part of the house hold. One cannot survive without the
other. Family consists essentially of two parts which are:

1- The associates
2- The instruments
The associates are the free persons united together for self-preservation. They consist of a
husband, wife and children.
The instruments constitute the property of the household for the fulfillment of wants and moral and
psychological needs. The instrument may be either productive or consumptive. A family is incomplete
without property and also without some living possessions like slave, cattle and so on.
Family is the earliest institution of man and first arose out of the double relationship of man and
woman, master and slave. For the purpose of self-preservation, man and woman united together and for
the necessity of psychological and economic security slaves came under the master.
According to Aristotle, every family is ruled or directed by the oldest male, who is the natural ruler
of the household. His rule varies between his wife and children on one hand and the slave on the other.
The rule over his wife is a constitutional rule, which assures the assumption that there is some sort of
equality between husband and wife, though by nature wife is inferior to the husband. The rule over the slave
is despotic, which is beneficial to the master and slave alike. The rule over the children is royal or monarchy.
He holds that the nature of the family can best be understood from the functions and the ends, for
which it has been instituted. It is an association established by nature for the supply of every day wants. It
does not represent merely an economic union or a biological contract. It is friendship for a life time when
the master rules the wife, the children and the slave with kindness and friendship the family is more a unity
and less plurality than is a case with political association. Also the basis of family is not reciprocal obligation
but an unconditional friendship.
Aristotle’s concept of family is particular as he assigns the natural right of rule and command to the
eldest male. Because by nature it is only the male and eldest male who is capable of taking actions and
delivering good.
He vehemently rejects Plato’s concept of community of wives calling it unholy and immoral. He also
does not allow women to have political participation as Plato did.

29
 Aristotle believes that private family must exist to promote the individuality of man. The state has
certain responsibility in this regard such as:
1. State must control the marriage by fixing minimum and maximum age for boys and girls, men and
women.
2. The state must control the population. Without a scientific population policy in the state the result
will be poverty, quarrels and disharmony. Therefore, there must be a law relating to the birth of
children. More population means, poverty, more crimes and more acquisition. The state must
restrict by law the sexual responsibilities of family life.
3. The state must see that the family members especially women and children are adequately
educated with the requirements of the state.
4. The family members must follow the right art of house hold management for example the master
of the family must know how to command the wife, children and slaves. Therefore, he must
distinguish between the legitimate and illegitimate art of money making and must follow the former
and reject the latter.
5. It is the responsibility of the State to save the male citizens from the clutches of their wives. The
females abuse their freedom and indulge in animal passion and excessive pleasure. They take
advantage of the love of their male partners which the males sincerely bestow upon them.
Aristotle gives a detailed explanation of families for seeking a good life and disagrees with Plato at
almost all points who desired to seek emancipation of women and equal rights for them.
Property
Aristotle made property an essential instrument for man, so property is necessary part of family life
and its basic foundation. Property consists of a number of possessions, living and non-living, productive
and consumptive, all being instrumental to man’s liberal living.
Earning livelihood or acquiring property is an act which every family must know and exercise. It
may either be by natural or unnatural means such as food and clothing and trade or physical labor.
Private property must be allowed to constitute in the state as it sustains private family life. It must
be limited by social morality and public law. Therefore, to Aristotle, an unlimited private property is not
property but theft. Criticizing Plato, Aristotle rejects the notion of collective ownership and criticizes his
theory of community of property because.
1. There may be disproportionate gain among different labors.
2. There is always a difficulty in men living together and having things in common particularly property,
because it creates suspicion and quarrels.
3. Complete abolition of private property is against man’s nature.
Aristotle’s theory of private property emphasizes upon holding private property as a necessity but
it must not be unlimited. It must be controlled with a view to a social purpose. Unlimited private property is
a greater evil than ban on its complete abolition because it leads to inequality i.e. riches in some hands and
poverty in others. In other words, economic distribution between man and man must not be very wide nor
it should be identical.
Mere equalization of property does not help in solving the problem. Equality in wealth is as
disastrous as equality in poverty. Aristotle warns that an equalization of property will not solve the problem
of unity and equality and suggests that:

30
1- Equalization of property must avoid extreme levels and must remain in moderate level so that the
evil of both richness and poor are avoided.
2- Mere equalization of material goods may not solve the problems without equalizing the desire of
acquisition and wants in man.
3- Equalization of property must not be confined to landed property. It must be universal to be effective
e.g. houses, slaves, servants, movables and immovable, all must be equalized.
4- Equalization of property does not mean that every source of material wealth should equally be
divided among private citizens and not left for public use. Half of the land must be owned and
cultivated in common. There must be enough source of wealth at the disposal of government to
meet both, the internal wants of the state and its external wants like wars and defense.
It must be remembered that population is a source of property and property is a source of disunity.
Therefore, it is more necessary to limit population than property. Property becomes the parent of revolution.
In sum, Aristotle gives a comprehensive study of ownership making it an essential part of family
life and limits it for the use of citizens. He also emphasizes the concept of common property for the use of
public good only then the state will be a healthy state and will succeed in enhancing good life for the whole
society.
Slavery
One of the most important contributions of Aristotle’s philosophy is on the study of slavery. He has
justified slavery as a necessity; being a theoretical and practical defense. He made slavery a practical need.
He opposed the doctrine of Sophist on natural inequality and desired to institutionalize slavery. He justified
slavery because he believed that a state is:
(1) A moral community where the citizens are actively participating in its affairs. For their happiness
and leisure in life, citizens must be assisted by slaves.
(2) Citizens need material goods, food, clothing and shelter, which should be provided to them by
slaves.
(3) Productive functions and manual work are below the citizen’s dignity and these were done by
slaves.
1 Nature of Slavery
According to Aristotle, slavery is natural. But there are some unnatural slaves too. The doctrine is
based on three foundations:
i. There existed natural inequality among things as well as among men.
ii. There is natural rule of the superior over the inferior.
iii. The function must be based upon natural aptitude.
Therefore, Aristotle’s Theory is threefold as follows:
a) Theory of natural inequality
b) Theory of Aristocratic government
c) Theory of specific function
To justify the first one, Aristotle believes that as the family, the village and the state are natural; it
is based upon the natural inequality of men.

31
 The justification of second one, Aristotle explains that there is a natural inequality and there is also
a natural principle of rule and sub ordination which is a universal principle. It is the superior intelligence
which rules the inferior.
To Justify the third one, Aristotle believes that the specific functions are also natural e.g. the
functions of the eyes to see, ear to hear, mind to direct and the body to obey. The function of the intellect
is to order and the body to obey. In actual life people who are all body with little mind must be controlled
and directed by persons having good intelligence.
Therefore, these three principles justify that there are some natural slaves and some natural
masters.
2 Justification of Slavery
Aristotle had justified Slavery by moral and ethical considerations and also as a right of the slave.
Slavery is important for making master’s life leisure free from manual duties. The master gives
protection to the slave because he has no intelligence and needs protection in life.
Slavery is morally just and right justice implies the rule of superior over the inferior. The soul must
rule the body, if harmony is to be attained. The superior intelligence is the natural master over the natural
slave for providing justice.
As an instrument is necessary for playing music, property is necessary to run the house. The slave
is the part of the family life and therefore it is necessary for running of household. Thus slavery is morally
justified.
To Aristotle, slavery is not only natural but also legal. To justify the legality of slavery, he says that
some slaves are natural but some are not natural, but are by law. The difference between the two is that
natural slavery is based upon intellect and a spiritual quality and legal slavery is based upon superior in
war and conquest.
Aristotle calls natural slave as internal slave and legal slave as external slave. To him, the legal
slave may be intellectually superior to their masters’ so if they are captured as prisoners of war and made
slaves, they can be set free.
1 Criticism on Slavery
Aristotle should have regarded slavery as unnatural rather than natural because man is born for a
purpose to realize some end. He has been endowed by nature with a capacity to attain good life. The
intellectual deficiency makes him slave in the eyes of Aristotle and so incapable of attaining the good life.
With natural inequality of men, the natural inferiority and superiority for rule and subordination
prevails under such conditions, and there is hierarchy in political administration because nowhere two
persons can be regarded as equal. Therefore, there must be various grades of rule; such theory will lead
to absoluteness.
It is also possible that a sharp mind with weak physique is superior. Aristotle emphasizes both mind
and physique makes superiority which is not by birth a fixed capacity. Development of mind and physical
growth bring development of capacity in man. Therefore, nature does not determine that a man with a
strong mind and weak physique will remain weak or strong. Hence his justification of capacity is unnatural.
Citizenship
According to Aristotle the State is composed of several citizens and without them no state is
possible. From practical point of view Aristotle’s concept of citizenship differs from state to state e.g.

32
democracy lays down different categories of qualification on citizenship than oligarchy. In oligarchy
qualification is property and in democracy it is free birth.
The fundamentals of citizenship to Aristotle are not residence or birth or through court of law.
Because the residents may be aliens (foreigners), minors or the old are not allowed to participate in
discharging the duties of citizenship by possessing power. By birth a person may not be a citizen because
he may not hold state power. Similarly the law does not make a person citizen unless he is guaranteed
authority in the state. Therefore, citizenship is not a legal privilege. It is rather essential function. It is the
power to take part in declarative, legislative, judicial and administrative functions of the state. A citizen is
an active participant in the affairs and offices of the state.
Aristotle’s citizenship implies legislative, judicial and administrative functions, through which very
few persons can acquire right of citizenship but broadly speaking citizenship may be constructive to mean
actual participation in the affairs of the state. Therefore, a legislator or a judge or an administrator may not
be a citizen, if he neglects his function.
A good citizen is he, who renders an unconditional obedience to the laws of his state. But such
man may not be a good man because law in a state may not be a good law. It means that if in a state, the
laws are good and individuals obey them, then they are good men and good citizens. Good citizens are
only in the Ideal State, where the good man is the good citizen.
To Aristotle, good citizen has several virtues. He is an active participant in the affairs of the state.
He is a member of community and concerns himself with all the common aims for a greater moral life. His
virtue is relative to the constitution but in ideal polity he must learn both, to rule and to obey because a man
who never learns to obey cannot be a good commander.
To be a worthy master, a citizen must have enough leisure and culture with true opinion or practical
wisdom. He must learn the requirements of the constitution because it is not only a code of law but also a
code of conduct. Therefore, to be a good citizen, he must be educated.
Aristotle’s concept of citizenship is very novel. He was a political thinker, who visualized this
concept with reference to preference of a state function. Though Plato distinguished the ruler and the
producer, but he did not speak of the citizenship. Thought Aristotle spoke of preference of state functions
by rulers and the ruled and citizenship, he made it very narrow. Aristotle not only discarded aliens from
citizenship but also denied it to the newly born, the minors the invalid, the old and all these who did not hold
responsibility of the legislative, judicial or administrative functions. He gives responsibility to producing class
for doing all other things for the good of state except these three responsibilities of legislation, judiciary and
administration but does not give them the status of importance in the state as citizens.
Further in Aristotle’s concept, citizenship is completely different to that of modern times, where an
individual has a birth right to become a citizen in the state he was born or cannot get citizenship to a son of
citizen unless he holds the state’s responsibilities. Thus, Aristotle’s concept of citizenship gives inconsistent
meaning which value from state to state depending upon the form of government.
Revolution
Aristotle’s concept of revolution is a discussion on sedition. It means revolution has deep meaning
including the study of great rebellion not a reform bill.
Revolution comes due to the decline in political life in the city state. Aristotle discusses revolution
in three heads:
1- Nature
2- Causes
3- Prevention and Remedies.

33
Nature:-
To him nature of revolution is defined as:
(i) Change of constitution in the state.
(ii) Maker of the constitution takes political power in his hands.
(iii) No change in the forms of government but change in constitution.
Aristotle considers the sources of revolution as:
(a) Temper
(b) Motive
(c) Causes and occasions
To him the different interpretations of justice and equality lead to the making of different claims by
different parties and conflict on these claims cause political struggle and changes which turn into revolution.
Thus according to him one cause of revolution is a sense of injustice. However, he believed that the
presence of injustice brings three other main causes:
1- Inequality
2- Expectations of future advantages
3- Seizing of some occasions
Causes of Revolution
Aristotle in his comprehensive study of revolution presents two separate causes of revolution. They
are:
1. General causes
2. Particular causes.

1- General causes
The general causes of revolution are basically three and they are:
i. The state of mind which lead to sedition i.e. when in-equal wants to become equal and equal wants
to become superior.
ii. The objects which are at stake i.e. desire for profit and honor and of loss or disgrace.
iii. The occasions which are sure to start political disturbances and military interference. Generally,
there may be many occasions like gains, superiority, insult, fear, honor, undue prominence, election
intrigues, and preference of the disloyal, free immigration to foreigners, private friendships or feuds,
death of nobles or introduction of new settlers.
To Aristotle, there are small occasions which also may bring about a revolution such as:
(a) Growth of power or office
(b) Uneven balance of parties
(c) Force or fraud
(d) Quarrel on love affairs
2- Particular causes
While giving the particular cause of revolution, Aristotle gives separate causes of revolution in
separate forms of government.
(i) In a Democracy: Revolution occurs because of the policy of demagogues

34
(ii) In an Oligarchy: Revolution occurs where there is unjust treatment of masses, wealthy men are
excluded from offices, feuds between oligarchs, the loss of war with other states or if oligarchy is
too oppressive.
(iii) In an Aristocracy: Revolutions are due to:
a) Narrowing the circle of government.
b) When the masses consider themselves as good as their masters.
c) Removal of important persons from office
d) Deviation from justice
(iv) In Monarchy and Tyranny: The revolution emerges because of their undignified behavior and
conflicting nature.
Thus to Aristotle, there is no economic cause of revolution in a particular sense.
He does not give emphasis to the outbreak of revolution because of economic reasons.
Prevention and Remedies of Revolution
The fundamental method of preventing revolution is the sense of injustice to be avoided by:
a) Consent for constitution making
b) Formation of moderate form of government
c) Spirit of obedience
d) Not to deceive people
e) The democrats should spare the rich and oligarch should help the poor.
Other ways to prevent revolution are as follows:
1- Too much political power should not be allowed in one hand or to one class.
2- Various classes should be treated with consideration.
3- Honor and awards should be distributed extensively.
4- Strangers should not be given offices.
5- Holders of political power should not be allowed to make money.
6- The citizens should be properly educated.
7- Aristotle put security of a state above everything and therefore, emphasizes that the government
should maintain protection from the danger of foreign attack.
8- Aristotle is more concerned about revolution in a tyranny and give ways of preventing revolution in
this form of government such as:
i) Policy of repression
ii) Changing tyranny to kingship
iii) Isolation from neighbors
iv) Good will of the subjects
v) Not to use offices as a source of gain
vi) Not to take the side of stronger in arbitration
vii) Should have large number of ministers
viii) Reward good citizens personally
ix) Punish bad citizens by agents
x) Show himself as a guardian of people
xi) Do not show self interest
xii) Should speak of the crown rather than the king and the state rather than the government.

35
Aristotle as a Conservative Political Thinker
Conservatism may be defined as the continuation of old or traditional way of life. It may also said
to be an element in which society functions regarding development and progress based upon traditional
values.
It is interesting to note that in case of Aristotle as a philosopher, he developed his political
philosophy based on social value system of contemporary Hellenic world. He being conservative is also an
off shoot of his own personal life and family environment in which he was brought up and educated. Aristotle
was so much influenced by the surrounding environment that he ended up with strong sense of
traditionalism and conservatism.
In fact, one can find out conservatism in Aristotle while going through two approaches:
1) His bringing up in peculiar Hellenic Society and the personal family life in the court of King Phillip,
where his father was physician to the king.
2) The different aspect of his political philosophy which shows a deep sense of conservatism if
analyzed separately.
In some Aristotle was influenced in a philosophy with his traditional and conservative approach
what he experienced in his life. His concept of formation of state, citizenship, family, property, slavery, form
of government, ethical and moral behavior education and class all combine together influenced him towards
conservatism in his political thought he became a prey of localism supporting small population and a
comfortable life to live as aristocratic style.

36
 CHAPTER III

NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI

Life and Times

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527 AD) is known as the first modern political thinker. His philosophy
roots into the two most enlightened events of modern history of Reformation and the Renaissance. These
two events influenced him or changed the world so much that it entered into modernity leaving behind the
ideological influence of the medieval era. Moreover the concept of a small city state had already been
largely wiped away with the rise of Alexander the great and later by the Romans. With the Christia

n era began the ideological growth of Christian religion which clouded the entire Europe. Thus the
medieval thinkers remained under the umbrella of more or less religious thought under the influence of
Christian doctrine.

Reformation brought a unique settlement within the minds of newer generation about the concept
of Christianity being not only spiritual but also worldly. In other words Christianity was divided into two major
camps; one which believed in Christian’s traditionalism, and the other which protected it with the view of
different values of spiritual and worldly life. Thus Christianity got broadly divided into Catholicism and
Protestantism. This led to a turning point in philosophical thought as well and also this developed thinking
in people’s socio-cultural, political and religious value-system. This led Machiavelli to believe that the church
was custodian of the next world whereas the state was the custodian of this world. Hence, to him church
was neither behind the state nor above the state, rather it was within the state. His philosophy of state
superiority over the church opened a new era in the history of political philosophy, and he became a pioneer
of creating superior authority of the kings over the church in their political decision making.

Renaissance in the West also opened a new era in human history. The 15th and 16th centuries
opened new age of awakening of mind and thought with development of science and urbanization. New
inventions brought people from rural to urban areas which led to the development of education and hence
awakening of human the mind. Many writers and lawyers emerged in Italy particularly in Florence, where
Machiavelli was born.

When Machiavelli grew with good education he entered into a government job at the famous Medici
Court. He remained with government administrative activities including diplomacy for a long period of time.
This made him more of a political mechanic then a political thinker. He believed that it was easy to acquire
power but difficult to maintain it. Therefore what he taught was not much to do with making of a state as
Plato and Aristotle had done rather he was more concerned with maintaining the state. Thus his he taught
Prince how to maintain his power and last longer and the real of power.

37
 The political society of the 15th and 16th centuries of Europe in which Machiavelli lived was like that
of ancient Greece comprising independent city states with different forms of government such as republic
and despotic. The city states had rivalries among themselves with their own ambition and continued conflict
with each other. There were then five major city states in Italy namely Naples, Rome, Milan, Venice and
Florence. Machiavelli was born and lived in Florence. He saw that these five city states made Italy weak in
front of Spain, Germany and France because of their conflicts of power-politics. Machiavelli believed that
until these city states were not united with each other creating a strong central government, they would
remain weak and would be destroyed by these strong powers of Europe. He wanted see Italy strong enough
to defend itself against foreign aggression.

As a true patriot Machiavelli wanted to find out means to unite Italy and make it strong enough to
maintain peace and order and resist external aggression. For this purpose he wrote his famous books The
Art of War, The Discourses and The Prince. His books were on the art of government rather than theory of
state. He showed himself as a statesman with pragmatism giving a mechanism of government for creating
a strong centre and maintaining its power. He wanted to see the end justify the means which made him a
modern thinker. He wanted to solve the problems of statecraft which made him a realist rather than a
theorist. In his pragmatism he believed that the prince should not see what is right or religious while seeking
his goal rather he should be shrewd and diplomatic being good or bad whatever the circumstances
demanded and he should use force without considering any moral values. It is his actions which will judge
through his success in obtaining, maintaining and increasing his power. Therefore for Machiavelli politics
was an end itself for which means are sacrificed for attaining the goal.

General Political Philosophy

In a broad sense, one can say that Machiavelli was not a political theorist. He was a practical man
with long experience and opportunity of being close to the government as a senior official with active life by
conducting official correspondence diplomatic mission, and organizing the military of Florence. Thus he
developed his interest in practical politics and wrote more about the theory of the state. He enjoyed an
important place in the history of political philosophy because he was known as the father of modern political
thought.

He made modern theory possible by bringing a decisive break with the middle ages with the concept
of church power over the state because to him the supernatural end of human being was worldly and
therefore the church could not be its custodian.

Machiavelli also divorced from morality on the same ground that moral values were not super
natural end. He maintained the significance of moral values with two standards where he allowed use of
immoral acts for political end, for the rulers and the moral end to achieve for the subjects as ends of state.

He believed in democracy as a better state being a free state than kingship or princedom, which
was not a free state but he recommended kingship as better a form of government for the stability and the

38
success of the state. To him, the most important requirement of the state’s stability was the presence of
virtue in the ruler. Virtue to him was the capacity of the attainment of power, fame and success. He believed
with determination that it was not possible for the large majority of the people to possess such qualities
where as it was possible for one individual. Thus believing democracy as a free state in law and institution
and a spontaneous acceptance of these by the citizen’s, Machiavelli regretted and preferred princedom as
a better state on the ground of virtue. He knew that in princedom, the citizen obey law and institutions by
compulsion.

Machiavelli in his philosophy gave two theories:

1. Of founding a state

2. And of preserving it after it is founded. He recommended despotism practically in two special cases:

1. The making of the state

2. The reforming of a corrupt state for such reason, he advocated double-standard of morality,
recommending use of immoral means for rulers, for political ends and denying the same to the
subjects.

Machiavelli gave supreme importance to the law giver in the state. He believed that successful
state must be founded by a single man with law and government. The man single will create and will
determine the national character of his people. The law giver, that is the prince, could restore the moral and
civic virtue of the people which grows out of laws. And where the law was absolute and not obeyed by the
people, the society becomes corrupt. Thus, the law giver was the master of not only the state but of the
society as well.

Machiavelli believed that human nature is selfish. Man is ungrateful and has lust of power vanity
and self-interest. He is more prone to evil than to good but desired security for life and property. Such
conditions brought anarchy in the society for which Machiavelli suggested that to bring stability the state
and law must possess power. He sanctioned the use of cruelty, murder or any other means to the prince
to reach his ends.

Machiavelli also laid the foundation of modern political thought. He gave the concept of modern
nation state. Though he did not speak in terms of sovereignty; he advocated state with the strongest power
and force of law.

He rejected the medieval feudal concept of hierarchical organization and nobility, which destroyed
the concept of nationalism for its own ends. He expressed hatred for mercenary soldiers because they were
selfish, unreliable, untrusted worthy and fought for money, which was a serious cause of lawlessness in
Italy. He recommended a regular army of state for national interest with training and discipline particularly
for unification of the state. He also desired to expand the limit of ethical homogeneity for the purpose of the

39
nation state. He was aware of the forces which made the state united against other traditions, common
language and common systems of law.

In Machiavelli’s philosophy, there is no reference sign of economic aspect of the state. He spoke
of security of life and property but he did not deal with economics as an independent subject matter. His
main concern was the stability of state based on human egoistic nature being bad, fearful, wicked and
therefore corrupt. Thus, he involved himself in the mechanism of government and power of the law giver.

Machiavelli is marked as one of the most important thinkers in the history of political philosophy
and has been called the first modern political thinker for bringing out a new approach to the study of politics
and its mechanism. Though he looked restricted to his locality and time as George Sabine puts it that “he
was a political thinker of 10th century Italy”. Undoubtedly, he was influenced by his local environment but
his thought appeared all over the world after his death. He is used in history by many rulers and followed
by many governments. That is why is said about hum that “He was highly abused and mostly used”. People
hated him and rejected him for his mechanics for a successful government but at the same time his
mechanism was put in use in search of a successful government. No political thinker in the history of political
theory has such recognition and usage as that of Machiavelli and probably for this reason he is called as
the father of modern political thought.

Egoism

The most important and fundamental assumption in Machiavelli’s political doctrine is his view on
nature of man and his motive to act in the society. Machiavelli developed his motive to act in the society by
promoting a theory on the nature of the state and also to preserve the end of the state.

Machiavelli believed that men are born bad and there is no inherent goodness or virtue in them.
He also believed that men are a compound of weakness and folly. They are by nature cunning and
therefore, they become a prey of despotism. He describes that man is ungrateful, fickle, deceitful and
cowardly like an animal with motives of fear and lust, power, vanity and self-interest. They are bad, so much
so that none of them does any good unless obliged and gets something in return. Such nature of man has
made him to do what he likes and therefore, there is continuous confusion and disorder in him. They are
more vulnerable to evil than to good and they follow the wickedness of their own hearts, whenever they
have an opportunity to do so.

What makes man bad is their selfishness (innate) and aggressiveness. Every man wants to have
the best thing for himself and to have as much as possible. He has no limits to the desire of either for power
or possession. Thus men themselves are in perpetual strive and competition, which ultimately leads to
complete anarchy unless they are retained by the force of law.

Such ego of man has made him had and for that he is mainly interested in security and safeguard.
Therefore, he agrees to the restraints imposed upon him by law only which can secure him and his property.

40
 One of these basic needs of human ego is satisfaction with security of life and property but once
man gets it he begin to desire other things particularly wealth and power. An individual seeks these
additional things such as wealth and power only for himself and his family. He co-operates with other
members of the state in their pressure because he realizes that without such co-operation there would be
war of everyone against everyone and attainment of security would be impossible.

Machiavelli believes that origin of society is based upon the assumption that there is need of the
force of law and cooperation among men for security and defense. There is need of government because
of the weakness and inefficiency of the individual who cannot protect himself without state authority. Thus
a successful ruler must provide man with maximum security of life and property. That is why Machiavelli
considers virtue as the attainment of maximum power. Unless the ruler is strong and powerful enough to
provide security to his people, he cannot be a successful ruler.

To Machiavelli, men have no social qualities except self-interest. To seek self-interest they wish to
live under the force of law or strong power. This makes him to believe in the government by force.

Further, to maintain the stability in the society and the state in good health, Machiavelli
recommends the use of immoral means by the ruler for achievement of political ends. He is aware of man’s
nature being bad, cruel and extremely selfish. Thus, his concept of double standards of morality is given,
one for the ruler and other for subjects, which is an outcome of his views on human nature being egoistic.

Morality and Religion

One of the most important ideas of Machiavelli which makes him break away from the Middle Ages
was his determined thought of denying Divine law. Through this he separated politics from religion and
morality, and developed the supremacy of the state over the church.

Before Machiavelli in the ancient and the medieval world, there was no political thinker who had
kept politics separate from religion and morality, as Machiavelli did. Though Aristotle separated politics from
ethics, but it did not become an essential feature of political thought. Machiavelli separated politics from
religion and morality deliberately. He believed that the nature of man and government is the power as an
end in itself. Before his the central point for political philosophers had been happiness which was achieved
by state power as a means of moral terms. Machiavelli did not consider state power existing to serve of
ethical purpose rather he believed it to be expansion of power through acquisition of the end or purpose
which was an end in itself.

He did not believe in the cardinal tenets of Christian doctrine that man differs in pursuing a
supernatural end. He recognized the material well-being of man, earthly or heavenly. These material values
are greatness (success), fame and power, which are the qualities of virtue to seek well-being in the world.
If a man has a supernatural end, there is no function to be performed by a Divine Law. Further, because
the church was the custodian of Divine Law, Machiavelli denied any claim of church not merely for the
superiority but also in the independence of the state. For this he sanctioned the use of immoral means such

41
as fraud, forgery, breach of faith, trickery and violence for the prince to gain his objectives. Through such
philosophy, one could conclude that Machiavelli despised religion and morality, but this is not true. In fact
the only thing in which he was interested was whether they were effective for the end regardless of
consideration of being moral or immoral for the prince. It is also true that he did not despise religion, because
in the opening passage of his book. The Discourse, he expressed the importance of religion in a state citing
example of Italy and how it was ruined, when it started losing respect for the Church of Rome.

He further said that the prince and republic should make themselves free from corruption for their
own existence but preserve purity of all religious observances. He said that there is no greater indicator for
the ruin of a country than to see religion condemned. Thus, he was not hostile to religion rather he believed
that it was necessary for health and prosperity of the state. He believed that Prince should have qualities,
in which men can be counted being good. Hence, the behavior of prince should be embodiment of mercy,
good faith, integrity and kindness.

Machiavelli knew that a state would not flourish without fear of punishment by the ruler so the
citizens were to be made to day and to keep citizens faithful when they disobey, by the use of force and
coercion. This is to attribute religion an important place within the state, because men are concerned for
religious values and they obey them blindly. Thus, Machiavelli gave place to religion within a state, not
above it or beside it.

He valued religion for instrumental purpose, which the ruler could imply to influence people, for the
purpose of achieving the ends. He had a similar view for morality. To him moral and religious consideration
could not bind the prince, because he was above and outside them but he could use both of them to realize
his own ends. Thus, religion and morality was to be used as an important instrument of state policy.
Machiavelli maintained double standards of morality. He condemned Christian morality, which was for
another world and he advocated the use of immoral means by the ruler to gain his goals. The other hand,
he never had any doubt that moral corruption in people made it impossible to have a good government.
About the morality of subject therefore, he wanted a wise ruler to see that guns are of good qualities but
this does not mean that the ruler must believe in the religion of his subjects and practice their virtue, because
for Machiavelli virtue for the ruler was the attainment of power, fame and success. His moral standards
were different for the ruler than that of the subjects.
Thus Machiavelli became the pioneer (champion) of modern political thought by taking away the state from
the clutches of the church and putting the state above religion and morality.

Princedom and Democracy

Machiavelli had adopted Aristotle’s classification of government in monarchy, aristocracy and

polity, and their perverted forms tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. He also agreed with Polybius and
Cicero in considering the mixed type of government as the most suitable for the state. On the whole, he
dealt with two of them at great length, Princedom and Democracy.

42
 He spoke of monarchy or princedom and its problems in his book The Prince, and of a republican
form of government in his book The Discourses In the Prince, he seems to be a great supporter of monarchy
and worst enemy of a republic. But on the other hand in Discourses, he speaks of democracy with a positive
voice, calling it a free and health state.

To Machiavelli, the preservation of the state depends upon the excellence of its law, because law
is the source of civic virtue, which makes a man, a good man and sets quality in him to achieve the goal.
Thus, to Machiavelli, virtue is most important for the betterment of the state because corruption in the
society could only be removed, when virtue is acquired, virtue being the attainment of power, fame and
success making a man, good man processing good qualities.

Corruption can only be removed by law and the law giver. He dislikes republican form of
government reflecting it is difficult to find virtue in a large number of people in a society and a republic is
formed by a large number. A society has to have a man of religious virtue who will bring remedies for
corruption and that one man of high virtue can be the prince or monarch.

The preservation of the state depends upon law and civic virtue. Princedom has to be regulated by
law for a stable government. Legal remedies are required against illegal violence. These remedies
Machiavelli wished to acquire through the double standard of morality of the ruler and morality of the
subjects.

According to Machiavelli government is more stable when:

1. Shared by many
2. Through Election than heredity to choose the ruler
3. When a decision is reached through freedom by the public.
4. People are to be independent, strong and warlike.
Machiavelli has a high opinion of virtue and judgment of an uncorrupted people, when compared
to those of the prince. However, he believed that the republican form of government is unfit to make a policy
because it is difficult to serve virtue in a large number.

Still a republic is more sound and better than a monarchy in matters that fall within its jurisdiction
hence a republic form of government can only be possible if the society is made of uncorrupted people so,
they must be governed by a prince or tyrant, because they are not capable of governing themselves.

Comparing princedom and Democracy, Machiavelli concludes that princedom is not a -free state,
wherein citizens obey laws by compulsion. To be free it needs virtue and in its absence people become
corrupt and then princes are needed, who makes the state a- free state.

The Democracy is a Free State, where the citizens obey laws spontaneously. As long as it is a
state of uncorrupt people, it maintains virtue but when it acquires corruption it requires a virtuous person
for its betterment and becomes an un-free state under the prince.

43
 Machiavelli recommended a monarchy because of the absence of virtue in a large number of
people. To him monarchy seems more feasible and stable with virtue of the ruler for the attainment the goal
of removing evils in the state.

First Modern Thinker

Machiavelli’s political thought has a practical force in state affairs. He belongs to the age of
Renaissance and Reformation, which started in Italy. He was born in Florence in 1469. It was the period,
which saw the outbreak of Renaissance followed by the reformation ending the middle ages and beginning
the modern era.

Prior and during these two movements i.e. Renaissance and reformation, absolutism of monarchy
and Papacy was on the peak. With the outbreak of Renaissance the growth of economic expansion in
Europe led the merchants to play important role in state affairs which gave rise to:

1. Friendship between merchants and rulers

2. Concepts of nationalism
3. Conflict between church and state.
4. Development of national power with exploitation of nation’s resources and encouragement of trade.
5. Hatred towards nobility by new economic classes.
6. Military power and the administration of justice.
Thus, by the opening of 16the century absolute monarchy had either become or was becoming the
prevailing type of government in Western Europe.

At that time, Machiavelli’s homeland Italy was in the state of institutional decay. Though it was a
society of intellectually brilliant and artistic creative people, but it had the worst political corruption and moral
degradation. For example:

1- The old civic institutions were dead.

2- Medieval idea of church and Empire were no longer in practice.
3- Cruelty and murder had become normal agencies of government
4- There was no good faith, and truthfulness while force and fraud had become keys to success.
5- Selfishness was the only way of progress.
Machiavelli saw all of these factors very closely and became theorist of a society in which the
individual exists having no motive and no interest except that of by his own egoism.

He was not apolitical theorist rather his interest was practical to find the mechanics of government
rather than a theory of state. He is considered to be the father of modern political theory mainly because
he broke through the concepts of the Middle Ages.

In his modernity, he was the first to express that the realization of man’s need was not through the
supernatural end in the state, subordinate to the natural and divine law of the church. He denied that man
had a supernatural end and his life was regulated by divine and natural laws. This was the foundation of
his theory of the state which can only be understandable by examining the mechanism of the state.

44
 It was Machiavelli, who for the first time centered political thought round on a national state. Just
like the medieval thought was the theory of society and ancient thought was the theory of city state.
Machiavelli in his theory of nation state developed the concept of rulers and their mechanics of government
which later became the foundation of concept of sovereignty particularly elaborated by Bodin and Hobbes.
He rejected the feudal concept of hierarchical organization and in its place put all powers in a central
authority supreme over citizens and associations.

It was he, who for the first time realized the necessity of a national army and rejected mercenary
soldiers because national army will bring and maintain the unification of the state as a nation.

Although, he did not use the term nationality in the modern sense, he was aware of the forces
which make a state on language and system of law. He warned that to maintain the unity of the state, ethnic
homogeneity must be maintained because a state never attacks a state, where this homogeneity is
maintained. With this newly developed thought, leading to formation of the state and preserving it after it is
found Machiavelli developed theory of revolution and of government. He recommended making of state
based on the modern concept of nationalism and also reforming the corrupt state by the use of a political
mechanism, which made him the first modern political thinker.

CHAPTER IV

45
 THOMAS HOBBES

Life and Times

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679 AD) was born in England. His political philosophy has been highly
intense both by his family life as well as British history of the period he lived in. He named his famous book
the Leviathan which means the monster. He meant that man by nature is like a monster that is essentially
by nature selfish, brutal, nasty and bad therefore his life is short. Moreover his mother always told him that
he was born because she got highly scared of the news of Spanish Armada arriving in England gave him
birth prematurely. Since he was born due to fear Hobbes used to say that “my mother gave birth to twins,
myself and fear” and since then believed that man is born with fear and needs protection at all times for
survival. He was also from a broken home. When he was around four years old his father left his mother
and her children and disappeared. His mother since believed that men are selfish and bad. Although
educated at Oxford University he was not satisfied with his education which to him did not give bring any
positivity in his life.

He was very young when Queen Elisabeth I died in 1603 and was succeeded King James I, of
Stuart dynasty who was king of Scotland. Since King James VI was a catholic and wanted to bring back
Catholicism in England which remained till the time of Queen Marry, the predecessor of Queen Elisabeth I.
Almost sixty years of Queen Elizabeth I reign Protestant environment was common and people had become
used to it for three generations. This led to a conflict between King James I and the British people on the
question of power of parliament. James I fought for his authority till he died in 1625. He was successful by
his son Charles I who was a more staunch Catholic and wanted to rule with monarchical despotism. The
civil war became so serious that it ended with the killing of King Charles II and establishment of military
regime lead by Oliver Cromwell. The wife of King Charles I had fled to France with his young son Charles
II. Hobbes was tutoring the young Prince Charles II and he also went to France with them. Oliver Cromwell
died in 1660 after eleven years of his rule. He was succeeded by his son Richard Cromwell who was a
weak person and unpopular among the people. Upon the death of Oliver Cromwell, Charles II returned to
Scotland, his original home and asked his people to help him in restoring the British throne. They agreed
to do it if Charles II made a promise to rule with the consent of the people represented in parliament which
he accepted. This restored the Stuart dynasty in England under Charles II who ruled for a long period until
he died in 1688. Hobbes saw the events very closely. He returned back to England with Restoration. Now
he was an old man and desired to have some assignment from the King which he was refused and was
only given a small pension with the condition that he will go back to his village and will not write anything
concerning politics. Thus in his last days of life he remained lonely and under bondage keeping him unhappy
and frustrated.

His experiences of family life and British politics of his time made him to believe that man by nature
is selfish and nasty. This became the fundamental foundation of his political philosophy. Basically Hobbes

46
was a mathematician and was closely associated with Galileo who was his close friend. Under his influence
Hobbes used geometry applying mathematics in his philosophy which made him to assimilate psychology
and politics in his political thought therefore Hobbes was the first political thinker who used the approach of
mathematics and Physics studying motion and passion combining the two sciences with psychology and
politics. This had led him to write his famous book The Leviathan while he was in France which was
published in 1651.

Political philosophy of Hobbes is unique in its nature. It is generally known as scientific materialism
which he developed from the theory of motion of Galileo and Newton. Hobbes learned from them that
knowledge gets pattern from mechanics. He related this mechanism for analyzing human nature. Through
that he studied human behavior and found that Psychological element such as sensation, feeling,
imagination, memory, and reason all play a dominant role in shaping and reshaping human behavior. The
mechanical system of motion thus develops human behavior which is based upon the above mentioned
psychological factors. In politics human behavior is exhibited through social behavior which has basis of
psychology. Thus Hobbes in his philosophy looked towards analyzing the state system through scientific
materialism using the human machine assimilating physics and psychology on the basis of motion and
passion.

State of Nature

Hobbesian concept of nature of state is based upon the concept of human nature. He recognized
that in natural state there was some sense of natural law. Its essences were self-preservation or “liberty
each man has to preserve his own life”.

Man in society is governed by the fundamental principle of desire that is:

1- To seek pleasure and avoid pain

2- The analysis of human behavior should be that pleasure – pain mechanics explain action on all
levels. Men have ego and desire to preserve themselves though the acquisition of more and more
power.
From human psychology, he viewed man as living originally in a state of nature without the benefit
of the government. Individual egoism and goal of self-preservation controlled all actions of man. Thus, it
was a period where man was solitary and his life was poor, nasty, brutish and short.

The trouble arose from every man being the equal of every other man, because lack of physical
strength was compensated by intellect and ability and vice versa.

From this equality of ability, there arose equality of hope in the attainment of ends but by nature,
the weakest did not have enough strength to kill the strongest. Above all men were beset by the sins of
competition diffidence and glory. This resulted in a perpetual war of every man against every man. During
this period, nothing was just and right because there was no law or any notion of right and wrong there was
only force and fraud.

47
Here Hobbes used his scientific materialism and proved that because of the nature of man, the state of
nature was bad and life was short. His scientific materialism explained that human behavior including
sensation, feelings and thought was made of motion.

As social behavior upon which art of government rested was merely that special care of human
behavior which arose, when man acted with reference to one another. The sense of diffidence also made
man to look for security.

The above condition could have continued indefinitely except for two factors which are inherent in
man:

1- Reason which discovered that peace had more utility than war.

2- Fear of violent death which brought man’s passion into lines with his reason.

Thus, Hobbes recommended the formation of civil society i.e. common wealth to come out of the
state of nature. He believed that it was not to see in fact what government was, but what government must
be, in order to control it successfully. This was possible through such motivation which was taken with the
view that human being is like a machine.

Hence, Hobbes concluded that a civil society is needed for creating a peaceful living for man and
such a society was only possible for Hobbes under his plan of social contract.

Natural Law

Generally speaking, Natural law is discovered by human reason. It is assumed that Natural Law governs
human relation in the absence of positive law. It exists as supplementary to positive law and a standard by
which the conduct of government may be judged.

Natural Law is of two kinds:

1. Physical Natural law which deals with science for example:

Planetary law movement, Structure of atoms, Boiling point of water, Human body relating to growth
and decline of man,

2. Moral Natural Law which deals with humans for example: Self-preservation, Desire for food, love
or hate, Passion (like fear and death)

Hobbes realized natural Law from the moral point of view for the purpose of studying human
behavior and its need to form the civil society. He studied Natural Laws through human passion and reason.

He saw in the state of nature that there was a war of every man against everyone, so nothing could
be unjust. There was no common power and no Law. Because there was no law, there was no justice.
Thus, force and fraud in the war were virtue to Hobbes, Justice and injustice were not faculties of body or
of mind. There was no property except property of man, if he could get it he could keep it. This natural

48
condition stayed on, which was natural. To Hobbes the only possibility to come out of this ill condition
consisted of passion and reason.

Passion made man to come out of the evil conditions because:

1- It inclines man to peace

2- It is fear of death
3- It creates desire for things necessary for life.
Reason suggests articles of peace, by which agreements are drawn. To Hobbes, these articles of
peace are natural Laws thus the agreement in the form of contract is the embodiment of Natural Law.

Hobbes gave a number of different points defining these embodiments of Natural Law such as:

1- Liberty:

It means each man has to use his own power by himself for the preservation of his own nature that
is his life. This is in the absence of external hindrances.

2- Contract:

It is an agreement between men and among the group of men to lead an agreed life style based
on common desire. Thus contract is the mutual transferring of right.

3- Covenants:

Form the transfer of right the contract follows another Natural Law i.e. covenants. When the rights
of all men to all things are granted the remaining men are still in the condition of war. So a new covenant is
made. Under which men do not only mutually transfer right but they also surrender their rights. To come
out of the condition of war they try to become just by following the performance of covenant.

4- Gratitude:

A man receives benefit of grace from other man endeavor. It means when gives benefits, he has
no reasonable beneficiary of his good will. Thus there is an acknowledgement of obligation.

5- Complaisance:

Every man strives to accommodate himself with the rest. Man is striving for superfluous things, and
is guilty of war and war is contrary to Natural Law, which seeks peace.

6- Pardon:

To forgive the past offense, there is nothing but granting of peace and ensuring better relations in
future. If there is no pardon, state of war can occur anytime.

7- Revenge:

The object of revenge is not to look at the past evils but the greatness of good. It means that
punishment will be inflicted with a view to correcting the offender, in case; punishment is inflicted to hurt the

49
offender or to humiliate him, will glorify no end, because this will start a war. Attitude of hatred and contempt
even for punishment leads to bitter relations.

8- Contumely:

The breach of Natural Law that is revenge is called contumely. No man should declare hatred or
contempt towards other man.

9- Equality:

All men by nature are equal and breach of this is pride. In case of dispute between men, they will
mediate equally between themselves. On the absence of a mediator or a judge who are partial, it will lead
to war.

10- Common Enjoyment:

From equality follows another Natural Law i.e. that a thing which cannot be divided must be enjoyed
in common. If the quantity of things permits it should be divided proportionally otherwise the division is
unequal and contrary to equality.

11. Lot (by many):

Entire right is to be determined by lot. There are things which neither be divided nor enjoyed in
common. Therefore, Natural Law prescribes the entire right to be determined by lot.

12. Arbitration:

All men mediate peace to be allowed safe conduct. Therefore, it is the law of nature that in case of
controversy, case be submitted to the judgment of an arbitrator. This judge will bear in mind that there is
always a possibility that in other cases in which he is involved partial judgment may be extended to him.
And partial judgment can lead to condition of war.

In conclusion we see that Article of Peace which Hobbes called Natural Laws for the conservation
of men in multitude is doctrine on which a civil society is based. This is only possible for making a civil
society.

Social Contract Theory

Contract is an agreement made on mutual basis between two or a group of persons. The social
contract is an agreement made on mutual basis by the pressure of society.

The social contract theory is a theory of state by which a political society is establishment with a
contract between the ruler and the ruled by which the ruled agrees to submit before the ruler’s law and
order and the ruler promises to give protection of life and property to the ruled.

50
 The theory of social contract was developed by three medieval thinkers, Hobbes, Locke and
Rousseau, who advocated that the state of nature need to be politically organized, which could only be
done by social contract.

Hobbes was an English political thinker. He was influenced by the historical events of his time and
the political environment which he witnessed. He saw the rulers of the Stuarts under King James I, King
Charles I and King Charles II. He saw the conflict between the kings and the people during the first two
Stuarts and witnessed the execution of Charles I with the outbreak of the civil war of 1649. He also
witnessed the dictatorship of the militant ruler Oliver Cromwell and later the restoration of Charles II as the
king of England in 1660. These all historical events and violent political environment made Hobbes to
believe that “man by nature is selfish, brutal, nasty and bad, and he is living in a state of nature which is
under the period of constant warfare of all against all”.

Similarly, the empirical studies showed Hobbes the same concept of man’s nature. He was born
premature birth, when his mother delivered him getting frightened by the news of the arrival of Spanish
Armada, to warship bombard London. This story, she used to tell Hobbes that he was born because of her
fear. Hence, Hobbes held that “his mother gave birth to twins, himself and fear”. It meant that man is born
with fear. Hobbes came from deserted and broken home. His father had left his mother and children while
Hobbes was very young, on which his mother used to complaint that how man by nature is crude and nasty
being selfish. At the later stage, Hobbes was not a happy man, as he was always forced by the
circumstances on selfish reasons of people and government for their benefit and pleasure. Thus, Hobbes
recommended a contract between the ruler and the ruled to live in an organized political society,
establishing a civil society to come out of the state of nature, which was under the condition of war against
all. His social contract prescribed the following.

1. Nature of man:

Man by nature are selfish and brutal, therefore they should be kept under a strong hold of ruler in
the civil society.

2. State of nature:

State of nature is period of constant warfare of all against all. Therefore, for the establishment of
common will, a contract between the ruler and the ruled is necessary for the protection of life and property.

3. Sovereignty:

The contract will create a sovereign in the common-wealth, who will be all absolute to maintain
peace and security by holding all powers to control the warfare nature of man and secure peace.

4. Government:

For that under the contract de facto and dejure governments are legal and same, and when the
government is made de facto and dejure, sovereign is created thus to be obeyed.

51
5. Location of Sovereignty:

The location of sovereignty is under one or few hands. But once given it cannot be challenge or
recalled. Hobbes recommended a single sovereign i.e. King.

6. Law Making Authority:

There was no right of people to participate in law making after the contract is made. It was the
sovereign, who would make the laws and once the law is made it is to be obeyed.

7. Right of Revolution:

Hobbes does not give right of revolution in his contract. To change the ruler means to him men’s
own choice.

Sovereignty

Hobbes is one of the champions of the concept of sovereignty in a civil society which is to him the
most important and essential aspect of the state having a strong power and authority. According to Hobbes,
the agreement with the multitude of men, a covenant is made and common wealth is constituted. These
men make assembly of their representatives and every man who votes for it or does not vote for it authorizes
all actions and judgment of that man or assembly of men in the same manner as they were his own for the
purpose of living peacefully among themselves and to be protected against other men. Thus from this
institution of common wealth the sovereignty is made. Sovereign received all rights and faculties from men
with the consent of the people.

Hobbes gives a number of points suggesting the power of Sovereign for a civil society that are
following:

1. Sovereign is not obliged by the former convent. A new covenant can be lawfully made by him
without the permission of the former rule. The men are subject of new Sovereign.

2. None of the men can be freed from the covenant.

3. Sovereign will not get consent of every man for his action rather he will be consented of all action
of men.

4. Because every subject is the author of all actions and all judgment of the Sovereign whatever the
Sovereign does, it cannot be injurious to any of its subject or any of them can accuse the Sovereign
of injustice.

52
5. Because the Sovereign cannot be accused of injustice, he cannot be justly put to death or cannot
be punished by his subjects. If his subjects punish him they would punish themselves as they are
the authors of the covenant.

6. For the maintenance of peace, the Sovereign will check all the books which have doctrine. In other
words, there cannot be any doctrine other than the Sovereign’s own.

7. Sovereign has whole power of prescribing the rule so that everyman knows what food he may enjoy
and what action he may do. Before the Sovereign was constituted, it has been shown that all men
had right to all things which created war of all against all. Therefore, Sovereign has whole power of
making rule to maintain peace for that the subjects have to depend upon Sovereign (Page # 155
Done)

8. Sovereign has right of dedication i.e. of hearing and deciding all controversies which may arise
concerning law.

9. Sovereign has right of making war and peace with other nations and common wealth. It is for
sovereign to judge for the public good that how great forces are to be assembled and armies are
to be paid for the end by levying money upon the subject for expanses.

10. Sovereign has power of choosing all councilor ministers, Magistrates, officers both in peace and
war.

11. Sovereign is committed to power of rewards with riches, honor and of punishment.

12. Whole of militia is commanded by sovereignty. Because there is to be force in the hands of
sovereign for in execution of law.

These powers mentioned above are to be with sovereign of Hobbes. It is not necessary that these
be rested in one man rather may be in few or many. But Hobbes believed that monarchy is the most
desirable form of government since it is least subject to passion to dissolution of whole society. Hobbes
insisted that sovereignty is absolute and could not be denoted. He holds that sovereign is supreme in
spiritual and temporal affairs.

No philosopher has taken more extreme view than Hobbes, regarding the absolute nature of
sovereignty. Machiavelli separated politics from religion and morality in his philosophic theory. Bodin limits
sovereignty by Divine Law, Natural Law and the law of nations. Hobbes makes sovereignty all powerful and
unlimited while Grotius teaches that law of nature and of nations are binding upon all states, Hobbes
teaches that law of nations or nature or even of God is binding upon man only through the will of his
sovereign.

In short, we see that Hobbes theory of sovereignty is resulting in absolutism. It was based upon
the doctrine that all men are naturally equal having the desire of large degree of individual freedom.

53
 CHAPTER V

JOHN LOCKE

Life and Times

John Locke (1632-1704 A.D) was an eminent political philosopher of Great Britain like Thomas
Hobbes. Locke was also influenced by his times as Hobbes. The difference between the two was the
circumstances which brought diversion in their political philosophies. Hobbes passed through
circumstances which led him to determine that human nature was essentially bad, nasty, and brutal hence
life is short because there is a war of all against all. Locke on the other hand had a different experience in
life. He was born in an aristocratic and sophisticated family. He was highly educated and became a
professor of philosophy at Oxford. Wherever he went he made good friends who remained sincere to him
all his life. He believed in intimacy with people he knew. He experienced toleration in the people with reason
to dissent. He found absence of viciousness and wickedness in men which made him to believe that human

54
beings are good. All these experiences led to his assessment of human nature different to that of Thomas
Hobbes.

Locke passed through a different phase of British history than Hobbesian era. The English history
passed through a period of political instability and religious conflict leading to civil war and be heading of
King Charles I. England also experienced a military regime for decay. When the restoration took place
Hobbes was sent to his village on the condition not to write anything on politics. The period covering life of
Locke was a peaceful phase in the history of England. He was a relatively a young man when England was
under Oliver Cromwell who established a very conservative environment in British society. During his rule
England remained socially and politically peaceful and calm. After restoration in 1660 under King Charles
II the English political system witnessed a remarkable change compared to the period of James I and
Charles I. King Charles II ruled the country throughout his state with the consent of the Parliament. He died
in 1688 and was succeeded by his brother James II. The long period of rule of Cromwell (1649 – 1660 AD)
and reign of Charles II (1660 -1688 AD) made English people used to a stable political society and social
peace. There was no conflict of Catholic-Protestant matters. Charles II reign made people comfortable as
he was ruling the country with the consent of parliament which did not bring any political conflict between
the King and Parliament thereby resulting in socio-political peace in the country. Charles II was succeeded
by his brother James II. King James II was unlike Charles II in his thought and acts as a monarch. He
desired to rule the country like his father and grandfather with the supremacy of Catholicism. He had two
daughters, Mary and Anne both were Protestants. Mary was married to the King of Netherland, William of
Orange. The mother of the two daughters had died. King James II had married a young girl when he was
71 years old. His new wife was a staunch Catholic. She gave birth to a son and the British people believed
that he will become King after James II. He will be brought up and trained in a Catholic environment by his
mother together with his father’s palatial environment therefore the people believed that the political
environment will return to the days of James I and Charles I. There was a bloodless revolution to remove
James I and bring Queen Mary and King William to the British Throne. King James II abdicated the throne
and the Parliament put Queen Marry and William the Orange as William III King and queen of England in
1689 by passing the Act of Accession. The 1688 revolution is known in British history as the Glorious
Revolution because it was bloodless and brought glory for British people as well as the country. John Locke
saw this change in the history of England very closely and came to believe that the people can change a
rule with peaceful means.

Locke’s life experience British history made him to believe that by nature man is decent, peaceful
and orderly and quite capable to rule himself. This became the foundation stone of his political philosophy.
He diverted from Hobbes in his political thinking and gave significant importance to knowledge and
experience. He believed that knowledge is derived from experience and therefore experience is important
for an understanding. Realizing this he wrote his famous essay on Treatises on Civil Government in which
he described his major political philosophy.

55
 John Locke is known as apostle of the glorious revolution which was moderate and successful. His
philosophy became so widely accepted, based on Theory of Consent that the American constitution of 1789
was drawn on Locke’s political doctrine. The British constitution followed it continuously and so did France
in its constitution of 1871. He thus became the champion of liberal movements establishing himself as a
first modern liberal thinker

General Philosophy

England of 17th century produced two important Thinkers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Both
presented the nature of political philosophy differently. Both have contradictory views based upon their
concepts of nature of man and the state of nature.

Locke became the champion of constitutional monarchy because his philosophy was based on the
theory of consent. He was the son of a small landlord and favorite of his father, with a high academic
background from Oxford, where he also taught philosophy. He had a kind disposition, which made people
love him and had a wide circle of friends which led him to have sympathetic view of human nature.
Everywhere he went, he made friends and surrounded by a circle of devoted associates. He had ample
opportunity to see different aspects of human nature.

His concept of “What men were” was based on the events of the year 1688, which was the period
of the Glorious Revolution which ultimately led him to believe that human nature as decent, peaceful, orderly
and social.

In his writings, Locke was counter part of Hobbes. Hobbes was the prisoner of the Stuarts and
Locke was the prisoner of William III Locke was the philosopher of constitutional monarchy as opposed to
the theory of Filmer, who was a believer of absolutism of the King. Hobbes believed that state of nature
was a realm of reasonable freedom and equality because individual should enjoy liberty in social life in the
state of nature.

Locke was also philosopher to develop the theory of division of power, executive and legislature.
He also dealt with international relations which to him was the responsibility of legislature. His theory of
division of power was concluded by Montesquieu, who gave the third power, judiciary in his theory of
separation of powers.

Locke developed his theory with the right of resistance against tyrannical rule, which he called an
appeal of heaven. To him, it was individual not the state, who is the local person in the social drama. Locke
was also a pioneer of economic thought believing that labor is almost exclusively a producer of wealth.

To him, in a state of nature, men are free and equal. No one should impair the life, property, health
and freedom of another. Natural law is the command of reason which is the preservation and the freedom
of all men. Reason determines the degree of punishment. It is not blind revenge. These are natural laws
for those who have reason. Treaties and alliances between the states do not break up the state of nature
as long as they do not bind state into a united society.

56
 In a state of nature, it is the duty of men to keep trust & cooperate with other men in living together
according to reason without any magistrate, who has exclusive authority to direct them. An injured has the
right to deal with the offenders because those who threaten liberty threaten everything.

Speaking of the family, Locke claimed that father as the head of the family who controls the children
and also acts as a ruler of the family. People found prosperity, peace, protection and liberty in the rule of
their fathers. The natural relation between parents and children are not political because family is not a
political unit society and also marriage is not a political relationship. The right of decision belongs to the
husband because he is stronger and better suited for it.

While discussing Law, Locke held that since men were by nature equal, free and independent, they
could be legally subjective to the political power of others with their consent. Majority of the members were
to decide that their will should be regarded as the decision of the entire community. Men save their natural
liberty because the state of nature was filled with danger and fear. Therefore, laws were necessary to know
the just and the unjust. A judge must have the necessary powers to give validity to law. A state is established
through the arrangement of persons, who united themselves in common against others and who for this
purpose subject themselves to the will of the majority. That was the beginning of the legally constituted
government.

Hence, people should elect the ruler. The government should be based upon their consent.
Through the creation of legislative power foundation of a state is laid and the state of nature ends. The
legislature was established to put an end to the uncertainty of state of nature. No government should
diminish the property without the agreement of the majority of the people or of their elected representatives.
The law giver cannot impose taxes on his personal pleasure. He has no right to deliberate legislative power
to others. His sole power is to create laws. The people should alone decide who should make their laws.
Assembly should be dissolved from time to time for new elections.

The holders of the executive power may also act without law or depart from a given law if the
welfare of the state urgently demands it as the legislature would cause too much delay. But it will be asked,
who is judge, whether the prince or legislature, who has violated his or its duty.

The entire right for such questions to be asked is the right of the people. On the other hand, the
prince should remove the unfaithful, who do not work for the welfare of the state because might do not
become right even if un-resisted. The powers of the conquerors or victors over vanquished were
continuation of war, not a political rule. Political power has its origin in the consent of the people.

There is complexity in Locke’s theory resulting in difficulties. He tried to combine multitude issues
involved, which he never examined thoroughly. His political philosophy was an effort to combine past and
present and also to find out a compromise for a responsible men of all parties. But it does not synthesize
all that he combined with the diverse elements of the past. So, his political philosophy emerged the diverse

57
theories in the centuries followed. He never made up his mind what exactly was fundamentally original and
what was not original.

Social Contract

Locke’s theory of social contract when explained depended on his concept of human nature. The
nature of the society he lived in the nature of the contract he entered into and the rind of civil society resulting
thereby. Locke was influence by his life time and history and believed that man by nature is good and his
living in state of nature which is also good. Thus he advocated social contract to establish a civil society
where man could be given opportunity to live happily and decently. His social contract describes the
following:

1- Nature of Man:

Nature of man is decent, orderly and peaceful and men are quite capable of ruling themselves. A
man will do the job in the civil society, if he is asked to do it. Thus, under the contract, the civil society is
established with the consent of man.

2- State of Nature:

The state of Nature is the period of peace. Men in it are quite capable of ruling and they are free
from constant warfare. Thus, civil society is created with the consent of man to rule them.

3- Sovereign:

Sovereign is not absolute. He has to follow the wishes of the people through their representation
in the parliament.

4- Government:

The de facto and dejure governments are not same. De facto government does not have the
consent of people and therefore, is not legal and not acceptable.

5- Location of Sovereignty:

Sovereign is vested in people and is under the government hold only in extreme case which makes
revolution necessary. Thus, all acts of government are legal unless they violate the right of the people.

6- Law making authority:

The people have the right to make laws through their representation in Parliament. Hence, the
parliament has the authority of law making. Once the law is made it is to be obeyed. The parliament also

58
has the right to change the law any time through the consent of the people if it is unsatisfactory. Therefore,
people have direct participation in Law making through representation.

7- Revolution:

People have the right to change the government through revolution by election if they find the
government unsatisfactory. Therefore, according to Locke people have right of revolution.

Theory of Consent

John Locke as a theorist of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 presented a philosophic defense of
parliament. He opposed the ecclesiastical and political methods enforced during the later Stuart period
(King James II). This attaching both Divine Rights theory and the theory of absolutism. He disapproved the
doctrine of Royal prerogative based upon Divine Rights.

His theory of consent had its origin in his concept of social contract through which he desired to
create his civil society or government. To him, the original state of nature was one in which peace and
reason prevailed. It was pre-political but not pre-social. It was not lawless as man lived under the law of
nature. Where all men were equal and possessed equal natural rights i.e. right of life, liberty and property.
Locke defined liberty as freedom from all rulers except the ruler of nature.

The difficulty was as to constitute the law of nature, the absence of judge to settle the disputes and
the inability of individuals to maintain their natural right against injustice – all these lead to uncertainties,
which became intolerable. Accordingly individuals by means of a social contract formed a body politic,
giving up their personal rights to interpret and administer the law of nature. In return, they were given a
guarantee that their natural rights of life, liberty and property would be preserved. The power given up by
the individual was not vested in a single man or an organ but in the community as a whole. They sovereignty
of the political community or state was not absolute. It only had the power to protect natural law.

Such a contract based upon consent, involved the necessity of majority rule. Each individual
surrenders his right to the executive and the law of state. The minority is bound by the will of the majority
who might use force if necessary. The consent of individual of the political community may be expressed
which may be given through process of election.

Locke recognized the distinction between the state and the government. According to him,
government was created after the establishment of civil society. For this, a social contract among the people
was to be made, by which a state was to be formed. Locke followed Aristotelian tradition in dividing
government into monarchies, aristocracies and democracies, considering the location of legislative
authority as a fundamental test of the executive and judiciary being clearly dependent upon the law making

59
body. Though Locke did not develop the theory of separation of powers, he considered democracy as the
best form of government.

Locke viewed legislature as the supreme organ of the government as it came into existence through
the consent of the people. However, he did not allow the legislature to enjoy absolute powers, because
behind the legislature stood community which retained its natural right and which might dissolve the
government, if it acted contrary to its trust because when injustice becomes the majority of the people might
to civil authority. Thus, government must be based upon consent. His theory of revolution became one of
the most influential doctrines of his philosophy.

Locke’s theory contained little that had not been worked out by previous thinkers but he added
definiteness to the idea of natural rights, popular control and the right of resistance. He emphasized the
importance of consent. He also emphasized upon human rationalization and the artificial nature of human
society. His theory was purely political as he was not concerned, like earlier anti-monarchists, who opposed
religious tyrants. He separated the church and state not to secure ecclesiastical independence of the state.
He aimed to establish government channels popular through consent that could make it affective so that
individual liberty could be safeguarded. He left a strong influence on constitution making of the future.
Events like French Revolution, American declaration of Independence, British Constitutional development
all have been deep-rooted in Locke’s theory of consent. It can be said that no philosopher was able to leave
such an important in on the minds of men and their institutions.

Property

As an apostle of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which left a tremendous mark on socio-political
and economic history of England, Locke was influenced by the contemporary environment while presenting
his theory of property. He said, “I will put down in the order in which they (property) occur.” He advocated
that everyone should have private property as a product of his labor. He said that “private proprietorship is
the best system” and stated that “a man may own as much land as he can till, but no more.”

Man has the natural right self-presentation so he eats drinks and utilizes him and so to eat, drink
and has things which are natural to him. God has given the earth to mankind in common. But it was difficult
to have property as God gave the world to Adam and his children in common but it was impossible that
there could be one universal property. Though God has given the world to man in common he has also
given reason to make use of it to the best advantage. The earth and all that is there has been given to man
for his welfare and comfort therefore, all that earth produces belongs to mankind in common used by man.
Yet every man has property in his own person. It is made by his labor and effort, whatever nature has
provided him. He puts his labor and with it gets more property. Therefore, all of it is his own property
because it is the result of his labor and the common right of other men on his property is excluded.

60
 It is the law of reason, which determines the fact that property is allowed to the man, who has put
his labor in it. Earlier ownership was a common right of every-one but, once it is removed from the state of
nature it becomes property to be privately owned.

As much as a man make use of property, God has given to him and takes an advantage before it
spoils so by his labor he makes the property. Whatever more beyond that his property he makes with his
labor they belong to others. Therefore, nothing is made by God for man to spoil or destroy. By reason man
keeps it and saves it. There cannot be any room for quarrel for property a man establishes. Thus, the chief
matter of property is not only the fruit of earth but the earth itself. For example man improves plantations
and cultivation with his labor, and he uses the product and so he makes his property. Other men have other
lands to improve or cultivate. No man therefore has right to complain about a man’s property which he has
acquired by his own labor. God has given land in common for the advantage and benefit of men but by
reason, if a person gets more of it by his labor it is his alone. The limit property is determined by the extent
of man’s labor which determines value. Thus, it can be said that labor give the right of property in the
beginning.

Later, in some parts of the world use of money and stock were made, which made the lands of
some value. At those places, some communities settled the boundaries of their district territories and by
laws within themselves. That regulated the property of private man of that society. This way contract and
agreement were made. Men settled for the property and with labor industry began.

Realizing that grains and fruits would perish or decay if they were left without use and were not
consumed men also learned that gold and silver and diamonds were things that fancy. The agreement or
contract had put their values in their i.e. eating and necessary support of land. Thus man exchanged his
produce for piece of other article like metal, clothes or diamonds which he could keep for all his life. This
way he did not invade the rights of others.

The use of money was then introduced which was a lasting thing that a man could keep without
spoiling and also it was with mutual consent. As the possession of man increased with the increase of
industry, it gave men the opportunity to continue and enlarge their industry or property.

Since Government regulates law men by consent agreed how a man rightfully and without injury
losses more than he himself could make use of, by receiving gold and silver. It is easy to conceive how
labor began in property of common things of nature and how this led to our consumption and use. Reason
gave man the right and conviction that a man had right to all that he could apply his labor on but not to that
which he was unable to use. He had no temptation to labor for more than he could use thus, there was no
room left either for controversy about the property or for encroachment on the rights of others.

61
 CHAPTER VI

JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU

Life and Times

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778 AD) lived an exciting and adventurous life. As a supporter of
Social Contract Theory the names of three thinkers Hobbes, Lock and are Rousseau are associated in the
study of modern political thought. These three thinkers had divergent views mainly based upon their life
and times. They explained the concept of nature of man and state of nature based on their experiences
therefore their concept of Social Contract differed from each other. Unlike Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau
passed through different life experiences. To him life was very precious. He was born a caesarean birth in
which his mother had died therefore he used to say that life is precious because my life cost my mother’s
life. He was born in Geneva to a middle class family. His father was a watch maker who also played music
in the night hours in a local restaurant. His father irresponsible and had an unstable character. Due to his
wife’s death he had to bring him up but he could not give him a systematic training with proper education.
His rather took him to another direction of reading him erotic romantic material which developed an
unhealthy effect on Rousseau’s emotions and passion. Ultimately his father left him and went to France
when Rousseau was still a child of about ten. He then lived with his uncle and took up ordinary jobs which
made him to steal and lie. In other words Rousseau grew in an unhealthy social environment. He lived in
Geneva and then went to France at the age of fourteen where he took up job of playing music in restaurant
like his father, living a life of a vagabond. One day he saw an advertisement in the newspaper about an
essay competition in which he participated and got the first price and overnight he became known to the
aristocratic French society.

The period in which Rousseau lived was the period of the despotic and aristocratic regime of
Bourbons of France. The reign of Louis XIV was at its peak which was later followed by his successor Louis
XV and Louis XVI who were greater despots. He became part of the aristocracy and lived an adventurous
life in the contemporary social environment.

Rousseau continued his vagabond life with the thought of living in the present without any regret
for the past and anxieties for the future. In the society he was treated with kindness but because of his
egoism, vanity and bad manners he failed to maintain permanent friendship with anyone. It was his famous

62
book ‘The Social Contract’ which brought him fame and status of a political genius. His experience and life
made him to believe that man by nature is excellent but he vehemently believed that “Men is born free but
everywhere he is in chains”, this led him to develop his concept of General Will as sovereign of the state. It
was a vision which had not been realized in practice since Plato. The General Will became the foundation
of his political philosophy which ultimately led to the idea of democracy. It may be right to say that
Rousseau’s political philosophy became the foundation of two famous revolutions, The American
Revolution of 1774 and the French Revolution of 1789. It is also said that he influenced the development
of political philosophy by many factors such as economic inequality, his personal family life, philosophies
of Hobbes and Locke, concept of human nature enunciated by Plato, democratic concept of
constitutionalism of Montesquieu, and his love for democratic institutions.

Social Contract

The Absolutism of King Louis XIV, of France and the Suppression of the people by the government
made him to believe that men wanted freedom and liberty which they were not given. Thus, to establish a
civil society, he advocated a social contract with the following description:

1- Nature of Man:

By nature man is excellent and lives in a happy environment. He should be given all happiness and
liberty to live free.

2- State of Nature:

The state of nature is a period of happiness and provides all good for the people and is like a
paradise, hence the civil society should maintain these conditions.

3- Sovereign:
Sovereign is to be absolute. It is to be the General Will and once made, it is all powerful.

4- Government:

De facto and demure governments are the same and are legal.

5- Location of Sovereignty:

Sovereignty is located with everyone. It means that the General Will is sovereign which can be
challenged anytime by the people.

6- Law Making authority:

People have all right to participate in law making, and without them laws could not be made. The
government is an agent of the people to execute popular will.

7- Right for evolution;

63
 Revolution can over throw the government anytime whenever people feel it necessary. Thus, right
of revolution for people is legal at all places and at any time, whenever The General Will demands.

Influence of Rousseau’s philosophy led to the French Revolution of 1789, and the American
democracy declaration of Independence. Thus he is considered the champion of modern democratic theory.
As a Social Contractualist Hobbesian concept cannot be ignored because he too influenced many
countries. In political turmoil, the rulers are inclined to follow his policy of absolutism and examples of such
conditions can be drawn from European history after Hobbes. In the contemporary age, particularly in
developing areas, political turmoil only ended when absolute rulers restored peace and security and welfare
of the society. Contribution of these three thinkers, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, together with their
support of the social contract theory in political philosophy has significant value.

General Will

Rousseau’s theory of General Will is intimately connected with his concept of popular Sovereignty.
The distinctive demand in Rousseau social contract is that the community which comes into existence as
a result of social contract is itself the sovereign. Rousseau said that the act of association creates a moral
and collective utility, having its own identity, life and will. This will is he describes as the General Will and
it is under the supreme direction of the General Will that each member puts his person and his total power.
What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and unlimited right to everything. He succeeds
in getting liberty which is limited by General Will. By the social contract man exchanges his natural
independence to do and get what he can in return for civil liberty which is limited and secured by the General
Will. Man continuously participates as individuals in the General Will in which sovereignty resides.
Rousseau’s sovereignty is something more than the supreme coercive authority. General Will always aimed
at the common good and is conceived only with those things which are of common concern and not with
those which are purely personal. To Rousseau, The General Will must be general not only in its purpose
but also in its composition. This means that it must take into consideration the will of each member of the
community.

The General Will cannot be taken to mean the sum total of the wills of all the members of
community. Rousseau distinguishes between the General Will and the Will of All. He says that the sum-
total of the wills of individuals can never constitute the General Will because the sum-total of the wills of all
takes note of personal and private interests while the General Will deals with matters of common concern
only. It is a unity which the will of all can never be. The General Will expresses the will of the community as
a whole and not as a mere aggregate of persons. It is not a compromise between the conflicting will of
members and a single unitary will. It is unitary because the sovereign body which expresses it is a moral
and collective person having a life, will and purpose of its own. Rousseau’s General Will is nothing more
and nothing less than the will of the people functioning as a whole. It has a corporate existence which can
belong only to a body having a common life of its own. It cannot be discovered by the process of counting
heads and is something general towards the creation of which every member of the community contributes.

64
 The nature of General Will proceeds on the functional assumption that every individual aims at
something which he takes to be good. If there were no such things as the will for good in the life of an
individual, there would be no General Will. Therefore, the General Will and the will for good in the life of an
individual are to a great extent identical.

Rousseau is well aware of the fact that an individual as a particular man may have a particular will,
contrary to the General Will that he may have as a citizen. His particular and personal interest may demand
of him a course of action different from or opposes to that required by the general will. When such a conflict
arises it becomes the right and duty of the community to convince the individual to obey the General Will.
For Rousseau, freedom is something towards which individuals respond. It is the condition of being own
self but in order to be oneself, we must be always attain for something more than we have become in order
to assert the control of what we recognized as our real self over the actual self of desire and inclination.
Thus, in being compelled to obey the General Will, the individual is realizing his highest freedom which
consists of mastery over his self and law of reason. Obedience to the laws of totalitarian state does not lead
an individual to the highest freedom because these laws are not always commands issued by a master.

The General Will according to Rousseau is always right and infallible, because it has virtue and
cannot seek anything but the general good. The general will cannot be persuaded towards uncommon
interests or for the good of an individual or a section of people or an individual rule or a government of
oligarchy. General will thus remain truly general and it must always by nature be right. General will is
sovereign and it has all the features of sovereignty. It is absolute, indivisible and inalienable, and it must
reside in the community as a whole. If it is divided it will be destroyed. Inalienable means, the people cannot
surrender or delegate their sovereign power to individual or to a group of individuals. In his concept of
general will Rousseau had in mind the city state; direct democracy could exist and function. His doctrine of
inalienable general will cannot be applied to modern nation states, which are large in size and population
and where representative institutions are unavoidable. He was opposed to representative principles
because he was afraid that the elected representatives, who were under no obligation to voice the feelings
of their constituents, will be brought over by a corrupt king or aristocracy.

The General Will cannot be the executive will. Its function is to make laws but not to execute them.
The law must be executed by different agencies like government or the magistrate. It cannot itself execute
the laws because it is universal, while decrees of government are particular and non-universal. Thus,
Rousseau drew a distinction between the people who were sovereign and the government which is
subordinate and therefore, responsible to the people.

CHAPTER VII

65
 BARON DE-MONTESQUIEU

Life and Times

Baron De-Montesquieu (1689-1755 A.D) was born in France and belonged to an aristocratic family.
His original name was Charles Louis Second at and he inherited the title of Baron De-Montesquieu from
his uncle who gave his fortune to Charles Louis on the condition that he inherits his title of Baron De-
Montesquieu. Since then Charles became known as Baron De-Montesquieu or simply as Montesquieu. He
acquired more fortune after his marriage from his wife and thus became a very rich man. He studied law
and was man of a kind heart ready to help the needy and destitute. At the age forty he toured Europe and
visited many countries including England where he spent two years. He studied the English political system
closely and learned about it through leading statesman of the country. He was highly impressed with it
especially by its concept of liberty. On return from his European tour he was engaged in writings because
in his early days he had already written his famous treatise The Persian Letters which was published in
1721 bringing him fame. At a later age he wrote several books such as Reflections on the causes of the
Greatness and Decline of Romans and The Spirit of Laws which became his master piece as a contribution
to political philosophy.

Montesquieu was influenced by history which led him to believe that a monarch maintains or loses
power because of moral or physical causes and this he learned from Roman history. His book The Persian
Letters expressed his criticism on church and state in relation to social, political and religious life with
reference to France. He learned the concept of liberty from the British political system which became the
central point of his political philosophy. Although he was himself from an aristocratic family, he became a
critique of the Tudor Dynasty of England and the Bourbon Dynasty of France. His philosophy is therefore
based upon history as well as empirical and inductive methods. He was under the influence of Aristotle and
did not agree with Plato, Hobbes or Rousseau. He also used scientific methods like Aristotle. He believed
that human customs and patterns result in diverse attitudes therefore there is a need to form a universal
principle to have a common pattern in human behavior. He looked for uniformity as against diversity. Unlike
Plato, he did not advocate an ideal state. He remained a champion of pragmatism and the use of law of
reason for governing the political society believing that there are two sets of influence upon human beings,
one conducted by man’s nature which is God gifted, and the other is worldly like environment, soil, climate,
social and religious values of the people along with the government of the state in which they lived. To him,
in such a condition it was the function of the legislature to create such laws which could keep the people in
uniformity despite the existence of diverse natural and environmental factors.

Montesquieu’s political philosophy became unique in the sense that it differed from all his
predecessors except Aristotle. He became a champion of theory of Separation of Powers. This concept
was essentially given by Aristotle who had defined his citizenship saying citizens are those who perform
the legislative, executive and judicial functions of the state. Montesquieu’s concept of theory of Separation

66
of Powers is an influence of Aristotle except that he elaborated this theory to a great extent on universal
bases. It is also significant to note he combined sociology and politics for the study of the state believing
that study of government could not be complete unless human behavior is examined as it influences human
action in all socio-political activities. He believed that there is nothing in the world which is completely
isolated; hence man is related to both God and environment. And these two relate man to other men; and
it is the law which can properly govern all men. God has given natural law which is related to the universe,
God being the Creator and Preserver. Similarly the laws made by the people will govern the people covering
external nature that is under the influence of environment which relates to human social and political
behavior. Thus to govern the state the law is called political law or constitutional law. His philosophy of
Separation of Powers highly influenced the modern state system and became a basis in the development
of a democratic society.

Theory of Separation of Powers

The concept of liberty by Montesquieu occupies an important and vital place in his book, The Spirit
of Laws. Here he discusses classification of states, fundamentals of the three forms of the government,
cause of transformation of a state and the concept that the size of the state has a decisive influence on the
principles of government.

He held that the drawing up of a bill of right and making it a part of formal constitution of the state
does not ensure the attainment of liberty by the citizens. To him, proper declaration had little value and
what matters, was not the letter of the day but the spirit in which it was applied. Rights recognized by the
constitution were valueless unless the laws were put into action.

Montesquieu believed that in a broad sense liberty meant that individual was acting according to
his will. The political concept of liberty fails to draw a clear distinction between law and natural freedom and
independence. Freedom to do as one’s will is liable to conflict with the power to do as one pleases. Political
liberty cannot be conceived as unrestricted freedom. Therefore, liberty is only the power of doing what one
ought to will and not being constraint to do what one ought to will. Liberty is the right of doing what the laws
permit and if a citizen could do what laws forbid, he would no longer possess liberty because all his fellow
citizens would have the same power.

In a good state, the laws would satisfy the requirements of the people. But the difficulty arises when
the laws of the state clash with the moral conviction of an individual. Montesquieu was aware of the difficulty.
He also realized that different governments make different laws at different times. However, he is concerned
that every government should be self-consistent and should not leave the citizens uncertain about the laws,
they have to obey. What is required is that citizens should know that there is a law and that they would be
punished, only when they violate it. The problem is how to ensure that there should be no undue
interference in the affairs of the citizens by irresponsible government officials. To Montesquieu, the solution
of the problem lay in the theory of separation of powers which he believed was realized in the British
constitution. He was greatly impressed by the freedom enjoyed by the British people under constitutional

67
barriers against the use of arbitrary powers by the monarchy. Thus, he suggested that the three functions
of the government which are legislative, executive and judicial should be separated from each other and
entrusted to different persons. This is his theory of separation of powers which he describes in the following
words:

“In every government there are three sorts of powers, the executive, the legislative to things which
are dependent on the laws of nation and the judiciary in regards to matters that depend on civil laws.”

Hence in Montesquieu’s theory, the political liberty of the subject arises from the opinion each
person has of his safety. His liberty requires that the government be constituted because one man is afraid
of another. When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same persons or in the same body
of the magistrate, there can be no liberty because the same monarch or the legislature can enact tyrannical
laws and execute them in a tyrannical manner.

There is no liberty if the judicial power is not separated from the legislature and executive. If
judiciary is combined with legislature, the life and liberty of the people can be exposed to arbitrary control
because the judge would be the legislature. If judiciary is combined with the executive, the judge might use
violence and oppression. Therefore, there would an end for everything, if the same man or the same body
whether of the nobles or of the people exercise these three powers that is of enacting laws, executing the
public resolutions and trying the cases of the citizens as well.

His theory of separation of power given by Montesquieu is nothing more than a technique of
organizing the government with a view to prevent the abuse of power which is inevitable when power is
concentrated in one individual or a group of individuals.

Montesquieu was not the originator of the theory of separation of powers. It is found in the writings
of Aristotle, Polybius and even Locke. Montesquieu himself agreed that England derived it from the
practices of ancient Germans but he expanded this theory in a precise manner. He believed that though it
would secure political liberty of individuals, it would not achieve its full purpose unless reform of criminal
law and procedure is not made simultaneously. Montesquieu however failed to distinguish between political
and civil liberty. Moreover, he could not find rational justification to practically achieve liberty.

In short, the concept of the theory of separation of power left a significant mark on constitution
making of the future on an unlimited number of constitutions adopted the theory of separation of powers in
their systems of government.

Environment

Montesquieu believed that physical environment of a country exercises a decisive influence on its
laws and social and political institutions. His work, The Spirit of Laws, traces the effect of soil and climate
on laws, liberty, social, moral and religious ideas of the people. He is in fact the first philosopher a present
and environment theory. Although it’s beginning in modern institution was made by Bodin, the effect of
importance physical conditions on Montesquieu work profound.

68
 Montesquieu established the relation of cause and effect between Soil and climate, fertility, natural
resources and topography of a country, even the habits and the character of the people living in it including
their social and economic ideas, laws and manners, moral and religious beliefs. The general principle in his
environment theory was different wants in a different climate had given rise to different ways and of living
which have resulted in different kinds of laws. Montesquieu showed the effect of heat and cold, dryness
and moisture on the human body as well as the intellect and passion of man. These in turn determined the
character of the people through which the social and political institutions emerge. He concluded that cold
climate make people active and energetic and warm climate induces lethargy in them. The cold climate is
conducive to liberty and the warm climate to slavery and despotic rule. Comparing Europe and Asia he
believed that European countries have had more or less free governments compared to countries in Asia,
where generally despotic governments prevail.

To him, vast geographical divisions whose continuity is not broken by deep rivers and high
mountains develop despotic rule. On the other hand, regions, where nature has divided the land into small
compact units are congenial to the growth of free political life. However, this argument is contested because
countries like U.S.A and Australia having vast regions unbroken by rivers and mountains have
establishment democratic forms of government.

Besides this social environment also exercises equal influence on laws and political institutions of
a country. These are the socio-economic and religious ideas of the people, their customs and manners,
moral standards and religious beliefs and practices. In totality, these constitute the spirit of the people in
the form of folk ways and cultural values. The spirit of the people is a potent factor because no law can be
respected and obeyed which runs contrary to it. Therefore, the legislators should know the spirit of the
people and should see that laws made conform to it. It will be disastrous to make laws which made it in
consistent with. If national folk ways are changed by regulations, it would lead to tyranny. The best way to
change these is to make them better.

Montesquieu also discussed the relation of law to religious conditions. He praised Christianity and
regarded it as the truest of all religious. He believed that is was not suited to all types of people. Discussing
the relation between the state and the church, Montesquieu maintained that neither should invade the
sphere of action of the other, whether, it is weak or inefficient. The state should extend toleration to all
existing religious and also motivate each one of them to tolerate the rest in the interest of public order.

Montesquieu’s theory on environment is based on the belief that men are governed by different
kinds of laws such as divine law, ecclesiastical law, civil law, political law and the law of nations. He carefully
distinguishes these laws and says that one should not regulate the other law, otherwise injustice and
disorder will prevail.

69
 CHAPTER VIII

JERMY BENTHAM

Life and Times

Bentham was born in an aristocratic lawyer family of England in 1748. From the childhood he
showed his intelligent learning Latin at the age of three and studying Voltaire at the age of 6. He studied
law and instead of becoming a lawyer he choose writing on political philosophy. He wrote many books such
as Fragments of Government, Introduction to the Principle of Morals and Legal, The theory of Punishment
and Reward and The Book of Fallacies. He followed the politics of Tory Party but later turned towards
practical politics. He lived a long life and died in 1832. As a pioneer of utilitarianism he has credit of bringing
many reforms in the British socio-political and economic life.

Bentham stands out as a distinguished philosopher who pro-founded theory of utilitarianism. He

belongs to a period which witnessed significant events in the development of man which influenced his
mind and thought. The beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 18th century and entering its height in the
19th century was a time when Bentham was born. The later half of the 18th century witnessed two
revolutions, French and American which had opened the human mind towards freedom with the slogan of
Equality, Liberty and Fraternity.

70
 The Industrial revolution brought a social revolution with a rapid change in socio-economic
development and rural to urban migration leading to urbanization and modernization thus affecting the
existing political thinking and value-systems. The increase in wealth and a new emerging middle class
developed consciousness among the people of use of their power for their political ends. At the same time
the rise in urban population strengthened the urban power in political life with demand of greater freedom
and participation in seeking their rights for good living.

Both the Revolutions brought a turning point in the political thinking of the contemporary
intellectuals. Among them Bentham was included who saw a rapid change in English political society which
was his homeland. In England the industrial life developed workers’ association and intimacy among
themselves creating pressure for better working conditions with high wages. This led to the conflicting
environment between the newly established industrialists and workers of their industries and factories. This
conflict spread further when they joined the workers in the cause of economic need. This developed the
frustration among the masses which included Bentham as well, thereby leading him to develop his famous
theory of ‘utilitarianism’. Wherein, he emphases rights of man, on happiness and welfare. Thereby
pressurizing the government to reform and regulates the socio-economic life of the common people.

Bentham’s major contribution to modern political thought of utilitarianism is considered remarkable.

His utilitarianism philosophy gave a systematic form to political society. He was responsible for the end of
social contract theory which to him meant that, state was not a result of social contract but because of social
advancement in political society. He rejected the states supremacy saying that the state had no right to
punish the subjects on committing crimes as to him laws passed by the legislature were defective.
Bentham stood for individual freedom and asked for people participation in governing and administering
themselves. This made him the pioneer of democracy and democratic institutions. He believed that an
institution should be judge from the purpose which it served. He applied empirical and critical method of
investigation to look into the problems of government and administration. Bentham will be remembered as
a champion of middle class uplift. He was not a revolutionary against the British conservative society of his
times rather he suggested reforms in the whole legal system of the country. He wanted reforms even in
prison management. He looked for e reforms and not replacement by other institutions emphasizing on the
representative character of the political society to make laws and achieve greatest happiness for the
greatest number.

Utilitarianism

The Industrial Revolution and French Revolution 1789 constituted the background for the
development of British Political thought in early and middle part in the 19th century leading to democratic
feelings in British society wherein the people wanted to enjoy their rights and participate in the affairs of the
state particularly the emerging middle class. This major outcome was the theory of Utilitarianism based on:

“The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the sole end of

the public utility”.

71
 Bentham was the follower of Hume, whose concept of utility was the basis of the state and political
obligation. He introduced the experimental method of measuring into a moral subject.

Bentham disagreed with Hume on the point that English laws and judicial procedure be removed
being of ancient origin. He argued that laws of today must be shaped by the legislator of today in accordance
with the needs of his time and that the sole criterion of these needs must be greatest good of the greatest
number of men. To him, the principle of utility demanded that the contribution to the good of society should
be the only rational ground on which the old laws should be judged and evaluated and new ones introduced.
Whatever is not conducive to the happiness of the individual should have no place in society. Bentham
rejected out rightly the theory of natural rights as it was metaphysical. He held that all rights that a man has,
should come to him by law which itself is based on utility. Bentham employed empirical or scientific method
of reasoning that everything in social phenomena should be calculated tabulated and reduced to
measureable propositions in the same way in which physical phenomena are calculated and measured in
physics.

Though he rejected the theory of natural rights as vague and abstract, he believed that every man
had a right to pursue happiness. He desired to discover the laws which governed human action in the
pursuit of happiness and make them as precise as a mathematical formula. Therefore, theory of utility of
Bentham led to a qualitative determination or moral and political phenomena.

Bentham interpreted utility in hedonists (pleasure-pain) way. The interpretation was based upon
the view that men are subject to two sovereign masters, pleasure and pain. The utility of a thing is
determined by the extent to which it seeks pleasure and diminishes pain. From this it is clear that the utility
held pleasure to be the only thing desirable in and for itself for or example, wealth, position, power or even
virtue desired merely as a means to the ultimate end of seeking pleasure.

He developed his doctrine of hedonistic calculus as an integral part of his utility theory. According
to the principle of utility, every man whether in private or public life should choose the course of action which
will produce the greatest happiness to the whole. The legislator should make the happiness of the people,
the aim and the end of his enactment and policies through hedonistic calculation. Bentham desired for
correct and accurate limits of pleasure and pain.

To him, pleasure and pain admit measurements and comparisons in respect of their intensity,
duration, certainty, time, extent and purity.

Since the act of every individual is to have the greatest amount of happiness, he should choose
those courses of action which are calculated to yield certain pure, fruitful, lasting and intense pleasure.

There is great difference between the greatest happiness of the individual and happiness of the
greatest number; the two may pull the individual in different directions. Therefore, there must be a
sufficiently strong motive inducing an individual to pursue the greatest happiness of the greatest number
even when such a course is against his own interest. On the basis of hedonism there needs not be natural

72
identity between self-interest and public interest. But Bentham differentiated between the two. He required
the individual to sacrifice his own pleasure for the sake of pleasure of others which he called the sanctions
on morality and classified them as physical, political, popular or religious. He believed that men are made
to prefer that greatest number to their own greatest happiness by the fear of punishment.

For his theory of utility, for seeking of the greatest happiness of the greatest number, Bentham
suggested the following:

1- Universal Suffrage for the determination of majority opinion.

2- Annual election to parliament by which the governors could keep themselves in touch with the
governed which would prevent governors from abusing their absolute power and authority.

3- Vote by secret ballot for the selection of the representatives chosen by the people.

Bentham was also opposed to the House of Lords because it was hereditary institution and it did
not represent the public. Further he also rejected monarchy and aristocracy and stood for democracy as
the best form of government.

The pragmatic attitude led Bentham to exalt the individual and subordinate social and political
institutions. He judged them by the touchstone of utility. He laid great impetus to the reform of inefficient
institutions saying there was no use for ethical absolutes or for the law of nature. He completed the bridge
between politics and ethics which was built by Machiavelli and Hobbes before him thus establishing a close
connection between politics and ethics by asserting that the individual needs help of the state in his pursuit
of happiness.

Government

In the principle of utility, Bentham had little or no interest in the form of government. He views the state
as a machine devised by men to impose whatever seems rational and good. Thus, he is naturally indifferent
to its forms or basis. Nevertheless, he accepts the division of government into monarchies, aristocracies
and democracies. He considered first two (monarchies and aristocracies) to be bad. Aristocracy is worse
than monarchy but in both of them, the general interest of the people and community is liable to be sacrificed
for similar interest of the governing bodies or classes. They (monarchy and aristocracy) are not in a position
to promote greater good of the greatest number.

To him, representative democracy is more likely to secure the greatest happiness of the greatest
number by adopting constitutional devices such as:

1- Universal suffrage
2- Annual parliament
3- Vote by ballot
4- The election of Prime Minister by parliament
5- Appointment of civil servants on the basis of competitive exams

73
Bentham favors democracy for another reason also. He realized that there are greater chances of a
comprehensive code of law based on the principle of utility accepted by a democratic government than by
a monarchy or aristocracy. He is particularly opposed to the British system which to him was an aristocracy-
ridden monarchy and suffers from evils of both the systems.

Bentham is eager to see that justice is administered deeply and expeditious to the deserving and
oppressed. He puts emphasis on the most urgent and vital need of those days to reform laws in all its forms.
He urges the need of codification of British law holding that law must be expressed in a simple
understandable language. He is vehemently opposed to the use of unnecessarily technical and obscure
language of laws because the delay and expenses involved protected legislation pressing heavily on the
poor. Bentham advocates the system of having only one judge to try a case because plurality of judges
trying a case meant slackening and transferring of responsibility on each other. For a check on judge, he
recommends the reform of punishment and prisons and judgment should be inflicted not with view to
avenging the worst done but for preventing crime and securing public welfare. He was opposed to the
infliction of death sentence for crimes other than murder. He was not opposed to women’s franchise
proposing political reforms for securing effective representation of the people. He does not recommend
second chamber in the legislature and greatly disliked the hereditary character of the British House of Lords.

State and Government

Bentham was a legal reformer and not a philosopher hence in his political writings he seemed to
possess a passionate desire for legal and parliamentary reforms centered on his principles of utility. The
most significant political idea of Bentham is that he conceives of the state as a group of persons organized
for promoting the pleasures and happiness of the people. To him the state and society are nothing but a
group of persons bound together by obedience to common authority. Bentham believed that the individual
is the ultimate reality and society and the community are factitious bodies hence the state exists for the
individual and not individual for the state.

Bentham, in his theory of state, explains the meaning of political obligation. To him, contract,
consent and agreement furnish no basis for the duty of obedience rather the state is obeyed not because
of obligation of the contract but because it is found to be useful to do so.

As the probable mischief of disobedience is less than the probable mischief of disobedience. The
government continued to exist and command the obedience of citizens as long as they promote general
happiness of the community. Thus, people have right to disobey when government fails in the performance
of its main task.

He also distinguishes between natural liberty and civil liberty. Natural liberty consists in doing what
one likes and it cannot be enjoyed in a civil and political community. Civil liberty is to do what one wishes
provided it does not conflict with the similar freedom of others and civil liberty is promoted by law in a
utilitarian State. According to Bentham, law is a command. It is the expression of will of the authority that

74
people habitually obey. It does not have its sources in nature or reason. The only source of law governing
human conduct can be the will of God or the will of man. The purpose of Law is to regulate the motive of
self-interest that it should operate towards the production of general happiness.

From the concept of the command of authority it follows that according to Bentham, the state must
be sovereign. Sovereignty being absolute and unlimited cannot be illegal. The only conceivable limit to
sovereign authority is imposed by and effective resistance of the subjects.

Men are moved to act solely by the desire of pleasure and the desire to avoid pain and each
individual is the best judge of his own interest. Thus Bentham concludes that the main function of the state
is legislation and the chief aim of legislation in to remove all institutional restrictions on the free action of
individuals. The functions of the state are to restrain men from indulging in activities which effect general
happiness adversely by attaching penalty to such performance. Government is best when it governs the
least for which Bentham wishes for noninterference in the affairs of man as for as possible.

Bentham does not disregard the right of private property and defends it on the ground of general
utility. He holds that the happiness of an individual consists of four things:

1- Substance
2- Abundance
3- Equality
4- Security
He maintains that the government should not take away the property of the citizens without
adequate compensation defining even property on the basis of utility.

Social Development

The concept of social development in Bentham has also been taken from his theory of utilitarianism.
He defined the ‘principle of utility’ which was greatest happiness of the greatest number, as the sole end of
public utility. He presents his concept of social development with reference to this principle. To him, when
pleasure is measured, one must take into account its utility, duration, certainty, purity and extent. For this
purpose, Bentham requires from a man to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number
differentiating between the greatest happiness of the individual and social contract of the greatest number.
Bentham believes that a man can pursue different directions therefore, the greatest happiness of the
greatest number, must be sufficiently strong to pull him towards it even against other interests. Hence, on
the basis of his hedonism, he projects the need for a natural identity between self-interest and public
interest. He was a aware that there are some super added pleasures and pains, specially the pain which
induces the individual to sacrifice his own pleasure for the sake of pleasure for others. Bentham calls these
sanction of morality and classifies them as physical, political, popular and religious. He relies mostly upon
the political sanctions which were the reward and the punishment given by the state in view of social
development. Punishments to him, were more potent than rewards. An individual is led to regard general
happiness as distinct from his personal happiness as the criterion of right and wrong which is the penal law.

75
Men are made to prefer the greatest happiness of the greatest number instead of their own greatest
happiness by the fear of punishment. Punishment in itself is evil as it causes pain therefore, Bentham
desires that it should not be inflicted when there is no evil to be presented or when the evil it produces is
greater than the evil meant to remove it. It can be justified only if it prevents a greater pain. Thus, Bentham
rejects the theory of punishment which maintains that it is the penalty for sins that the criminal is made to
suffer because he has violated the social order. Bentham advocates the determination of the extent of
punishment in a rational manner saying that the quantity of punishment should be measured. It should be
just sufficient to deter people from committing crime and should be such so as to meet the requirements of
each individual case with a view to prevent crime and lead to correction of the culprit, suggesting reform
and not mere punishment.

Bentham’s concept of utility has been criticized on the ground that there is no surety that the
legislators and statesmen would make the greatest happiness of the society or of the greatest number their
primary concern. Besides how can one secure that the natural self-interest of the rulers would not deter
them from promoting the happiness of the masses. Bentham thus presented his scheme for a model prison
as he did not have faith in the oligarchic government of his day. He proposed changes could transform it
from an oligarchy to a partial democracy.

He suggested introducing universal manhood franchise wherein every adult man should be able to
record his vote and thereby contribute to the formulation of majority opinion. He also suggested annual
elections to the parliament. To him, that was the only way in which the governors could keep themselves
in touch with the governed which can prevent them from abusing their power and authority. He holds that
members elected to the parliament should be regarded as delegators and not representatives because a
representative could more easily cast off the control of the constituents who elected him. When parliament
is to be a body of delegates chosen by the people, there is no room for King, the House of Lords and an
established Church in the reformed constitution of England.

Bentham opposed the House of Lords not only because of its hereditary character but also on the
ground that in an annually elected parliament a second chamber is not at all necessary. Similarly he stood
for the abolition of monarchy on several grounds and also because he had little liking for King George III.

Thus Bentham is assessed as a legal and political reformer with his basic doctrine of utility with
criticism on his pleasure-pain doctrine. But many measures were taken in Great Britain during the 19th
century as an influence of his thought. He had a pragmatic approach to exalt the individual in his social and
political life. He regarded the government as an instrument for the betterment of existing conditions and
desired to reform inefficient institutions rejecting ethical absolutes or law of nature.

76
 CHAPTER IX
John Stuart Mill

Life and Times

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), an outstanding political thinker was son of an established political
philosopher James Mill (1773-1836), who was a friend of Jermy Bentham. J.S. Mill was influenced by both
his father and Bentham. However, the socio-political conditions of nineteenth century changed to a
considerable event in which J.S. Mill lived. He was born in England and remained a close associate of his
father. James Mill was so much influenced by Bentham that he desired J.S Mill to be a legitimate heir of
Bentham philosophical tradition. He forced targeted instructions upon his son, J.S Mill with rigidity to instill
in him a perfect utilitarian mind. Hence Mill initial education was provided by his parents. At an early age of
three he started learning Greek and at the age of eight he began the study of history. Still young, at the age
of fourteen he was sent to France for further education. Upon his return to London, he studied law and
spent considerable time in company of John Austin, who was a close associate of his father and Bentham.
In the company of his friends, James Mill fed his son’s mind with Benthmite tradition of utilitarianism.

J.S. Mill served the East India Company as its senior administrator till the company was dissolved
with the passage of Parliament Act of 1858 and he then went into retirement. He was elected member of
House of Commons and served Parliament as a legislator for one term. His later years were spent on his
writings where he achieved a remarkable scholarship in political philosophy. His famous works On Liberty
and Representative Government gave a systematic expression of his political theory, published in 1859
and 1861 respectively. He was recognized as a distinguished scholar with his renowned work, Political
Economy published in 1844. He wrote many other books contributing to political philosophy.

J.S. Mill’s political theory was based on the principle of logic which he developed in his book System
of Logic, published in 1843. He emphasized upon logical procedure to be applied in relation to society and
government. He used empirical approach in his theory like Bentham. Saying that men differ from age to
age, experience and time. The circumstances of the particular time determine the character of a society
hence these two are interrelated as well as dependent upon each other for the purpose of goal achievement.
The study of history gives us the record of ups and downs of humanity. Experience is value which we learn

77
from history. In short, history gives us knowledge of laws of human progress. However, history generalizes
the law of progress and its need to be verified accordingly.

Mill agreed that pleasure is the ultimate test of moral value but he asked for strengthening the
utilitarian position considering the difference between different kinds of pleasure. He spoke as a non-
utilitarian saying some pleasures are of higher quality than others. Bentham believed pleasures differ only
in quantity whereas Mill held that there is a distinction between quantity and quality of pleasure. He
emphasized on the quality of pleasure which was neglected by Bentham making him differ with Bentham
on the principle of utility. Mill took non-utilitarian position believing that it is not the principle of utility but the
dignity of man which is the final goal of life. He held that on pleasure is better than the other, if it promotes
the dignity in man. To him moral obligation for a man cannot be interpreted by the principle of utility as
Bentham believed. Thus Mill’s theory developed into a complete systematic philosophy of individualism in
relation to social, political and economic life of the individuals.

Mill’s Criticism of Bentham

J.S. Mill found a creed, a doctrine, a philosophy and a religion in Bentham’s principle of utility. He
desired to defend utilitarianism and introduced many non-hedonistic elements in his version of utilitarianism
with the result that little of the original creed was left.

To Mill, the only thing desirable in and for itself was pleasure and freedom from pain. Other things
were desired only as means to this supreme end of life. Thus, source and quality of the pleasure were
irrelevant to the determination of the rightness and wrongness of an act. Mill believed that pleasure differed
in quality as some pleasures were higher than and superior to others, even if pleasures were not equal.

Thus, Mill rejected Bentham’s concept of quality of pleasures being equal meaning Mill’s
utilitarianism was not materialistic. He rejected Bentham’s concept that pleasure must be conceded in
complete.

Mill’s Concept of Utility as Different from Bentham

Mill debated on Bentham’s thought saying that Bentham is intends pleasure in the absence of pain
and the unhappiness means pain and the privation of pleasure. He says that to give a clear view of the
moral standard, set up by theory much more requires to be said particularly what things the theory includes
in the ideas of pain and pleasure and to which extent these questions are unanswered by Bentham.

Mill indicated that the only thing desirable for man is pleasure and freedom from pain, other things
are desired only as means of this supreme end of life. Therefore it is necessary to follow that source of
quality of pleasure and it is irrelevant to determine the rightness and wrongness of an act. Bentham realized
it fully and held that quantity of pleasure being equal all good are equal. But Mill admitted that pleasure
differs in quality because some pleasures are higher and superior to others even if as pleasures, they are
equal.

78
 He thus rejects the notion that all goods are same. Mill holds that as a source of pleasure, a good
depends upon results e.g. those who have experience of both higher and lower pleasure agreeing in higher
pleasure.

Mill gives importance to the source of pleasure and not the pleasure itself. He virtually abandoned
Bentham’s theory that man can never escape by the subjection of sovereign motives of pleasure and pain.
He disagrees with Bentham that pleasure must be conceded in complete abstraction from the objects which
produce it and from the men who feel it.

He also rejects Bentham’s fundamental thesis that men are moved to action solely by the desire to
obtain pleasure and avoid pain saying that the best way to obtain happiness is to fix the mind on some
objects other than one’s own happiness e.g. on the happiness of others such as on the improvement of
mankind. He holds that the best way of attaining is to aim at something other than self-motives. To Mill,
Bentham’s thesis is wrong and he gives a new meaning to the principle of utility admitting quantitative
distinction among pleasure and insisting that high pleasure must be preferred to a low one. Utility no longer
means the hedonic value of things. To Mill, utility means all the good things for which men aspire such as
liberty, culture, education and the higher values of life. A happy life for Mill is moral and intellectual and not
a life filled with moments of pleasure. He further disagrees with Bentham’s views of the greatest happiness
theory as a political rather than as an ethical principle. Bentham’s was more interested in legislating or
administrating for the determination of social development.

On Liberty
Mill deviated from the fundamentals of Bentham’s utilitarianism in his famous essay On Liberty,
which was published in 1859.
In England in the middle of 19th century, Bentham’s followers of utilitarianism resulted in the extension of
control over government by increased number of citizens.
As a result several Acts passed by the parliament were specific to social good such as regulation
of child labor, factory act and improving conditions of daily life of the people. Government also improved
health and sanitary conditions. Consequently, the government to promote the greatest happiness of the
greatest number, extended its machinery. There was a movement to extend franchise and expand the
facilities for education so that the citizen can understand their responsibilities. The revival of local self-
government had allowed the citizens to play their part in governmental affairs. The problem of the individual
liberty and the relation between the society and individual was brought to the forefront by the theory of
social institutions. The question was being asked, whether the social institutions were product for the
general development or they could be controlled or moulded by individual efforts. The consequences of
application of Bentham’s utilitarianism to practical life drove men towards the necessity of a fresh relation
between society and the individual.
Under such circumstances, it was natural for J.S. Mill being passionately devoted to the cause of
liberty, to go for its defense. The result was his famous essay on liberty. His essay was a powerful plea for

79
 the liberty of thought, expression and action, not only against legislative interference but also against the
pressure of public opinion and conventions. The way in which the British government was interfering with
the freedom of individual in its efforts to promote general happiness by social legislation made it clear to
Mill that popular majority could be as tyrannical as despotic rulers or tyrants were in the past. Therefore,
desired that limits must be set to the power of popular government. He held that it is not only against the
tyranny of the magistrate that an individual needs protection. The individual requires it equally against the
tyranny of the society. Thus, liberty which Mill seeks to defend is wide and comprehensive liberty to develop,
enrich and expand his individual personality.
Mill defined freedom of thought and expression because he was convinced that it was socially
valuable is securing and cultivating mental and moral character in the individual. In short, Mill defended
liberty because he realized that there would be no self-development in its absence.
According to him, to understand liberty one should know that:
1 The individual is sovereign over his mind and body. He must be left free in all spheres that concern him.
The society has no right to impose restraint because it obstructs the development of human personality.
2 Activities of any individual are either self-regarding or other regarding. The society has no right to use force
or compulsion in regard to matters which effect the agents only and are of no concern to others e.g. drinking,
gambling. If an individual does something wrong in this sphere, all that society can do is to disagree with
him and try to persuade him. It has no right to use force against him.
3 Mill’s agreement rests upon a regular notion of liberty. He objects to private social control over the self-
regarding activities of an individual. Because Mill regards restraint as evil he is convinced that human
personality can develop only in an atmosphere of freedom. Therefore, absence of liberty consists in the
essence of external restraints.
4 Mill’s individualistic concept of liberty does not make an individual responsible to society because it
concerns the interest of no person but himself.
To Mill, the only ground on which society is justified in interfering in the liberty of action of its
members is to prevent harm to others. The good of the individual whether physical or moral, is not sufficient
reason to interfere.
He also defended absolute freedom in thought and expression because he was convinced that it
was only man’s mind that changes society. All wise and Nobel things come from individual’s mind and only
free discussion can nourish fruitful ideas
On Democracy and Representative Government
In his book, Representative Government Mill advocated constitutional reforms by which the goal of
good government could be achieved or could be best realized and the evils inherent in respect to
government could be avoided.
He believed that the most important pain which any form of government could possess was to
promote virtues and intelligence of the people themselves. A good and wise government should do the
utmost to bring upon the affairs of the society the individual, his intellect and virtues.

80
 To this end, Mill advocated far reaching electoral reforms which should be designed so as not to
leave the choice of the government into the hands of ignorant masses and marginalized in the government
a of collective mediocre. He suggested proportional representation and plural voting. By means of
proportional representation he hoped to give proper weight to the right qualities needed in a candidate and
to eliminate to some extent at least the evil effects of the numerical superiority of the ignorant masses. He
recommended that the right of vote should be given only to those who passed a certain amount of
intellectual capacity irrespective of gender. Thus, he stood for women franchise.
In plural voting he excluded those from electoral list, who could not read and write and did not know
arithmetic. He included those to have right to vote, who paid limited tax imposed by the assembly arguing
that those who pay no taxes may be without intellect. Therefore, Mill proposed plural voting as a counter
poise to the numerical weight of the least educated class.
Regarding the function of the representative assembly, he pointed out that it should be:
1. An organ to watch and control the government.
2. To reveal its acts by transparency.
3. To compel exposition and justification for all it does.
4. To censure if found condemnable.
5. If the men who composed the government abuse the trust of the people they are to be expelled
them from office and successors be appointed.
The business of legislature or the parliament was not to govern. To Mill, parliament can function as
a committee of grievance and a congress of opinion. The proper function of parliament was discussions,
deliberation and making the government aware of the impact of public opinion. Parliament should exercise
supervision and control over those who actually govern and administer the affairs of the nation. He
suggested that the work of administration should be left to the permanent civil servants whose members
should be appointed after a most careful scrutiny of their intelligence and capabilities and their work should
be controlled by Ministers in various departments. He combined the necessity for skill and intelligence in
the making of law and actual direction of government affairs with the principle of popular sovereignty. He
attempted to combine the principle of aristocracy with democracy through the formal civil servants and
representative government.
Mill rejected Bentham’s proposal for direct control of administration by an elected parliament he believing
that the representatives of the people were unfit in pursuit of the goal of the greatest happiness. He
advocated efficiency of parliament at civil servants.
Mill also rejected Bentham’s idea of annual elections to the Parliament and the notion of delegation.
He believed that men of higher intelligence should not be made subject of the control of men of lower
capacity. He urged the development of hidden capacity of individual advocating an extension of local
government in order to highlight the responsibility.
In sum, Mill was distrustful of democracy. He described the dangers and evils of representative
government under two heads, positive and negative. In negative, crises occurred if and when sufficient
power was not concentrated in the hands of authority to fulfill necessary offices of the government. Its
positive ends as identified were:

81
1 General ignorance and incapacity i.e. insufficient mental qualification in the controlling body.
2 The danger of it being under the influence of those interests which were not identical to welfare of the
community.
However, Mill was not altogether an anti-democratic. As writer on democracy he insisted that like
liberty, democracy was not suitable for all people, but it was the best form of government whenever it was
possible.
Mill was a democrat because he believed that a government was ideally the best in which
sovereignty or supreme controlling power was vested in the aggregate of the community. He believed that
democracy made man happier and better.
He also distinguished between false and true democracy. A democracy which gave due weight to
all the different elements of society was true democracy. Therefore, a true democracy was to have
proportional representation, plural voting, record chamber and above all it should not ignore the vital
distinction between controlling the business of government and authority and should leave the individual to
do things which he can do better than the state. It should not be blind to the danger of a powerful
bureaucracy and also should be alive to the dangers of tyranny of the majority.
Mill maintained that democracy was superior to a monarchy and aristocracy because it influenced
human character while other forms of government (aristocracy, monarchy) tended to produce passive
character through which nothing original or inventive could be deduced. Democracy made people realized
that they are to stand up for their rights making. People learn to rely upon themselves rather than what
others could do for them.

82
 CHAPTER X
KARL MARX

Life and Times

Karl Marx (1818-1883), one of the most influential philosophers of the modern era was born in
Germany in 1818 in a well-established Jewish family. He was sent for higher education at the age of 17
and received his doctorate when he was 23 from one of the universities in Germany. In 1843 he went to
France and as a journalist met many known radical figures of the time such as Cabet, Provdhon, Heine,
Bakunim and Mazzini. He came in close contact with Friedrich Engels who became his life time companion.
Engels was the son of a rich industrialist but had similar economic ideas to Marx, who was a socialist and
strong supporter of workers’ share in the production profits. Marx became a leftist under influence of Engles.
Marx observed capitalist development in England which led him to develop his philosophy of Scientific
Socialism along with Engles. Both together came out with the most famous book, Das Capital wherein they
developed their ideas on socialist theory. Marx wrote many books among which the Communist Manifesto
brought him everlasting fame.

The period Marx lived in was full of socio-economic changes emerging by the impact of the
Industrial Revolution which was in full swing in the 19th century. It resulted in the formation of two distinct
classes, mill owners on the one hand who had wealth and the workers on the other hand, who were poor.
The feudal lords of England had moved to urban areas of London with their interest in the new industrial
setup. The development of a new life in emerging urbanization led to the increase of new socio-economic
needs of the middle and lower classes in the British society. The influence of Industrial Revolution expanded
towards other areas of Europe, particularly in France. Both England and France at that time were under
strong political conservatism of the capitalist society. France had been continuously facing political
upheavals, one after the other competing among democracy, monarchy, autocracy, and despotism. In a
nutshell, the whole of the 19th century was engulfed with new socio-economic crises creating demands of
the fulfillment of the essential needs of the middle and lower classes. Marx closely observed the whole

83
situation in Europe, particularly England and France. He concluded his thought in his philosophy of historical
materialism on basis of what he called scientific materialism.

Marx was highly influenced by Hegel who was a university professor but had already died before
Marx entered as a student. But Hegel’s influence had been so high that a Hegelian club of younger students
was established of which Marx also became a member. Hegel was a liberal and believed in rule of law
rather than rule of men. He was an idealist and Marx was under his influence following his philosophy but
became a philosopher of materialism which transformed Hegelian approach of idealism. The central idea
of Hegel was dialectical method saying every statement of truth or thesis has an opposite called anti-thesis
which is also truth. This thesis and anti-thesis to Hegel, ultimately meet together and create a synthesis
which is common to both. In passage of time this becomes a thesis and the dialectical process continues.
Marx used dialectical idealism of Hegel through history and combined it with materialism. Thus where Hegel
was a theorist of idealism, Marx was a philosopher of materialism. He called his philosophy as Historical
Materialism or economic interpretation of history. Through history he believed civilization pass through four
stages master and slave to feudal and serfs to industrialist and laborers to capitalist and workers. These
four stages finally come to the stage of bourgeoisie and proletariat. This historical combination of the Haves
and Have Not are those among whom the class struggle continues and history is evidence of it. It is
inevitable that this struggle will end and as a result will form a classless society.

The philosophy before Marx was a kind of struggle between idealism and materialism. The
revolutionary thought of Marx developed the human mind on the emphasis of change rather than thought
which was in the defense of proletariat interest. He gave a revolutionary philosophy through his books Das
Capital and Communist Manifesto which brought such a change that it became an ideology of the Russians
and the Chinese in the 20th century. He believed that political power is organized power which should not
stay with one class to oppress the other. The supremacy of class will come to an end when proletariat
comes in power after the class struggle. There will be such an association with free development that each
one in this social life will get benefit for all. Hence Marx favored classless society in which everyone will
receive the benefit according to his work and his needs and the state will no longer be needed hence it will
wither away.

Dialectical Materialism

Dialectical Materialism constitutes the foundation on which the entire structure of Marxian thought
rests which is based on Hegelian Dialectics. Hegel realized that since reality was dynamic and evolutionary
in nature, it could be understood by means of static concept of formal logic which was applicable only to a
static world of abstract ideas. The logic which can help to understand the constantly changing and
developing world must be different from old tradition and formal logic. Thus, Hegel formulated a new logic
for the purpose which could explain change and development through contrast and contradiction which he
called Dialectics.

84
 The Dialectical Materialism of Hegel was explained with the theory that the law of evaluation was
the law of negation. It asserted that thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis were stages of development. The
thesis broke down because of the internal contradiction it contained and gave rise to its anti-thesis. We may
say that it was negated by the anti-thesis. But the anti-thesis, which attempts to remove the contradiction
of the thesis, also broke down for the same reason and was replaced by the synthesis, which contained the
vital elements of both thesis and anti-thesis. The synthesis could thus be described as the negation of the
negation. The synthesis in turn became a thesis and gave rise to anti-thesis or its negation and the process
went on.
Marx was impressed by Hegelian thought but he did not agree with Hegel that idea was the principal
cause of the historical process and absolute idea was the goal of the evolutionary process. Main purpose
of Dialectical Materialism was to show that socialism can never be born except out of the ashes of the
capitalist society. To him, out of struggle between the capitalist class and its enemy the proletarian class,
the perfect social or communist society in which there shall be no classes and no coercive repressive state
would emerge. On the basis of Hegel’s idea that there could be no progress without conflict or contraction,
Marx built his own Dialectics what was very different from that of Hegel’s. The difference between the two
was that for Hegel the evolving reality was spirit and for Marx it was matter in motion. Hegel believed that
the historical development took place under stress of conflict between nations and its moving forces and
ideas. Marx believed that the events in which the humanity becomes organized in the course of historical
development were economic classes not nations. Thus, to him, the thesis, antithesis and synthesis of
Dialectical Materialism were economic classes and not categories or ideas. He further believed that the
formation of class less society could not give rise to its antithesis and with the establishment of classless
society the Dialectical process of class conflict would stop.
There is a strong criticism on Marx’s concept of Dialectical Materialism. It is said that the
phenomenon does not exist in isolation but is highly dependent and therefore must be studied in a
relationship. It must also be studied as changing and developing. One cannot set a true prospect of
capitalism unless it is viewed as a transitional stage in the process of historical development, from feudalism
to socialism. Since Dialectic method regards conflict as the moving force behind all development it was
taken for contradiction in the process of nature and society.
If the social institutions and phases of human civilization like feudalism and capitalism can be
treated as developing through contradiction, it is because they reflect embody ideas. Feudalism can be
regarded as incomplete and regarding its opposite capitalism, it is an inadequate embodiment of absolute
reason. The notion of self-development through inner conflict is applicable only to the spiritual principle like
mind or reason and it cannot be applied to a non-ideal and non-spiritual entity like matter as was suggested
by Marx.
However, it should always be remembered that Marx was not interested in Dialectical Materialism
as a philosophical notion. He was interested in Dialectical Materialism as providing him with a basis for a
programme in action. He adopted from Hegel but dropped it because he disliked idealism.

85
Marx on Historical Materialism

Marx’s Materialistic interpretation of history is generally known, as Historical Materialism, contains

a greater amount of truth than his Dialectical Materialism or his theories of class struggle and surplus value.
His Historical Materialism has exercised a profound influence on Social Studies. Moreover, it
represents a very valuable advance in the field of social sciences. It is also called economicism but is not
possible to explain all historical movements exclusively in economic terms.
Human life is full of complexities and cannot be explained in terms of a single factor like economic,
religious, philosophy, climate etc. there may be other factors like greed, lust for power, love and sex which
have played their part in determining the course of human history. A reading of history would show that
factors, other than desire for profit and economic power had determined the course of events.
Marx adopted Dialectical Materialism as the basis of his system because he found in it a great
weapon by which he could free socialism from its sentimental, moralist and visionary background and could
make it scientific which was to be supported by the central position occupied by the Materialist interpretation
of history.
Marx’s interest in social science and social philosophy was fundamentally practical. He wanted to
discover the law and method of social and historical change to formulate the tactics suited to the
revolutionary proletarian theory. Thus, Marx adopted Hegel’s Dialectic and applied it to history and social
development in his famous theory of Historical Materialism.
The material things to Marx are the active determinants of historical development which are power
of production. The power of production includes three things:
1. Natural resources including land, climate fertility of soil and mineral resources like coal, iron, water
and power.
2. Machinery, tools and techniques inherited from the past.
3. The mental and moral qualities of men of the time.
As civilization advances, machinery tools and techniques which are the production of human
intelligence play a greater role in extending man’s control over nature. These cannot be designated as
material things and they do not convey the impression that intelligence and reason are the course of history.
Marx believed that human history is shaped and molded by the physical environment alone. Hence, Hegel’s
interpretation was idealist and Marx was materialist.
To Marx believed that men are not what they are in virtue of ideal influence. These characters are
made by the manners, in which they earned their daily bread. Therefore, the determinants of social and
political changes should be sought in the material conditions of life and not in the abstract consumption of
eternal truth and justice.
As mentioned above the material things of life are the factors which influence production of wealth.
Marx maintained that the forces which determined human and social history are economic and not cultural
or political leading to the transformation from one form of social organization to the other, and are not
affected by the emergence of new conception of truth and justice or new rational principle. It is the result of
new inventions which radically change the relation of production i.e. the relation between man and his

86
environment. Thus, to Marx, the mode of production of natural means of existence conditions the whole
process of social, political and intellectual life. Therefore, it is not consciousness of man that determines
their social existence it is the forces of production which determine the relation and the relation of production
in turn is the foundation on which all institutional and ideological super structure of society is built. In sum,
the substance of the material and economic interpretation of history according to Marx is that the ultimate
determinant of social change is the transformation in the mode of production and distribution. History
changes particularly where change in the system of production and distribution occur due to corresponding
changes in social, political and religious institutions. For example, when feudalism declined and commerce
and industry developed towards the close of middle ages, all the feudal institutions which were suited to
their special economic needs were replaced by new social and political institutions, new principle of morals
and legislation and new economic theories were adapted to the requirements of the new nation state. The
new nation states were emerging and their sprit and institutions had to undergo change as the emphasis
shifted from industrial to finance.
Thus, Marx was convinced that when the social, legal and political institutions of a society fail to
adjust themselves into the rapid and radical transformation the system of production and distribution of
wealth, crises grips the society. The only way out of this difficulty is revolution and thus Marx declared that
class struggle is the only way of change in the social structure. His theory of class struggle therefore is
connected with the materialistic interpretation of history.
In conclusion, the materialist interpretation or Historical Materialism rests upon the assumption that
ownership of the means of production is the means of power in society. This is true to a large degree. In
the present days, in capitalist society, political power is the hand-maid of economic power. However, it does
not follow that economic power is the only type of power that leads to political power as Marx assumed.
Even in history, there are several examples, where power was gained and retained for a long time by non-
economic means such as papacy of middle ages, the foundation of Islamic society and the state in history
and the extended empire of the caliphs.

Class Struggle

With his Historical Materialism or economic Materialism, Marx places his doctrine of class struggle.
The Historical Materialism contained his theory of social change and in the theory of class struggle Marx
described its mechanism i.e. the manner in which society progresses from one stage to another in the
course of its development.

Marx found in class struggle the key to the understanding of human history. According to him, “The
history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle” this meant that every major historical
event in history was characterized by the determinacy of an economic class. It yielded to another event in
which the rival economic class which was exploited in the preceding era triumphed over its erstwhile
exploiters after a hard struggle. Thus, according to Marx, the social movements which made history were

87
class movements. To Marx, at all times and in every country, society tended to divide itself into two main
hostile classes differentiated by their economic conditions. One was the small privileged class of the owners
of the means of production and other class was the large class of toilers, who worked on the raw material
and changed it into usable commodities. There was struggle between these two classes for economic and
political power and the great movements of history were consequences of this struggle. History has
recorded events from ancient Rome of Roman nobles and slaves, in the Middle Ages the feudal lords and
surfs and in the modern society, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. We can understand fundamentals of
Marxian theory concerning the class struggle with the view that in every system of production society tends
to split up into two hostile camps with conflicting interests, Wage earners want to secure the highest possible
prices for their labor but are at a great disadvantage because they have to find a quick purchaser of their
labor otherwise they would starve as their labor cannot be stored or preserved. Whereas, the capitalists
can store or preserve their capital consequently, the wage earners have to accept the terms of the capitalist
which turns the employer’s interest into a great weapon of oppression and exploitation which the wage
earners have to bear. Therefore, whenever the workers become conscious of their exploitation they rise up
in revolt against the oppressors thereby permanently establishing hostility between the capitalist employer
and the exploited working class in every system of production which ultimately makes the class war
inevitable leading to Surplus Value and concentration of capital.

Surplus value means the difference between the exchange value of the product created by labor
and the value of labor power. Marx claims that the wage paid to the workers in the factory are not equivalent
to the value they produce and is only equal to about half of this value or less. The rest of this value produced
by the workers day is taken by his employer. This excess value taken by his employer constitutes the
surplus value and it is constant effort of the employer to increase his profit.

Marx believed that the struggle of the present period of history is going on between the capitalist
employer and the proletariat which has become keenly class conscious and revolutionary. It was
undermining the capitalist structure and was bound to revolt in its overthrow with its final triumph of the
proletariat.

Marx believed that the bourgeoisie system of production has outlived its usefulness. It was no
longer able to control the powers of a revolt. It was too narrow to contain the wealth it had created and
therefore was decaying. The recurrent crisis of over production which were sought to be met by deliberate
mass destruction of the wealth it had created, revealed its inner instability. The Bourgeoisie had thus forged
the weapons that would bring death to itself by the modern working class of the proletariat.

Marx also believed that the Bourgeoisie system of production had tendency towards centralization.
As business grew, fewer individuals were in a position to secure the capital necessary to enter it. As
factories grew larger and number of workers increased large industrial centers came into existence with
large population. Thus the Bourgeoisie system of production led to the concentration of population in large
urban areas creating centralization in industry and concentration of property in fewer hands. On the other

88
hand, the workers begin to form their groups or unions against the Bourgeoisie. They unite themselves
together in order to keep up the rate of wages and to establish permanent association with a view to make
provisions beforehand for occasional revolts. They become more unified for a class struggle and formed
ever wider and bigger trade unions. These concentrations gave them power to purchase the whole fabric
of society through mass strikes. Thus, it become obvious that the division of society into two conflicting
classes creates class consciousness among the people leading to a class struggle on the economic basis
of Haves and Have Not in all periods of history whether traditional, transitional, modern or recent.

CHAPTER XI
VLADIMIR ILYICH LENIN

Life and Times

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924) was the first modern Russian philosopher. He was pioneer of the
Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. The widest territorial state of Europe, Russia was clouded under the despotic
monarchical system of Czar’s traditional rule in the 19th century. The political conflicts among European
states led to a continued struggle amongst each other in the 18th and 19th century leading to the monarchs’
desire for greater wealth and a strong defense against other states. This had led to the development of
autocratic and despotic monarchical setup mostly in European states particularly Russia, France, Prussia
and Austria. Although England was losing the monarchical political strength with particular reference to the
two century influence of Thomas Hobbes and Rousseau but the rise of Industrial Revolution and growth of
urbanization in England had changed the socio-economic orders of British society. England remained under
the umbrella of conservatism supporting capitalist socio-economic system. In case of Russia, Czar Nicholas
I remained a strong hold of autocratic regime. His son Czar Nicholas II was much more despotic in all
aspects compared to his father. His life was extremely luxurious creating of revolutionary ideas among his
populace. This was a period of the conflicting environment between the feudals and serfs on the one hand
and the emerging industrial class and workers on the other. Marxian philosophy during this period had
already expanded its clout over Europe widely affecting Western Europe and now it had entered into the
eastern part of the continent which included the territory of Russia. The Russian as a nation was highly
frustrated with autocratic and despotic regime of Czar Nicolas II and the rising demand of fulfillment of their
economic need.

Lenin was a brilliant student but while he was young his father suddenly died in 1886 when he was
only sixteen. He had an elder brother who had dedicated his life to the revolutionary struggle against the
Czar’s autocracy. He introduced Marxian ideas to Lenin who learnt about socialist and communist
philosophy from a young age by the literature of Karl Marx. His brother was arrested and executed with the
charge of assassinating the Czar. The execution of his brother brought a change and revolutionary ideas
in Lenin. He believed that to bring the revolution the first task for him was to make himself strong enough.
He also believed that for a successful revolution the over throw of government or even the assassination

89
of the Czar was not enough. Lenin thus sought to liberate the working people who could support his mission
of revolutionary ideas. For this he decided to establish a well-organized political party with a strong
leadership which could overthrow the autocratic despotic regime of the monarch. He established the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union under his leadership and started propagating socialism in the country.
He had already passed through the first stage of the revolution in 1905 when he was not in the country and
this revolution was brutally suppressed by the government of the Czar. Lenin returned to Russia after
spending 17 years in Europe from (1900-1917). He quickly took up the command of the Bolshevik group of
political party to overthrow the government of the Czar. Disagreeing with the minor group of the party who
were called the Menshevik faction, Lenin asked for peace, liberty, bread and land for the workers and
peasants. Thus there appeared a second revolt on October 24, 1970 lead by the Bolshevik’s which
overthrew the government of Czar by assassinating the whole family of Monarch of the Czar.

Lenin was a true disciple of Karl Marx bringing proletarian revolution transmitting capitalism to
socialism and building of a communist society. He came so close to Marxian thought that the two could not
be separated and since then the term Marxism and Leninism was set in the history of political thought.
Lenin Developed the Marxian philosophy, political economy and scientific communism practically with the
founding of communist Russia. He was not only a true believer of Karl Marx theory of historical materialism
, he also believed in the Hegelian theory of dialectical materialism as very close to truth by the cycle of
thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis and again will continue in the search of good and truth.

Leninism-Marxism

The concept of Leninism- Marxism or Leninist- Marxism has been identified by three definitions.

1 Leninism is something described as the application of Marxism to the condition peculiar in and to
Russia. Lenin not only applied Marxism doctrine to Russia he also altered them to suit the situation.
He was essentially a practical revolutionary aiming to bring a proletariat revolution in Russia and
not to advance any philosophy of revolution. He modified Marxian revolutionary thought coherent
to necessary conditions of Russia and presented practical policy and not the policy of ideas. The
Leninism is nothing but Marxism as applied to Russian conditions and environment.
2 Leninism is said to be the revival of revolutionary element of Marxism that brought the growth of
moderate revolutionary socialism. Marx did not speak of national patriotism believing that workers
have no country. Lenin revived this idea of Marx. Though he fixed his attention on the evolutionary
side of Marxism and completely ignored its revolutionary aspect, he stepped forward in the
development of Marxian thought under the new conditions of monopoly of capitalism or known as
imperialism. Thus, Lenin brought Marxism up to date in existing European conditions restating his
Marxian doctrine under condition of imperialism and proletarian revolution.
3 Leninism-Marxism took a further step ahead after Lenin’s death by his successor Joseph Stalin.
He elaborated Leninism-Marxism as an adequate term based on imperialism with proletariat revolt

90
in the background. Stalin held that Leninism was the theory and practice of the proletarian revolt in
general and dictatorship of the proletariat in particular.
Stalin observed that the condition under which Lenin applied the teachings of Marx to those
prevalent in Russia necessarily led him to lay great emphasis on the strategy of practice of
revolution putting the doctrine of dictatorship of the proletariat in the center. To assess the role
played by Lenin in the development of Marxism, it is necessary to bear in mind that the teachings
of father of the scientific socialism were presented with a double interpretation. Lenin refused the
revolutionary aspect of Marx and was considered as the defender of Marxist faith in his early life,
he acquired extraordinary knowledge of Marxian theory but his own life experience made him to
mold Marxian thought. He continued his activities till the end of his life by teaching the insight of
the interpretation of Marxism the mentality of the Russian masses, which he had very carefully
noted and chose Russia to become revolutionary under the conditions of those days by bringing a
Bourgeoisie revolution and setting up of a democratic government with capitalist economy in place
of Czarist regime. The socialist leaders believed that the Russian peasantry was not prepared for
a socialist revolution and so socialist revolution could only be engineered by the industrial
proletariat. Lenin was opposed to all these thoughts. He held that it was not necessary for Russia
to pass through a revolution based on the industrial proletariat. It was feasible in Russia to mold
liberal Bourgeoisie rules towards a revolution. Lenin insisted upon the creation of a suitable and
effective party organization of preferred revolutionaries who could work in extra-legal ways. This
point of view of Lenin led to the success of the 1917 revolution in Russia which was certainly
different from the main line Marxian tradition. Thus the Russian revolution was considered the
Russian charter carrying Lenin’s Marxism.

91
 CHAPTER XII
Al-Farabi

Life and Times

Abu Nasar Muhammad Al- Farabi (870-950 A.D) was born in Wazij, a village near Farab, Turkey.
He became fluent in Arabic being educated in Baghdad. He was associated with Christian teachers where
he learnt about Aristotle and Politics. He was called “second Aristotle” being influenced by Aristotle’s
philosophy thereby developed Muslim theology, jurisprudence and constitutional theory. Farabi was the
first Muslim thinker who combined Platonic, Aristotelian and Sufi theories in his own philosophical writing.
He also integrated Hellenistic philosophy with Islamic thought. Al-Farabi lived in an age of turmoil in the
Islamic empire due to different causes such as religious, racial, philosophic and cultural differences. New
dynasties were threatening the reign of Abbassid caliphs who were getting weaker and Caliph had become
a puppet in the hands of the strong surrounded ruling dynasties which were Persian and Turks and different
to Abbassids in racial and religious values.

Al-Farabi has left five known works on politics:

2) Siyasatul-Madaniyah
1) Summary of Plato’s Laws
4) Jawami us-Siyasat and
3) Ara u ahli- Madinahtu’l- Fadilah

5) Ijtima atu’l – Madaniyah

Among these five two of them are well known: Siyasat and Ara. Siyasat has his philosophy as a whole
whereas Ara deals with only a ‘Model State’.

Human Intellect and Power and Human Groupings

His treatise Siyasat consists of practically whole of the political theory of Farabi. It begins with
differentiating men and animals, then the it deals with the needs of man and its impact. It deals with the
need for the existence of the Model city or state and the ideal Head of State. Comparing the ancient and in
the tyrannies, autocracies and republics.

92
 His other work Ara concentrates on the Model State dealing with aspects like sovereignty and the
theory of the state.
To study the human intellect and powers in philosophy of Farabi, we need to seek help from both
of his above works. Studying his political philosophy, it underlines the principles of all bodies’ internal,
mental strength as well as physical capacity. On this basis he differentiates between man and animals. This
difference, he calls the agent intellect which is the first cause to raise man to the highest stature. It is this
agent intellect which inspires man’s intelligence to activity which Farabi calls Gained Intellect. He explains
agent Intellect compared it to sun which gives light to the eyes and without which the power of sight is only
latent. When the sun rays help the eyes, the sight becomes clear.
The powers in men can be analyzed into power of Reason, power of thinking, power of feeling and
power of contention. It is the power of reason through which man acquires knowledge and differentiates
between good and bad, in morality and in actions and between profit and loss. Power of contention makes
him want something or get away from something and it is the basis of love and hate, truth and untruth,
anger and mental rest. The power of thinking necessitates another power to retain traces of feeling after
the thing felt has passed away Farabi says that the power of reasoning is a peculiarity of the human species.
Certain animals possess power of thinking, contention and feeling but not reasoning whereas, most animals
have only two powers that is contention and feeling but not thinking.

Human Grouping

Farabi says that it is in the nature of men to gather himself in large groups because of on the one
hand their natural needs and on the other for the sake of attaining amenities of life for the highest possible
degree of progress. Such grouping is not peculiar to any particularly set of men but it is the case of all men
alike. There are many kinds of human groupings. However, Farabi divides it into two main types, perfect
and imperfect. The perfect grouping is which performs service of the city which is the largest of all the
groupings which may be considered the most perfect. The Imperfect Grouping is those of the village, the
wards of the city, roadside congregations and gathering at resting places. The middle grouping is based on
nationality or residence and this is the largest human grouping. All these perfect and imperfect groupings
are to Farabi connected with one another because the halting place is part of the road, the road is part of
the city, the city is part of the nationality and the nationality is the part of the mankind.

Natural and Artificial Barriers to Human Unity

Farabi demonstrates in a remarkable manner the essential unity of man. However, he carefully
describes the reason why one nation differs from or unites with another naturally. He also tries to find out
what kinds of artificial barriers has been setup between them. The natural difference between nations arise
in their relations to the geographical factors from the relations of particular part of the earth to heavenly
bodies which Farabi relates to heat, cold, vapor in other words change in climate conditions of the places.
This affects the habit and customs of the people causing a barrier between one nation and the other. The

93
artificial barriers consists mainly indifferences in language which makes mutual communication difficult
between one nation and the other.
Thus, inspired by natural needs of co-operation mankind is divided into numerous groups and its
culmination is attained in the unit of perfect assemblages which is city state and therefore, Farabi gives
importance to the study of state.

Theory of State

Farabi describes the individualistic state or what he calls state formation based upon its motives.
In other words, he gives us the causes which lead men to form a political society.
To him, the first cause for co-operation of man in forming a society is force. When one person, who
has resources, physical or moral at his disposal, he makes a whole body of the people subservient to him
and a state is formed.
The second possible motive given by Farabi comes very near to what is called the patriarchal
theory, e.g. some people consider that the very incident of birth entails co-operation between father and
children against all others so that those descending from the same father are more likely to co-operate with
one another than others not belonging to the group.
Another cause of co-operation between man and man is based on material relationship. Such
relationship may be established between one group and the other for material needs. Such materialism is
related to the worldly life of the human group where one group becomes essentially dependent upon the
other and vice versus.
Farabi believed that one of the significant motives for the formation of the state is the proper
organization of the people by the supreme head whom he calls Raisul Awwal. He then presents a theory
of mutual agreement of rights. Saying that to some, this is the basis of political co-operation which results
from oaths and promises ensuing from the fact that no one would harm or hate his fellowmen and all would
be like members of the same body the need of defending the political society from a common enemy.
Lastly, the cause of formation of a state is on the basis of language and customs which form a
strong bond for union of men. Farabi also includes geographical factor for the formation of a state saying
that people living in the same city are bound together as a group.
After giving different causes for the formation of the state, Farabi also gives the conception of
different kinds of the states. He divides states into number of categories such as state of necessity, state
of case, and state of desire. In the state of necessity the prime object of the head is to arrange for
necessities of the citizens. In the state of Ease the citizens would be contented if they are assured a life of
comfort and their life will not be beyond moderate limits. In the state of desires, it is to make life of the
people luxurious with plenty of resources in order that they might eat, drink and live happily. Apart from the
above classification which has an idealistic content, Farabi places specific importance on the political
character under which one nation wants to have hegemony. He gives reason for such domination which
comes in people because of their desire for safety, ease or luxury. A powerful state which is integrated may
get such a desire fulfilled. As by nature the strong overpowers the weak similarly a strong nation control the

94
weak one Farabi says that it is justice for both, strong to controls the weak and weak to be controlled by
the stronger and therefore, a subdued nation should do all it can for the good of its masters.
Farabi further says that the people of an imperialistic state (Madina tool- Taghallub) have excelled
in having mastery over others, physically or spiritually in such a way that the subdued state should be at
the service of their master in body and mind. He also favors the principles of colonization but he clearly
suggests that the colonies should be left free for self-government of a Republican kind which in modern
terms is known as the government of participation and representation of the local people.

Concept of Head of State (Sovereign)

Al- Farabi gives a comprehensive picture of head of a state, or a ruler, or a sovereign unlike Plato,
who was idealist in his approach of making a philosopher king, Farabi presents his sovereign having a
practical approach. He begins with examining the nature of the working of leadership and realizes that the
sovereign needs power which should be proper and undiluted with unwanted deduction. It meant to him
that there are some who had the intellect to draw conclusions better than others, while there are some who
can convey their decisions with greater ability.
This power of deductions is at the bottom of all leadership. Those who can draw conclusions from
given facts lead those who cannot. Because such people do not have the capacity to convey to others,
what they have themselves learned they do not have the true marks of leadership. It is not necessary that
a leader should lead the whole people in every branch of life. A person who has a lesser capacity to convey
his message in the branch in which he excels them should not lead. Thus, according to Farabi, every man
cannot be the sovereign because people differ in their intellectual capacity, physical strength, performing
virtuous deals and acquiring excellent habits such as thinking, feelings, willing and doing. The sovereign
who is first in rank is not subservient to any one and he is in the second rank dominating some and being
dominated by others. To Farabi, the foremost leader is the Raisul-Awwal. Rais is the one who by his very
nature and brought up He does not want to be instructed by others and also has the inherent capacity for
observations and of conveying this to others. With such view, Farabi explains the doctrine of sovereignty
which was for first time propounded given in detail by Bodin in 17th century, 600-years after Farabi.
Moreover, Farabi’s sovereign or Rais is more logical and autocratic than given by Bodin, he seems to be
closer to the concept of sovereignty given by John Austin. Farabi says that there is no human superior
alone the Rais as Austin had said, to Farabi if there is was one, above than it would be the sovereign and
this would be the position of the second leader.
If the foremost leader or the Rais is able to control all actions in the state he should possess both,
latent intellect as well as gained intellect. The combination of the two by the agent intellect makes the ideal
sovereign he says that the Greeks put the ideal so high that no ordinary human being could attain it, and
the honor would be reserved for those who were the chosen of God, the Al Mighty.

95
 Farabi gives twelve attributes of an ideal sovereign and says that if this ideal is ever attained its
possessor could become the proud ruler of the world.

Following are the twelve attributes of his Raisul –Awwal.

1. Perfect physique.
2. Great undertaking.
3. Visionary in thought.
4. Strong memory.
5. Power to go into the roots of the matter with least argument.
6. Power to convey with love and make others understand.
7. Devotion to education and learning.
8. Control over desire such as eating, drinking and sex.
9. Love of truth and hatred for lies.
10. Love of justice and hatred for force and tyranny.
11. Distribution of justice with fearlessness.
12. Possession of sufficient amount of wealth.
Farabi knows that these fine qualities cannot be found in one single human being so he says that
anyone with just five or six of these qualities would make a fairly good leader. He goes to the extent saying
that in case if such a person is not available it is preferable to have a council of two or even five members
possessing an aggregate of these qualities provided one of them is a Hakim. This means that one who is
able to know the needs of the people and can visualize the needs of the state as a whole. Farabi believes
that this Hakim is fit for every kind of government and if such Hakim is not available then the state is bound
to disintegrate.
Considering the difficulties of Farabi in search of such an ideal sovereign, we have to say that
Farabi was an idealist. But he must be credited for realizing difficulty to have all attributes in one person
and so he suggest a council of efficient men for the purpose of smooth functioning of the state. He desires
minimum requirements for the sovereign for a successful functioning of the state which include the right
amount of knowledge, feeling for the welfare of the people and respect for the basic laws and traditions of
the state.

96
 CHAPTER XIII
Al- Mawardi

Life and Times

Abul Hasan Ali Al-Mawardi (974-1058 A.D) was born in Iraq. He was educated in a traditional school,
but wrote on different topics such as law, ethics and commentary on the Holy Quran. He was an orthodox
Shafite, but remained rational in his philosophical approach. He is regarded as versatile thinker and great
scholar of jurisprudence of his time. His main concentration was on government and administration. He
was Professor of law and jurisprudence in Baghdad and Basra, spent his whole life in teaching and writing.
He died at an old age in 1058. He has contributed many scholarly works among which the following four
are well known:

1) Al-Akram al – Sultaniyah or Ordinance of Government. Containing his main philosophy.

2) Nasihatul-Mulk or Advice to Kings.
3) Qawaninul – Wizarat or the laws of the Minister, also known as Adabul-Wazir.
4) Tahsilun – Nazar fi Tahsilz – Zafar or the Control of Sight for Facilitating Victory.

Position in Political Science and Administration

Al-Mawardi is given a position of a high esteem in Islamic political thought. He was an established
jurist of his time in Baghdad of the 10th century, and witness to a remarkable change in Europe. The ancient
political setup was destroyed and the Christian orthodoxy was at its height under the papacy and while
Christianity spread not only in Europe but at other places as well. Such political changes were appearing
in the Muslim empire as well, where the Abbasids were being influenced by the Turks and Iranians in the
East. Mawardi being well educated was a strong believer of Islam and saw the change with curiosity and
that resulting into two significant contributions in the study of political science:
1) The Imamat
2) The administrative organization of the state.
Mawardi gave a comprehensive description of administrative organization of the state describing
all the important organs separately. His first and foremost discussion is on the Imamat. He says that God
laid down laws in order that issues might be satisfactorily settled and the principle of right, truth and
goodness may be widely known. God has also entrusted the control of his creation to various governments
so that the administration of the world might be properly carried out. Mawardi holds that the Imamat or
Presidentship is the foundation on which the rules and regulations of community depends. The real purpose
of the state is the rule of Justice and Truth, and it is the state machinery which sifts well from the bad, virtue
from, vice and the sanctioned from the prohibited.

The second organ of Mawardi’s state machinery is the ministry or Wizarat. He says that the
appointment of a Wazir does not mean that Imam and Caliph give up all connections with administration of

97
the state but the real significance of the office of Wazir consists in the fact that it is better to have a co-joiner
in political organizations rather than one person, the Imam to carry out the affairs of the state.

To Mawardi Wizarat is also of two kinds:

1) The Wizarat of delegation

2) The Wizarat of execution
The Wazir of Delegation is the person in whom the Imam has fullest confidence and whom the
whole administration of the state is delegated. The difference between Wizarat and Imamat is that the Wazir
of delegation cannot appoint anyone as his successor and the Imam can dismiss the officers appointed by
the Wazir. The appointment of Wazir of delegation with his power and function indicates that Mawardi was
well aware of the nature of constitutional government.
The Wazir of Execution was like an officer similar to a secretary of the government in the modern
state system, who looks after the administrative functions. The Wazir of Execution is to execute the decree
of the Imam. He is also the main official channel of information for the Imam. Mawardi puts seven qualities
as requirement for the person of this office such as honesty, confidence, absence of greed, and good
relationship with people, intelligence to grasp the truth, and the absence of luxuries having diplomacy and
experience. Interestingly, Mawardi does not find it necessary that the Wazir of execution should be followers
of Islam. Further, it is also interesting to note that if the Wazir of delegation is dismissed all the Wazirs of
execution are automatically dismissed. Such practice is found in modern England under the title of collective
responsibility and also in the American constitution that when the president goes all his secretaries go with
him.
Mawardi also speaks of organized administration where the government should be divided into
various departments dealing with the business of government such as revenue collection and other high
offices of the state. His administrative setup was called Diwan.
The other organ of the state administration was justice. Here also Mawardi required seven
conditions Judge such as he should be a male, clever and intelligent a freeman, Muslim, honest, pious and
above suspicion, well versed in law and should not have defect in seeing and hearing. He regarded the
officers of Justice as sacred and when a man is appointed as a Judge, he should neither be dismissed nor
he should resign. In short, there is hardly a single topic in the field of administration, legislation, execution
of laws and judiciary on which Mawardi has not expressed his opinion. He has discussed even taxation,
provincial government, local administration, censorship and crime also.

On Imamat

Mawardi gives a comprehensive meaning of the Imamat and says that the real motive of the
institution of Imam is the following of the straight path (Sirat-ul-Mustaqeem) and the strengthening of the
political bonds. Therefore, it was very important that Imam should be chosen by the consensus of the
community (Ijma Alama). He says that Imamat is not only an institution which is sanctioned by tradition and
history but it can be proved to be necessary according to pure reason because wise men entrust their affairs

98
to a leader who is able to keep them from being molested and adjudged between them in case of mutual
quarrels.
Mawardi gives a detail description about the election and appointment of the Imam and also
discusses the qualifications of voters and candidates instead of dealing with purely artificial factors such as
age, property and residence. Mawardi considers only those qualified who can distinguish between good
and evil, right and wrong, deserving and undeserving.

According to him, there are two ways in which the Imam can be elected.

1 By the vote of qualified voters.

2 By the nomination of outgoing Imam.
He bases his argument by precedent of choice of Hazrat Abu- Bakar by election and that of Hazrat
Omer by nomination. Once the new Imam has taken his place, he finds himself by an Ahd or undertaking
promising that he would loyally perform the duties allotted to him. This is followed by the Bait or pledge the
people will give their promises to be loyal to the new Imam.
The Imam pledges that he would protect the Faith, adjudicate between man and man against
tyranny of each other, defend the liberty of the state, punish those who disobey the law, make the payment
of salaries regularly, appoint honest and reliable men as his representatives, and should never give himself
up either to a life of luxury or be forced to handover the management to others.
Hence, Mawardi has given a comprehensive description of Imamat recommending an elected head
of the state with constitutional authority working with his two categories of Wazir, the Wazir of Delegation
and the Wazir of Execution. His description is so powerful and impressive that in the modern state system
whether Western or Eastern, such kind of the state functionary has been adopted together with
constitutional government and collective responsibility.

99
 CHAPTER XIV
Nizamul Mulk Tusi

Life and Times

Khawja Abu Ali Hasan (1017-1091 A.D) is known as Nizam ul Mulk Tusi. He was born in Tus in
1017 AD. Nizam ul Mulk was a title which he received by the ruler of Saljuk Dynasty. He came from a
landed family and his father worked as a government officer in the court of Khurasan. Tusi was educated
in law. He extensively traveled for the sole purpose of knowledge and finally he was employed in Ghaznah
as a government official under the Ghaznahwids. He witnessed the political instability and turmoil in the
kingdom which led him to leave Ghaznah. In other words, Tusi lived in an environment of political warfare
and continued conflict within of the Caliphate. His famous works are Siyasat Namah or Siyarul Mulk,
Dastural- Wuzara and Safer Namah.

Kingship

Nizam –ul- MulkTusi was influenced by Islamic principles particularly using the influence of Perso-
Turkish thought on his political philosophy and practice in politics. This made him at times self-contradictory.
Perhaps this was the reason that when he speaks of kindship or office of the head of the state he looks
similar to the concept of Imamat given by Mawardi. It seems contradictory that while he tries to justify the
hereditary king, he uses arguments which he advances in favour of an elected president. Seemingly the
result of a conflict found in him because of the combination of Arabic and Persian systems. However, Tusi
holds that God the Almighty selects someone from among men and give him the charge of the well-being
of the world and the comfort and tranquility of the human race after duly furnishing him with sets of
government. God also makes him responsible for the peace and security of the land. To him, that it is the
duty of the ruler or king to remain in constant consultation with the wisest, the most experienced, and most
competent of his people. The ruler should repose confidence in those of his subjects who deserve it and
delegate to them a part of his duties according to their merit and worth. He advises the ruler to issue
instructions to all his officers of the state, telling them to treat the people well and extract only the dues
allowed by the law of the land. The legal and constitutional aspect has been very important for Tusi because
he warns that only such kings have been successful in their administrations who have not given up the
principles. The king should remember that God Almighty is pleased only when he treats his people with
kindness and Justice. Therefore, Tusi insists on the integrity and impartiality of Judiciary. The ruler should
appoint only such persons as judges who should be well versed in law and should be absolutely above
suspicion. He says that judges should be paid high salaries so that they should be prone to corruption of

100
all kinds. The ruler should make his officials treat those in their immediate charge with Justice and kindness.
They should extract the legal dues from them and should always be careful for the good of the state.
The king should appoint judges and magistrates from only those people who have no personal
stake in the work allotted to them. He should also see that they perform duties with diligence, honesty and
care. A ruler should never appoint member of his entourage to high posts in the state. He should not force
high officers to be his private companions. He should not allow any plurality of offices and should appoint
persons to different offices according to their ability.
The ruler should remember that capable officers are a great assert for the state and “he should
also remember what a wise man has said that a worthy servant and an able slave rank superior even to
one’s own sons” while dishonest officials lead a country to utter ruin. On the one hand, the ruler should be
well- informed and sympathetic towards his officials, but on the other hand, he should see that these officials
are honest and perform their duty well. He says that women are by nature inferior to men so they should
not be in politics and administration.
Tusi was keenly interested in foreign policy so to him and ambassador was important. He advises
the king that the real objective of foreign envoys is not only to convey a message but also seek secret
information about communication positions including condition of roads, paths, valleys, canals and tanks
and whether they are fit for the passage of troops. The ruler should also find out through ambassadors
other rulers, their armies, people, wealth and local administration. Thus, Tusi gives importance to foreign
policy saying that the ruler should appoint persons unknown to officials who will sit on important positions
in government keep an eye on high official and their movement. He also advises that a spy should dress
as a merchant, traveler, Sufis or chemist so that they might come into direct contact with the people.
His concept of the head of the state is very comprehensive and elaborate but he does not give the
details of the power the king enjoys in his state. It seems that Tusi was more interested in moral values in
administrative functions rather than political power.

101
 CHAPTER XV
Al- Ghazzali

Life and Times

Abu Hamid Muhammad (1058-1111 A.D) was born at Ghazzalah near the town of Tus. Because
of his birth place he is known as Al-Ghazzali. He is regarded as a distinguish scholar of Muslims philosophy
and history of political thought. He was attached as a student to the famous college founded by Nizam ul
Mulk Tusi. Later he became a Professor in Baghdad where he taught philosophy. He contributed significant
work on philosophy and politics which influenced the modern age. He travelled extensively and enriched
his experience. He travelled to Damascus, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Macca and Madina. He witnessed a civil
war, conflict and instability in his state which led him to study the root cause of human suffering.

Al- Gazzali left several distinguished works such as Munqidh Min ad Dalat, Ibyaul Ulam, Tibrut-
Masbuk, Sirrul- Alamain, Fatihatul-Ulum, Kimiya-i-Sa’ada, Iqtisad Fil-I’tiqad, Kilabul-Wajiz.

State Law and Constitution

Ghazzali enunciated the necessity of a state with his view that man is created in such a manner
that he cannot live alone and is always in need company and also for making a family. Once a state is
formed it requires a sovereign or an Amir to take care of his subjects. This leads Ghazzali to speak of state,
law and the constitution.

Ghazzali says that there are two aspects of human conduct.

1 Individual

102
2 Social
When a man is regarded as a social being then the need of law and politics arises. Law deals with
the relation among the people for the settlement of their disputes and also between the ruler and the ruled
for a rule of justice. He argued that if men are to exercise justice among themselves then there would be
no need for law because men will be led by their desires without regards to the right of property and life of
others. Therefore, it is necessary to have law. Hence, Faqih who is well versed in law should know how to
act when there is a quarrel between two persons.
To Ghazzali there is a relation between the state and religion and these two are like twin sisters.
Religion is the foundation of the society and the ruler of the state is the preserver of human society. If the
foundation is weak the whole structure will fall and if the ruler is absent there would be no one to preserve
the foundation. By a constitution he gives great importance to the ruler or the king, whom he calls the Amir.
To explain Amir’s position, Ghazzali gives a biological rezoning. He says that as the heart is the main organ
of human body so is the Amir in the state, if a state is compared to a human being. Similarly, the
professionals in the state are like limbs and magistrates are desires, police officers are anger and the
ministers are common sense. The Amir requires the assistance of all other organs to carry on the work of
the state, but desires the ministers sometimes indulge in false hood and work against the dictates of
common sense. The desire wants to enact all there is in the state in the shape of revenue. The police officer
or anger as it is perceived, is very sharp and is in the habit of wishing to kill or at least inflict injury. The Amir
is in the habit of consulting his ministers and keeping the magistrate under his control. Ghazzali explains
that it is only when the Amir or the heart takes counsel from the minister or the common sense and controls
the desires and anger, making both subservient to common sense, only then the state will be managed well
and if anger and desire succeed in controlling common sense then the whole body politics will be destroyed
and the Amir or the heart will have to see a state decay. Herbert Spencer, a British philosopher after
Ghazzali gave the same kind of description but Ghazzali is much superior in his thought regarding the
constitution and its distributive agencies.
Ghazzali also gives a comprehensive explanation of justice in his constitutional frame work. He
says that in order to acquire the quality of being the shadow of God as sovereign on the earth, it is necessary
that the ruler or the Amir be careful that a person wronged always wants to be redressed. He quotes the
Prophet’s (PBUH) tradition that the ruler is the vice regent of God himself and one day of justice is equal to
70 years of continuous prayer.
Ghazzali also describes the duties and functions of the Amir as the central executive arm of the
government in his book, The Tibrul-Masbuk. Here he gives the necessary qualities of an ideal ruler and
says that he should have intellect, knowledge, perception, correct preposition of things, love for his subjects,
diplomacy, foresight, strong will power and should be well-versed in the need of the day and the history of
the Amirs who have passed away. Moreover, he wants limited income at the disposal of the Amir for public
work so that he does not live a life in luxury and remains simple as the Prophet (PBUM) and the four Pious
Caliphs.

103
Khulf -e- Rashadin.

Ghazzali believes in Islamic fundamental that all men are equal before law so they should be
treated equally. The master should feed and clothe his slaves in exactly the same manner as himself and
should immediately sell them off when they are of no use for him and should not keep God’s creature in
perpetual agony. In a state it is necessary for an ideal Amir to have a secret service to keep a watchful eye
on inner most affairs of the state. Without secret service the command of the Amir and without the news of
the country coming to him, the state is like a body without a soul. Ghazzali puts the ideology of Islam and
presence of law combining the two together and explaining how the ruler can adopt the Islamic ideal of
equality before God and limited by the dictates of law. He brings down the ruler to the level of democratic
emirate by hedging it with the ideal setup of the Prophet (PBUH) of Islam and his successors. He concludes
that it is law which is upper most, may it be human or divine.
Ghazzali also gives significant position in his state and constitution to provincial administration
explaining the duties and functions of provincial governors for which he cites the example of Khalifa Hazrat
Omar (R.A) when Hazrat Omer (R.A) says to one of his governors that the best governor is he who does
good to his subject and the worst is he who treats them harshly. No governor should issue orders while he
is over powered with anger or lust.
Finally, Ghazzali gives the organizational set up of state, government and administration stressing
on the need of an honest minister about which he deals comprehensively in his work Tibr. The minister
should be faithful to the ruler and the ruler ought to respect his ministers.

Amir

Ghazzali foresees the necessity of the state in a remarkable manner justifying its development on
the basis of human natural need. Once a state is formed arbitration and government become necessary to
deal with quarrels and feuds. He also realizes the need of Fiqh or canon law in order to organize people
and keep them with in proper bounds. He suggests warfare and arms in order to save the city internally and
externally. To him for financial arrangement, a collector of revenue was required giving utmost importance
to the king or Amir at helm of affairs being able to make appointments to all these offices to see that Justice
is done and state is secured regarding financial matters and internal and external disorders.
Ghazzali holds that there are number of dutiful functions to be held in the state for which
appointments of clerks, writers, magistrates and army men were to be made. He divides the population of
the state into three parts.
1. Farmers and craftsmen.
2. Men of the swords.
3. Those who take money from the first grade in order to distribute among the second whom Ghazzali
calls the men of pen.

104
 Ghazzali gives special position to kingship or Amir saying that it is impossible to have a perfect
organization of worldly affairs without ruler or Sultan. He believes that without such an organization it would
be impossible act according to the Divine commandment for peace and order as such a political
organization has the sanction of the law of Islam. Without a ruler or Amir to whom the people should
habitually be obedient, there would be continuous turmoil and never ending of crossing of swords. He holds
that it is natural that man should be divided into different ranges grades with different mental cadres and
diversities in individual opinion and it is of utmost necessity that a strong ruler should be on the helm of
affairs and keep the body politic properly organized and under his control.
Unlike Hobbes, Locke & Rousseau, who dealt with an imaginary man, Ghazzali spoke of a man
as a ruler and also a subject who is a living entity, honest and working. It is in his (rule) nature that he is
interdependent through which machinery of state functions while he remains at the center of authority.
Ghazzali provides guidance of daily routine of his ruler or Amir to be successful in his administration
which includes minor details of his food, drink, privacy, desk work etc. After Morning Prayer, the Amir should
go out for riding in order to investigate any wrong done to his subjects. He should sit in the court and allow
everyone direct access to him so that he may have firsthand knowledge of any complaint. He should make
appointment to talking counsel from those who can add to his knowledge, intelligence and experience and
also he himself interacts with foreign envoys. The Amir should be well-versed in diplomacy and politics and
should not be inclined to peace simply because of fear of his enemies. Ghazzali warns the Amir against
excessive indulgence in drinking, chess, or hunting and says that the best system of life is “work while you
work and play while you play.” He tells his Amir that the good king should divide his time as a routine has
follows:
1 Prayer timings
2 State affairs
3 Justice and counsel of the learned.
4 Food and rest.
5 Recreation and hunting.
He is very particular that the ruler should not heed to the advice offered by his women favorites
and quotes the instance of Hazrat Omar (R.A) who divorced his favorite wife when he was elected Caliph
for fear of being influenced by her in state affairs. He warns the ruler against the curse of favoritism.

Ghazzali emphasizes limited public resources to be placed at the disposal of the Amir promoting
simplicity in habit as possible giving example of Prophet (PBUH) in this regard where he (PBUH) had said
that “God would be kind to those who are kind to their subjects”. Ghazzali also gives the example of
Umayyad ruler, Omer bin Abdul Aziz as a model of Justice, equality and simplicity, who asked for his
monthly salary in advance to buy the Eid clothes for his daughter but desisted from drawing it from the state
treasury because he was reminded by his finance minister that there was no certainty of his life for the
month for which he wished to draw his pay.
To Ghazzali the ideal Amir was one who kept a watchful eye on the inner most affairs of the state.
Therefore, he should keep a secret service at his command as without news of the state constantly coming

105
to him his position would be a body without a soul. He also suggested that the Amir should not interfere
into the affairs of the other states. Founded on these fundamentals Ghazzali gives a comprehensive study
of the office of the Amir in the state system concerning his private and public life and responsibility as a
state functionary.

Concept of Justice

Ghazzali wants the sovereign to clearly realize that all worldly blessings will come to an end at the
time of death referring to the transitory condition of life in a world which is temporary. He advises the
sovereign to keep the commandments of Almighty Allah and the saying of the Prophet (PBUH) upper most
in his mind always remembering that is unjust acts will be against Divine orders. Further, the king should
also visualize himself as a subject and not Amir to know how he would feel if unjust treatment was meted
out to him in a sub ordinate capacity.
In general, the doctrine of Justice had profound significant in the works of Muslim political theorists
and Ghazzali’s thought was no exception. He says that in order to acquire the quality of being the shadow
of God on earth with all its implications, it is necessary that the ruler should be careful that the person
wronged should always be able to have his wrong righted. He uotes the Prophet’s (PBUH) tradition that on
the Day of Judgment one of the seven sets of persons who would be allowed to enjoy the shadow of the
Divine Throne would be the set of kings who had done justice. Ghazzali says that ruler is the vice regent of
God only if he is just otherwise he is the vice regent of the devil himself. He elaborates further that one days
of justice is equal to seventy years of continuous prayer citing the Prophet’s tradition.
Ghazzali enumerated ten rules of the conduct of government in matters of justice which the ruler
should bear in mind:
1 In every case, the ruler should mentally put himself in the position of the offender.
2 He should fulfill desire of those who have come to him for justice.
3 Justice is possible only when ruler does not indulge in luxurious life style.
4 He should practice leniency, not harshness in his official dealings.
5 He should try that the subject should be content with the rule of law.
6 He should not attempt any reconciliation at the expense of law.
7 He should supervise the affairs of the people in the same way as if he were to supervise his own
affairs dealing with the powerful.
8 He should try to meet the learned as often as he can and should encourage them to have their
say.
9 He should see that his servants, magistrates and other officers perform their duties diligently and
well.
10 He should not be over powered by any false sense of pride.

Describes Justice he says that real justice is dealing with the inferior like a father with a son and
with a superior like a brother and award punishment according to limit of is forbearance. Ghazzali quotes
Hazrat Ali (R.A) that the best Judge is he who is not prejudiced in his decision from personal desires or by
any leaning towards his relations or fear or hope but adopts a natural attitude towards all that come before
him.

106
 Thus, to Ghazzali perfect Justice is absolute neutrality of the Amir in all his acts or words. Paying
equal regard to everything great or small, to everybody high or low, noble or downtrodden and should put
down lawlessness with a stern hand.

CHAPTER XVI
Ibn Khaldun

Life and Times

Abu Zaid, Abd-al-Rahman Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 A.D) was born in Tunis, North Africa. He is
considered to be the first philosopher who introduced scientific method in the study of politics and history.
To him history is a science which must be studied for the narration of facts. He lived in a period of crises
between the Muslims and Christians when Spain was on the height of Christian power and expelled the

107
Muslims from the country. Ibn Khaldun became the scientific historian with deep knowledge of
historiography and sociology. He was also a scholar, historian, philosopher, economist and a pedagogue.
He is known as father of Science of History and founder of Sociology. He died in 1404 in Cairo. His famous
works are Kitab al Ibar, al-Taaris, and History of the Berbers. He has also authored a book on sociology
which is known as Prolegomena or Muqaddamah.

Historical and Social Method

Khaldun’s work Prolegomena was fundamentally neo- Aristotelian. He says that history is firmly
rooted in philosophy as its branch saying that to write history we need a reliable method of verification. It
means something which distinguishes things to find out what was possible from what was impossible under
various circumstances.

Aristotle had developed the analytical empirical method of classifying things according to their
common characteristics proceeding to examine it in minute detail. Through study of facts, Aristotle desired
to produce a full understanding of time and things in it.

Khaldun was interested in setting out to writing world history. He found difficulty at the core of
Islamic learning namely, how to distinguish the true from the false about past events. He thus applied the
method of studying state on the basis of studying facts to produce full understanding of things. Khaldun
knew that such method existed which was given by Aristotle, but he had not discovered Aristotle’s book,
The Politics. Khaldun gave a method to study of human civilization in a much wider sense than Aristotle or
anyone else did.

While Aristotle had confined his study to the city state, Khaldun made world civilization the subject
of his study. According to Khaldun, history is nothing less than a narrative of human aggregation (Ijtima)
which is organized habitation called Umran which mean civilization of the world. His views were a
continuation and large scale extension to humanity as a whole, whereas for Aristotle, it was a study of
humans as social and political beings.

Khaldun gives generalization of collective human behavior by making case studies on his own and
other people’s experiences. He goes further ahead from Aristotle in the study of history by saying that: “One
should not reject data for which one finds no observable parallels in one’s own time because conditions in
the world in civilizations are not always same.” He further states that we should assemble data of past and
present events, compare these, identify and define human culture, and then determine its basic
characteristics because this is what the science of civilization or Ilm-ul-Umran. From here Khaldun enters
into the fundamental facts of politics which to him is the nature of civilization. Thus, he uses Aristotelian
method by understanding the past. He reveals history’s inner workings and believes that this will give Islam
a new pace for self-analysis and it would be extremely useful for a statesman.

To Khaldun, this method gives possible verification and casual explanation and method also
enables one to know not only what happened but also why it happened.

108
 Ibn Khaldun as a social investigator went further. He identified variations between people’s
(nations) and temporal changes in social organization which he called “essential accidents” of human
culture. Thus, the historian must understand the character of things, the differences which exist between
nations and regions regarding their behavior, manners, habits, sects and doctrine. He believes that nation’s
characteristics and historical changes are not universal or permanent. Temporal changes do not occur over
and over again. Public offices look the same and have same names but vary fundamentally overtime. It is
a mistake to think that a teacher, judge or a military commander has the same social role to play as in the
past. Such recognition of history in Khaldun’s philosophy is not found in Aristotle.

Moral and Immoral Forms of Authority

Khaldun discusses moral and immoral forms of authority shifting from his analysis of royal dynastic
decline. He realizes the need for a divinely inspired law giver or Prophet, who will lay down those religious
laws which alone will guide humans to their true good in this world and in the next world.

Khaldun believes that Prophets are succeeded by deputies whose function is to ensure religious
observance and good government. At this point, especially Islamic institution of the Caliph, described by
Khaldun. He insists that here he is not responding to Islamic jurisprudence as such rather he is introducing
the religious functions of the deputy only in order to distinguish these from royal government which arises
in the course of nature Khaldun’s view of the relationship between Islamic and natural political authorities
and their function is fairly complex. It takes us into the dialectics between

1 The science of culture and religion of revelation.

2 Between the natural forces of state emerging from Asabiyya and divine justice.
There are three possible regimes according to Khaldun.

1 Natural Muluk : It emerges out of an Asabiyya. Here the people get rid of private ambition and
uncontrolled desires of the ruler. This is rationally organizing polity which aims primarily to secure
the advantage of the ruler and also the general welfare of the society. A regime is liable to be
tyrannical, unjust and unsustainable because the people will be disloyal, disobedient and
rebellious.
2 One may have government according to law devised by men of intelligence and insight.
They are imposed on and accepted by people and they are aimed primarily at their general
welfare. This is a polity based on reason. But if that is all, it will aim solely (only) at apparent
and worldly interest and will therefore be blame worthy.
3 Finally, one may have a government according to laws which are laid down by God and
promulgated by an inspired law giver. This will be for the true good of the people both in this
world and the next world. The legislator (law giver) will ensure that this world is arranged so as to

109
 be a vehicle for the world to come, and law giver at the same time will peruse the common good
of human culture. This is the rule of Prophets and their successors, the Caliphs. Hence, Khaldun’s
theme is that the laws of Islam are among other things intended by God, if not consciously by
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to sustain human culture. Khaldun says that even general human
welfare in this world is better provided by the Shariah than by human philosophy. This dual rule
of Prophets and deputies poses problem for Ibn Khaldun. First, he has already described political
social theory out of a philosophy. Khaldun decided to knock down the philosophy because he
says that it will be more perfect if natural Dawla will be with the commands of Islamic law since it
knows best, what the common good is. Thus, kingship (Dawla) is below the Caliphate and
becomes one of its subordinate, if the regime is Islamic, but it may be separate if it is in another
community.

The second problem arose out of the view that the deputyship disappeared after the first four
rightly guided Caliphs. At first righteous Caliphate government was combined with group feeling (Asabiyya)
and kindship (Dawla) Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) censured group feeling and kingship but only in their
harmful aspects.

Once the Asabiyya gets into luxury and city life, the ruler begins to lose political control and
eventually falls down to another group who has a strong Asabiyya. Khaldun here gives example of Arabs
losing power to the Turks. This is what khaldun says that Dawla (Mulk) and Asabiyya (group feeling) are
interdependent but Asabiyya is more powerful. Such situation is not found in functioning of the Caliphate
which carries the religious values with itself.

Evolutionary Theory of Society and State

One of the main concerns of Ibn Khaldun’s philosophy was to study different stages of development
of society and state. This may also be considered as his Evolutionary Theory. He discusses it as an
important topic in his Prolegomena.

To Ibn Khaldun there are three stages of state which cover one hundred and twenty years. The
first stage begins with group idea which emerges from nomadic people when man led healthy open air
lives. They respected women, kept their neighbor in their control and over powered their enemies and
began to rule. In this stage the solidarity was based upon familiarities and religion. This way the state was
established and solidarity is essential for the preservation of state. The ruler forced the ruled to build the
institution for a civilized culture. So a new political relation was created but the state was still in the period
of transition because the primitive (nomadic) people who established it continued to preserve some of their
primitive attitudes including authority. These attitudes hurdled the development of civilization and the
concentration of authority which was necessary for development of state.

Second stage in the development was the period of consolidating the power of the ruler which was
creating absolute kingship. Here, natural solidarity and religion were checked for the purpose of sharing

110
power and was used on the discretion of the absolute ruler. Solidarity was replaced by the paid army and
organized by administrative bureaucracy who carried out the wishes of the ruler. Here, natural solidarity
became increasingly artificial. The people generally acquired habit of obeying their new ruler. The army and
bureaucracy protected the state and development of various institutions of civilized culture. Group minds
now began to disappear and people submitted to the command of the ruler who was tolerated. Hence, full
concentration of authority came in the hands of the ruler.

The third stage began with the luxury and leisure of the ruler. He concentrated on the organization
of finances for state and went on increasing his own. He spent lavishly and beautified the city for becoming
famous considering civilized lives as outcome of luxury. Economies progressed and prosperity increased
with new era of development which satisfied the increasing desires of rulers. Crafts, Fine Arts and Sciences
were greatly patronized and were flourishing which satisfied the new ruling class. The state finally reached
the stage where people lived in luxury and pride. This period is identified with full enjoyment, comfort and
pleasure.

The above three stages were powerful, independent and creative. The authority was consolidated
and the subjects were satisfied. Economic prosperity was achieved which increased the power of the ruler
and position of the ruled.

The fourth stage brought the state at its zenith. This stage was the period of containment for both
the ruler and the ruled who were totally satisfied. They made their lives habitual to luxury, comfort and
gratification. The next generation became completely dependent upon the continuation of what their
predecessors had achieved. The length of this period depended upon the power and extent of the
achievement of the founder of the state.

The last stage was the fifth stage where the state was declining and disintegrating. It had reached
old age and moved slow nearing death. The process of its establishment was destroyed which was vital
force of solidarity and religion which were responsible for its existence. The ruler had destroyed the
communal pride and loyalty of their predecessors and became weak to lose and be conquered.
Bureaucracy which was dependent on generous remuneration lost loyalty. Taxes were increased which
brought economic stagnation. The fifth phase had been of extravagance and waste .In this phase the ruler
destroyed what his ancestors brought together for the sake of lust and pleasure but he was still generous
to his followers who were unable to undertake the task. This way he spoiled himself and nobles and he was
filled with hatred. He lost his troops because he spent their pay on his own pleasure. His habits of comfort
and luxury generated physical weakness and moral vices. The elite and aristocrats forgot the courage
primitive life. They were powerless to protect a foreign invasion of a strong civilized state or by united
primitive people. Excessive taxation and fear of invasion weakened the hope of the ruled. Dependency
became common in all economic activities were frozen. The entire population became physically subject to
diseases. All these brought the decline of the state which was now divided and sub-divided into

111
principalities. The army and bureaucracy began intriguing and actual power of ruler fell down. Finally, an
external invasion put an end to type of state.

Theory of Social Change

Ibn Khaldun gives a study of social change generalizing human association (Al-ijtama-al-Insani) or
civilization (Umran). Human association is necessary because man is political by nature. He cannot live
without Dawla,. a city or a state. Although, he demonstrates this concept similar to previous Islamic
philosophers, he has his own ideas. He says humans as individuals depend on each other for their
livelihood. Therefore, they live in community (Subha). This community results in (Ijtama-ul-Umran),
association of culture which requires influence of a headship that is a king because co-operation requires
the use of force. Hence, kinship (Mulk) is a natural quality of man which absolutely necessary to mankind.

To Khuldun, this influence is important and religion can also act as an influence which he calls Wazi
meaning internalized constraint of religion, as Wazir is more conducive than kingship to a courageous
attitude. Ibn Khaldun uses the same argument to explain ranks in society. Ranks mean power to direct
other people for one’s own advantage. It affects people in whatever way they make their living.

Khaldun’s social theory sprang directly out of this Islamicised version of Anatole’s theory of the
origins of political society. Khaldun proceeds next to discuss the inhabitable parts of the earth including the
influence of food, climate and environment on human beings. Then, he focuses upon the means of
production. The differences in living style of people results into the difference emerging from their means
of living like agriculture or animal husbandry. Marx calls this, economic basis and Khaldun called it social
categories divided into two:

1. Badwa (Primitive Society)

2. Hadara (Civilized Society)
To Khaldun these are natural and necessary to succeed from a primitive or tribal society which
possesses Group Feeling (Asabiyya). This Group Feeling or Asabiyya is a crucial quality which is defined
by Khaldun as:
“The affection a man feels for a brother or a neighbor, when one of them is treated unjust or killed.
It derives from kingship or its equivalent and nothing can take it away.”
Khaldun distinguishes Asabiyya as a driving force in history of Group Feeling producing the ability
to defend one-self and press one’s claims. It is the natural force of Asabiyya which gives rise to the
community which develops into a “house” (Bayt) which tends to be characterized by nobility and prestige.
From these elements, Khaldun develops his theory of progress, change and decline. He says, the goal of
Asabiyya is kingship in any group with Group Feeling. One person will inevitably emerge as a Wazir, he will
be able to force others to accept his ruling and with the assistance of the collective Group Feeling such a
person will proceed from citizenship (Riasa) to Kinship (Mulk) which is a final desire of the people. In other
words, this Wazir will create or take over the state. But according to Khaldun, in the deserts or wilderness
people are rude, proud, ambitious and eager to be the leaders. They will not take royal government unless

112
through religion because they can have Wazir themselves. In that case, a complete transformation creates
circumstances to have a Wazir on them. This is what had happened in the case of Arabs. To Khaldun,
religious sentiments can bring about a change only by popular revolution or by moral legal reforms, if the
movement is based upon Asabiyya. People who fail to see this are insane, criminal or stupid Khaldun
concludes that royal authority and large scale dynastic power are attained only by Group Feeling an thus
concept of royal authority has its origin in Islam.
With Mulk comes the factor which leads to its own decline. Once kinship is introduced the group
undergoes profound sociological change because such power needs to be concentrated in one man and
he will inevitably become proud and egoistic and will claim all glory for himself. The regime indulges in
luxury paving for the way decline of Mulk because luxury and other forces limit the life span of a dynasty to
approximately three generations.

Concept of State (Dawla and Asabiyya)

Khaldun presents a clear concept of state. He calls it Dawla and identifies it with the dynastic clan
although for Khaldun the primary object of study is Asabiyya in his book, The Muqadma the state is a
fulfillment of Asabiyya. He emphasizes the compelling force within a group (Wazir) with Asabiyya to become
Dawla having political power over others. It is Asabiyya which makes Dawla possible with the group (Wazir)
and the first leading clan dependable wholly on Asabiyya for a successful political power. Once that
Asabiyya begins to drain away through luxury and other phenomena related to the life of state, the rulers
began to lose political control and eventually succumb to another group with a stronger Asabiyya as the
Arabs lost power to Turks so Dawla and Asabiyya are inter-dependent. As a casual factor, Asabiyya is
perhaps more powerful because Dawla is not presented as an independent variable.
Dawla in the sense of political society is the focus of Khaldun’s empirical and historical interest.
Dawla in turn is valued because it sustains life. Certain conduct such as kindness with subject and ethics
of the power holders are recommended because they promote Dawla. Khaldun does not conceive of the
state as separate from the society in which it arises because state has no power apart from its Asabiyya.
He does not see political authority as capable of being legitimized and becoming something other than
brutal force, rather, he conceives of political order as the necessary outcome of the natural forces of human
existence. He also conceives of political order as a pre-requisite for human civilization but he does not
seem to have regarded political authority as a rational legitimation of state authority as was regarded by
European political thinkers. Khaldun does not recommended political authority as a reason why people
should give their allegiance to a Dawla rather he thinks the state is legitimate even if its ruler held power by
sheer force plus Asabiyya or by force alone.
Ibn Khaldun separates the concept of state from individual power holders. He says that ruler ship
is a general category applicable to a variety of a particular government. To him wazi that human society
needs can be a person or social force such as religion. He even speaks of ruler ship as a relationship saying
that the interest subjects have in their ruler is not interest in his person or body or in his appearance or

113
active mind. The interest of subjects lies in his relationship to them. The state or the Asabiyya is something
relative-- a relationship between ruler and subjects.

On Political Economy

Khaldun strongly debates that one of the difference between man and animal is that man strives
for life. This concept brought Khaldun into realizing the importance of economics. He studied pure economic
problems connected with trade and commerce, taxation price, profit or loss, monopolies, supply and
demand referring that corn is needed by everyone and therefore people devoted their time to its maximum
production so that it becomes cheap in price. On the other hand, vegetable is not largely needed by people
like corn and so it is costly than wheat, hence Khaldun looks for advancement in economic theories. He
believes that along with the legal and administrative function of the public offices the important function of
the state is related to the economic condition of the people in general. Hence, he gives prime significance
to, caring for the poor, people suffering, widows and destitute. Hence, Khaldun emphasizes that in general
every Muslim ruler must perform the standard function of benevolent public authority. He must protect the
community from its enemies, he foresees restoring laws, he must protect people against violence in person
and property and he must improve the safety of the roads. Since one of the most important functions of the
government is to regulate and develop the economy, he dealt with an explanation of a continued system of
profit in economic life. This meant to him the means of livelihood through agriculture, commerce and
handicrafts which must be developed. He also believed that the ruler must guarantee his subject livelihood
and fairness in transactions like weights, measures and coinage. It was both a moral right and it also
sustains the civilization on which government of the state depends.
His views on political economy were based on the circle of power. He believed that the world is a
guardian bordering on dynasty. Dynasty is an authority through which life is given to good conduct. Good
conduct is a polity which is directed by the ruler. This ruler is an institution supported by soldiers helpers
maintained by money. Money is sustenance which is brought together by the subjects. Subjects are
servants who are protected by justice with which the world is familiar. Therefore, a flourishing economy and
civilization depend upon secured property rights. These depend upon the enforcement of justice in
economic transaction. There must not be arbitrary confiscation or forced labor.
Khaldun developed his economic thought in the direction of modern market belief. To him, the
equitable treatment of people with property will give them incentive to build the state making their capital
bear fruit and grow resulting in turn in generation of increase a profit in the ruler’s revenue. Revenue will be
maximized by keeping taxes as low as possible building confidence in making profit as an incentive for
economic activities. Khaldun says that profit is the value realized from labor which suggests that both the
labor theory of value and surplus value was depicted in Khaldun’s economic thought which makes him
known as Father of political economy.
Khaldun draws a contract between primitive (Badawa), under develop and cities (Hadava),
developed economic society. He says tribal culture (Badawa) goes with law taxation and therefore promotes
economic growth. In culture of cities (Hadava) the demands of ruling class increase which lead to a rise in

114
taxation and therefore to economic decline. To Khaldun, economic taxation is both, good morality and good
policy. He professes that a ruling dynasty has the ability to stimulate economic growth by paying generous
stipends meaning money must flow between the ruler and subjects meaning from him to them and from
them to him. If the ruler holds money back, his subjects suffer a loss. State expenditure on public works
promotes economy and brings happiness among the people in general.
Ibn Khaldun’s comprehensive study of economic thought referred as political economy lays
emphases upon the welfare of the people giving prominence to economics of the society.

CHAPTER XVII
Allama Muhammad Iqbal

Life and Times

Allama Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938 A.D) was born in Sialkot. He was highly educated scholar
and poet philosopher. He completed his Ph.D. in Germany on The Development of Metaphysics in Persia.
He had also received Bar -at- Law from Lincoln’s Inn. He was Professor of Philosophy in Government
College Lahore and also practiced law in Lahore High Court. He entered politics by joining all India Muslim
League and was elected member of Punjab Legislative Council. He was also one time President of All India
Muslim League. As a champion of two-nation theory during the Pakistan Movement he believed that
Muslims should have a separate homeland to profess and practice their religion and culture. His famous
address of 1930 in the city of Allahabad made him famous demanding a separate homeland for the Indian
Muslims. Allama Iqbal is remembered with highest prestige in Pakistan and in the Muslim world as a poet
and philosopher. He has authored many works which include Development of Metaphysics in Persia, Asrar-
e- Khudi (Secret of Self), Ramooz-e-Bay-Khudi (Mysteries of Selflessness), Payam-e-Mashriq (Message
of the Orient), Bang-e-Dara, Zaboor-e-Ajam, Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam (a
collection of lecturers), Javed –Namah, Bal-e-Jibraeel, Pas Che Bayad Kard Ay Aqwam-e-Sharq, Zarb-e-
Kaleem, Armughan-e-Hijaz, IImul-Iqtisad.

On Khudi (Self)

Allama Iqbal has based his philosophy of life on his philosophy of self (Khudi). To him, the real
cause of Muslim deterioration is Nafi-i-Khudi, meaning the lack of self-cognizance. He suggests Isbat-i-
Khudi, meaning self-recognition as the remedy of Nafi-i-Khudi.
Allama Iqbal has used Khudi in a philosophical sense which he means recognition of one’s self.
Man has a unique capacity of his self and purpose of his creation. This capacity in man makes him supreme
over the other creatures therefore; the life of man should begin with the study of his self and culminate in

115
perfection of his self. Khudi is the name of several attributes in an ideal character which are self-realization,
self-assertion, boldness, and spirit of independence, sense of respect, noble idealism and action. The
objects of these attributes are the spiritual elevation of man.
Allama Iqbal did not believe in universal life. To him, all life is individual in character God himself is
one single entity and individual, the most unique one. The universe as an organized association of
individuals is in a state of organic growth. Man plays an important part in this process of evolution. Allama
Iqbal says that the ethical and religious idea of Islam is not self-negation but self-affirmation. The individual
attains to this ideal by becoming more and more individual or unique Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had said
“create in yourself the attributes of God”. The highest form of life is Khudi or Ego, in which the individual
becomes self –contained exclusive center. He draws closes to God. The success of a complete person lies
in the struggle against all material forces which hinders the progress of man. Allama Iqbal says, “The life of
the Ego is a kind of tension caused by the Ego invading the Ego”. Thus, the true person relates to the
environment and consequently absorbs God into his Ego for which Allama Iqbal had had said,
Khudi ko kar buland itna k har takdeer se pehly
Khuda banday se khud poochy bata teri raza kia hai
The Ego attains to freedom by removing all obstruction in its way by assimilating them because
this life is a forward assimilative movement. When man is most free, the Ego reaches the fullest freedom.
Life is an endeavor to be free. The Holy Quran says, “And verily toward the God is the limit”.
According to Iqbal, the Ego or person is the center of life in man. Personality is a “state of tension”
and the moment it ceases, relaxation follows. The development of Ego is not possible without an Ideal.
Ideal is a perpetual desire and therefore in its absence life is a ceaseless activity. Man is a restless being
and with ceaseless pursuit fresh scope for his self-expression and realization. The idea of personality sets
forth a standard of value in a man, good or evil. The value which strengthens the personality is good and
which weakens human personality is bad.
According to Allama Iqbal, Ego is fortified by love which means the desire in man to assimilate or
to absorb its highest form is the creation of values and ideal and endeavor to realize them. Love
individualizes the lover as well as the beloved. The Ego passes through three stages in its onward
movement toward uniqueness.
1. Obedience of the law
2. Self-control which is the highest form of self-conscious or Ego-hood
3. Divine vice regency
The vice regency of God is the complex test of Ego. Since the goal of humanity is a combination of
the highest power and highest knowledge, therefore, the vice regent is the real ruler of mankind and his
kingdom is the kingdom of God on the earth. To Allama Iqbal, the kingdom of God on the earth means a
democracy of more or less unique individuals which is presided over by the most unique individual possible
on the earth. Thus, aspiration and passionate idealism serve as dynamic forces which strengthen the self
of man.

116
 Allama Iqbal says that if Khudi is properly disciplined by obedience and self-control and rightly
cultivated, it develops a personality worthy of representing God on earth. The philosophy of Khudi has its
corollary in the conception of Be-khudi which is the negation of self. It means losing of one’s self in the
community to save a common end. Iqbal believes that individuals develop their Khudi to such an extent that
they submit to the Millat but remain intimated with an intense love of action and freedom. Such individuals
are a source of strength to the Millat and through this the Millat exalts their position.

Islamic State

To Allama Iqbal in Islam the creator and the universe, spirit and matter, church and state are all
organic to each other. A Muslim is not required to renounce the temporal world in the interest of the world
of the spirit. He accepts the world of both, matter and spirit. With Islam, the ideal and real are not two
opposite forces which cannot be reconciled. The ideal consists not with the breach of real but to endeavor
the ideal to appropriate the real and absorb it and convert it into itself and illuminate its whole being. Islam
rejects the old static view of universe and reaches a dynamic expansion and progress of humanity. A Muslim
is therefore directed to secure the highest well-being both materially and morally. Islam sets forth standard
of conduct such as “enjoin right and forbid wrong”. Hence, rightness or wrongness of conduct may be
considered with reference to good or evil. A conduct is right when it is according to rule or when it is valuable
or serviceable for some end. Islam is a creed of service and leads to seek the welfare and perfection of
humanity. Conduct of a Muslim being good or bad consists in its service and ability for this end. A Muslim
alone knows when it is according to the law of Quran. The Shariat tells him what is right that is to be enjoyed
and what is wrong is to be forbidden. From this ethical ideal of Islam, the people finally are transformed into
a well-knit group called the Millat possessing a moral consciousness of their own. To Allama Iqbal, “Islam
recognizes the worth of the individual as such, and rejects blood relationship as a basis of human unity”.
Every organized life is marked by the existence of certain laws and institutions and Islam also
provides for the same. Islamic life is to live according to Islamic laws and Islamic institutions. These are
based on ethical ideal and are essentially creative of social order and moral development. This is the culture
of Islam. Islam is not a name of a type of a society. It transforms the life of individual professing the faith
into a well order and well organized community of moral and material wellbeing. Thus, the life of Islam has
a peculiar cultural force as a complete organization with a unity of will and purpose in the Millat. Allah Iqbal
says that the Islamic Society has inner unity.
He believes in a universal polity or a politico-religious system or a social policy which is based on
fundamentals that were revealed to the Prophet (PBUH). In an Islamic political system to Allama Iqbal,
Allah is the real owner of sovereignty. Not only that, his sovereignty extends to the entire universe, to the
whole humanity and all organizations. Allah is the real source of religion, philosophy and law and has power,
strength and authority.
The sublime position and existence of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has established various
loyalties and characteristics for the fundamental polity of Islam where the Prophet (PBUH) is the guide and
unifier of the Muslim Millat. The object of Prophet Hood of Muhammad (PBUH) is to establish the

117
fundamental unity of mankind on the basis of equality, liberty and fraternity. All Muslims have equal social
and legal rights. The Prophet (PBUH) preached not to recognize anyone as your Lord except Almighty
Allah.
Islamic Millat is not confined to territorial limits. There is no concept of nationalism in Muslim polity
because to a Muslim, the entire world is his abode and place of worship because it lies within the
sovereignty of his Allah. Hence nationalism to Allama Iqbal is Millat which has a basis of unity with moral
consciousness. The universal spirit of Islam is to submit to the will of God. As a world system is a uniting
force which frees the outlook of man from racial, geographical and materialistic boundaries. The Islamic
polity has a basis of republican form of government as an absolute necessity with the spirit of Islam. Muslim
legislative assembly is the only possible and legal form which has a basis of Ijma.

Selected Bibliography

Allen, J.W. (1951). A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century. London.

Al-Ghazzali. (1909). The Confessions of Al-Ghazzali. London

Al-Mawardi. (1984). Islamic Culture. Volume 58th. edited by William Marmeduke and Muhammad Asad.
University of Virginia
Anschutz, R. P. (1953). The Philosophy of J. S. Mill. Oxford.

Armstrong, A. H. (1957). An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy. London.

Avineri, Shlomo. (1968). The Social Political Thought of Karl Marx. Cambridge.

Barker Earnest. (1950). Political Thought in England, 1848-1914. London.

Barker, Earnest. (1942) Reflections on Government. London.

Barker, Earnest. (1952). Plato and Aristotle. London.

Barker, Earnest.(1951). Greek Political Theory: Plato and His Predecessors.

Baumgardt, David. (1952). Bentham and the Ethics of Today. Princeton, N. J.

Berlin, Isaiah. (1958). Two Concepts of Liberty. Oxford.

Berlin, Isaiah. (1963). Karl Marx, His Life and Environments. New York.

Bober, Mandell M. (1948). Karl Marx’s Interpretation of History. Cambridge. Mass.

Brinton, Crane. (1933). English Political Thought in the Nineteenth Century. London.

Britton, Karl. (1953). John Stuart Mill. Baltimore.

Broome, J. H. (1963). Rousseau: A Study of His Thought. London.

118
Cassirer, Earnest. (1951). English Translation by Fritz C.A. Koelln and James P. Pettegrove. The
Philosophy of the Enlightenment. Princeton, N. J.
Collingwood, R. G. (1927). English Translation by Guido de Ruggiero. A History of European Liberalism.
Oxford.
Cowling, Maurice. (1963). Mill and Liberalism. Cambridge.

Davidson, William. (1916). Political Thought in England: The Utilitarians from Bentham to J. S. Mill. New
York.
DeBoer, T.J. (1903). History of Philosophy in Islam. Translation by Edward R. Jones. London
Dunning, William. (1950). History of Political Theories. London.

Everett, Charles W. (1966). Jeremy Bentham. London.

Fakhri, Majeed. (3rd Edition). A History of Islamic Philosophy. Columbia University Press.

Fitzgerald, Edward. (1935). English Translation by Franz Mehring. Karl Marx: The Story of His Life. New
York.
Fletcher, F. T. H. (1939). Montesquieu and English Politics (1750-1800). London.

Gough, J. W. (1950). John Locke’s Political Philosophy. Oxford.

Gough, J. W. (1957). The Social Contact. Oxford.

Green, F.C. (1955). Jean-Jacques Rousseau: A Critical Study of His Life and Writings. Cambridge.
Groff, Peter S. and Oliver Leaman (2007). Islamic Philosophy A-Z. Edinburgh University Press
Harmon, Judd. (1971). Political Thought: From Plato to the Present. New York.

Hearnshaw, F. J. C. (ed.). (1926). The Social and Political Ideas of Some Great Thinkers of the Sixteenth
and Seventeenth Centuries. London.
Hearnshaw, F. J. C. (ed.). (1930). The Social and Political Ideas of Some Great French Thinkers of the
Age of Reason. London.
Hunt, R. N. Carew. (1957). The Theory and Practice of Communism. London.

Ibn Khaldun (1958). Muqaddamah: An Introduction to History. Translation. By Franz. Rozenthal. London
Iqbal, Muhammad. (2012). The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. Tayyab Press. Lahore
Laski, Harold J. (1920). Political Thought in England from Locke to Bentham. London.

Laski, Harold J. (1936). The Rise of European Liberalism: An Essay in Interpretation. London.
Lindsay, A. D. (1925). Karl Marx’s Capital: An Introductory Essay. London. London.

MacDonald, Duncan. (1960). Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory.
Lahore

Mack, Mary P. (1963). Jeremy Bentham: An Odyssey of Ideas, 1748- 92. New York.
Masters, Roger D. (1968). The Political Philosophy of Rousseau. Princeton.

Mehdi, Muhsin. (1962) Ibn Khaldun’s Philosophy of History. London

119
Meyer, Alfred G. (1957). Leninism. Cambridge. Mass.

Muir, D. Erskine.(1936). Machiavelli and His Times. London.

Nasar, Seyyed Hassein. (2006). Islamic Philosophy from its Origin to the Present. State University of New
York Press
O’ Connor, John D. (1952). John Locke, A Critical Introduction. Baltimore. MD.

Plamenatz, John P. (1958). The English Utilitarians. Oxford.

Pulver, Jeffrey. (1937). Machiavelli: The Man, His Work, and His Times. London.

Rosenthal, E. J. (1958). Political Thought in Medieval Islam. Cambridge University Press

Ruhle, Otto. (1949). English Translation by E. and C. Paul. Karl Marx, His Life and Work. New York.

Sabine, George and Thomas L. Thorsan. (1973). History of Political Theory.

New York.
Schapiro, Leonard. (1960). The Communist Party of the Soviet Union. New York.

Sharif, M. M. (ed.) (1966). A History of Muslim Philosophy. London.

Shirwani, H.K.(1997). Muslim Political Thought and Admiration. Karachi.

Shub. David. (1948). Lenin, A Biography. Garden City, N. Y.

Sinclair, T.A. (1952). A History of Greek Political Thought. London.

Somerville, John. (1946). Soviet Philosophy: A Study of Theory and Practice. New York.

Stephen, Leslie. (1900). The English Utilitarians. London.

Tusi, Nizam ul Mulk. (1957). Siyasat Namah. Translation. London

Ulam, Adam B. (1965). The Bolsheviks: The Intellectual and Political History of the Triumph of Communism
in Russia. New York.
Vaughan, C. E.(ed.). (1915). The Political Writing of Jean Jacques Rousseau Cambridge.

Walkins, Frederick M. (1948). The Political Tradition of the West: A Study in the Development of Modern
Liberalism. Cambridge, Mass.

Watt, W. Montgomery. (1985). Islamic Philosophy and Theology: An Extended Survey. Edinburgh
University Press

Warrender, Howard. (1957). The Political Philosophy of Hobbes; His Theory of Obligation. Oxford.

Wetter, Gustav A. (1959). English Translation by Peter Health. Dialectical Materialism. London.

Whitfield, J. H. (1947). Machiavelli. Oxford.

120