PSIR optional notes

Political theory :Meaning and approaches

Political theory is a set of specified relationships encompassing political matters that focus and
organise inquiry to describe,explain and predict events and behaviours.
From Ancient Greece to the present,the history of political theory has dealt with fundamental and
perennial ideas of political science.
Political theory reflects upon political phenomena,processes and institutions and on actual
political behaviour by subjecting it to philosophical or ethical criterion

Definitions
David held described that pol theory is a network of concepts and generalisations about political
life involving ideas,assumptions and statements about the nature ,purpose and key features of
govt,state and society and about the political capabilities of human beings

Andrew hacker,pol theory is a dispassionate and disinterested search of good society snd good
state on the one hand and a disinterested search for knowledge of political and social reality on
the other

George catlin stated that political theory includes political science and [Link] science
refers to the phenomenon of control in many forms over all the processes of whole social [Link]
is concerned with the end of final values

Key terms
Political theory
A theory in general is proposed to explain certain phenomenon or to provide some solution.
Pol theory refers to systematic knowledge of political [Link] involves the analytical
study of ideas and concept which are central to central [Link] evolution is generally traced
from the tradition of thoughts from Plato to Marx.

Political theory is concerned with three statements :

Empirical statements which is based on the observation,through sense experience alone
Logical statement,which is based on reasoning
Evaluative statement which is based on value judgement.
Political philosophy :this term is closest to political [Link],along with critical evaluation
of the political beliefs,political philosophy is more concerned about clarifying and refining the
concepts employed in political [Link],as Andrew Heywood explains,‘despite the best
efforts of political philosophers to remain impartial and objective ,they are inevitably concerned
with justifying certain political viewpoints at the expense of others and with upholding a
particular understanding of a concept rather than alternative ones

Political science is a broad term used to denote the study of political

ideas,theories,philosophies,ideologies [Link] discipline deals with political life and associated
[Link],a narrow interpretation of political science is also [Link] denotes
hypotheses,experimentation ,verification,evidence [Link] these,it claims to produce knowledge
that is objective,universal and [Link] science thus refers to a 20th century movement
which sought to convert political science into a pure science

Political ideology denotes a set of ideas ,a world view or holistic system of thought.

Evolution of Political Theory

As Andrew Hacker says, political theory is a never-ending debate between theorists.

Political theory, as Andrew Hacker suggests, is a never-ending debate shaped by spatial and
temporal contexts. It has evolved continuously from the ancient Greek period to the modern era.
The Greek philosophers, particularly Socrates and Plato, viewed politics as a subset of
philosophy, with no distinction between politics and ethics. They emphasized the importance of
virtue and the utility of the state in achieving the good life. Socrates laid the foundation of
political thought, and Plato’s disciple Aristotle introduced practicality into political analysis.
Aristotle is considered the father of political science for his efforts to make it an interdisciplinary
and empirical discipline. Both Plato and Aristotle saw the state as a natural institution of justice
and virtue, though they placed more importance on the state and community than on the
individual, leading to the justification of institutions like slavery.

During the medieval period, political thought declined as religion dominated political authority.
The divine rights theory of kingship placed state power under the Church, and politics became a
subordinate discipline. The Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment movements revived
political thought by re-centering human life, reason, and scientific inquiry. Machiavelli marked a
political thought by re-centering human life, reason, and scientific inquiry. Machiavelli marked a
turning point by separating politics from ethics and religion and laying the foundation of the
realist tradition. Scientific thinkers like Hobbes and Descartes applied scientific methods to
politics, and utilitarian thinkers like Bentham made human pleasure the basis of political
decision-making. The liberal tradition, developed by Locke and Rousseau, emphasized popular
sovereignty, individual liberty, and cooperation, inspiring revolutions in America and France.
However, the rise of industrial capitalism and imperialism widened socio-economic inequalities.
In response, socialism emerged with thinkers like Fourier, Saint Simon, and Robert Owen
advocating equitable redistribution. Karl Marx took this further, critiquing bourgeois dominance
and calling for revolutionary change to address class-based exploitation and restore justice for
the working class.

Normative vs Empirical approach

Approaches in political science

Traditional approach
Modern approach
Contemporary approach

Traditional approach
1)Philosophical approach
It is the oldest approach in the arena of political [Link] development of this approach can
be traced back to the times of Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle
The aim of this approach is to evolve the standard of right and wrong,for the purpose of critical
evaluation of existing institutions,laws and [Link] main aim of this approach is to judge
what is good or bad in any political [Link] is mainly an ethical and normative study of politics
and thus realistic.

Leo Strauss ,one of the chief exponent of philosophical approach has considered that philosophy
is the quest for wisdom and political philosophy is the attempt truly to know about the nature of
political things and the right or good political order.

Philosophical approach remained dominant approach till Second World [Link] development
happened in Western [Link] approach came under criticism by
[Link] wanted to make political science a pure science .Hence they
rejected the study of normative [Link] advocated the study of [Link] Bryce held
that,’we need facts,facts and facts.’

Philosophical theories were criticised as ‘armchair theories’. They do not constitute verifiable
and thus are not reliable source of knowledge. They are also are inherently biased and divorced
from the reality. However scholars like John Rawls, Leo Strauss, Isaiah Berlin, Dante Germino
believe that the philosophical approach is most suitable for the discipline of political science.

Conclusion :
-Politics is too complex, choice of approach will depend on the objective of research.
-Single approach is never sufficient. Different approaches need to be used in combination.

Historical approach
-It is also among the oldest approaches. It is considered as the simplest and the common-sense
based approach for understanding politics and building theories. History is closely connected
with politics. The relationship between the two disciplines is explained by the scholars as – if
history is a root, politics is a shoot. History is past politics, politics is present history. It is to be
noted that traditional international politics has been studied as ‘diplomatic history’. It was
Machiavelli who strongly advocated the study of history to understand politics. According to
him, history – rather than philosophy – is a better guide for the prince.
-In modern times, scholars like Laski and Sabine have preferred historical approach. According
to Laski, “Every thinker is a child of his times.” He also writes that “no political idea is ever
intelligible, save in the context of time.” According to Sabine, “political ideas are themselves
the products of the crisis phases of history.” Historical approach is the most common sense
based approach. It serves the requirement of a sound approach.
3 requirements – Factual, Causal, Evaluative.
• Though historical approach has found huge favour, yet it suffers from
following challenges:
• History is too vast, it is challenging task to find out relevant data

○ All that is in history may not be relevant and there are many concepts in political
science like philosopher king, communism, which were never present in history yet
important for the student of political science.
○ History in itself is a highly politicised discipline. Edward Said’s ORIENTALISM show
that the history writing has been a political project.
○ Political scholars may not use history in a scientific manner. Machiavelli himself has
done the selective use of history. He used only those examples which served his
political purpose.
○ There are examples of political scholars making politics out of history. Karl
Poppercriticized Hegel and Karl Marx for committing the guilt of historicism. Which
means ideological use of history. e.g. When Marx explains history as a product of
class struggle, his purpose if political.
○ John Plamanetz has criticized, making political ideas dependent on history. He
suggests that political ideas should be understood on the basis of logic.
● Conclusion:
○ Politics is too complex, choice of approach will depend on the objective of research.
Single approach is never sufficient. Different approaches need to be used in
combination.
○
Institutional approach
This is traditional and significant approach in studying political [Link] approach primarily
deals with the formal features of government and politics accentuates the study of institutions
and [Link],the institutional approach is concerned with the study of the formal
structures like legislature,executive,judiciary ,political parties and interest groups.

An institution is a set of officers and agents arranged in a hierarchy where each player has
particular functions and powers. Vernon Van Dyke describes it as a persistent system of
activities and expectations a stable pattern of group behavior. Through studying the process and
functions of a particular institution, it seeks to draw valuable insights into their organization,
discuss proposals for their reforms and offer general conclusions about their performance. Its
methodology is descriptive and institutional. The major thinkers who adopted this approach
include Polybius, Finer, James Brice, H.J. Laski, Maurice Duverger, and G.A. Almond.
● George H Sabine (A History of Political Theory) states that the subject matter of political
science follows the themes of works of political philosophers from Plato to Marx.
● According to the critics, no wide-reaching theory can be constructed from this approach
as it is descriptive and cannot be applied to the situations in developing countries. It is
accused of overemphasising the institutions and neglecting the individual, informal
groups, and informal political activities that impact the institution. It is of not much use in
the study of international politics as it is limited to the study of the UN and its allied
Institutions.

Legal approach
This approach concerns that the state is the fundamental organisation for the formation and
enforcement of [Link],this approach is concerned with the legal process,legal bodies or
institutions ,justice and independence of [Link] supports of this approach are Cicero,Jean
Bodin,Thomas Hobbes ,Jeremy Bentham,John Austin

The various traditional approaches to the study of political science have been disapproved for
being [Link] approaches were principled also as their concern went beyond how and
why political events happen to what ought to happen.

Modern approaches

The root of contemporary political science can be traced to the nineteenth century when the
Rapid growth of natural Sciences tabulated the enthusiasm for the creation of new social
science.
The important development of making Political Science as a distinct discipline occurred in the
United States. The efforts of the American political science association established an
autonomous discipline in political science taking it away from history, philosophy, economy and
law and closer to sociology, anthropology, etc.

Behavioural approach
Behaviouralism is regarded as a turning pinpoint in the history of pol [Link] has been widely
acclaimed as a great revolution which has transformed the goals,nature ,scope ,methodology
and theoretical formulations of political science

Behaviouralism as an academic movement in pol science first began in the united sates after the
Second World [Link] of behaviouralism is the outcome of varied reasons marked mainly by
a dissatisfaction with prevailing historical descriptive,legal formal and normative perspectives

In 1908, In 1908, Graham Walls (Human nature in politics)and Arther F. Bentley (The process of
government)advocated psychological and group-orientedapproaches. Walter Lippmann (public
Opinion) in 1922 took up the study of public opinion and political attitude formation.
In 1951,David B Truman revived Bentley’s neglected orientation in his ‘The governmental
process’. But the pioneering efforts were made
by Charles E. Merriam (New Aspects of Politics in 1925),hai efforts came out in the form if
famous ‘Chicago School’ which produced a host of political scientists,such as Harold
Gosnell ,Laswell,Gabriel [Link] gained popularity with the work of American political scientists
after the Second World War.

David Easton has laid down the intellectual foundation stone of behaviourism.

Core principles are as follows

Eight features given by David Easton.

● Regularities: Observe regularities in human behaviour. Traditionalists argument –
Traditionalist believe that regularities are not possible in human behaviour. Why? There is
no guarantee that the same person will behave in a similar manner under similar conditions
twice.
● Systematization: Scientific research is systematic. Hence political research should also be
systematic. There should be relation between the objective of the research and collection
of data. Traditionalists view – According to traditionalists, social sciences are analytical in
 nature, hence we cannot be very particular with respect to systematization.
● Techniques: Behaviouralists suggest the adoption of mathematical, statistical techniques.
Traditionalists view – There are very limited areas of research where we can adopt
quantitative techniques. For the sake of technique, there is no point compromising with
the subject matter.
● Measurement: Just like scientific results are expressed in quantitative terms for the
purpose of precision, political research should also be represented in the form of
quantitative data for precision. Traditionalists believe that such approach will limit the
scope of the subject as there are very few areas where measurement is possible like
electoral behaviour.
● Verification: Like scientific theories, pol science theories should also be verifiable, so that
a reliable knowledge is developed. Traditionalists continue to believe that verifiability is not
possible in all cases. e.g. We have to understand the idea of communism which can be
understood, explained only by logical analysis.
● Integration: Integration means inter-disciplinary approach. Political science has always
been inter-disciplinary. The only difference is that traditionalists looked for data in
disciplines like philosophy, history and law. On the other hand, behaviouralists suggest to
borrow from sociology, psychology and natural science disciplines. They even warn
against bringing the discipline near to philosophy, history and law.
● Value Neutrality: Like scientific research is value neutral, political scholars should also not
prescribe value preferences. Traditionalists like Leo Strauss is very critical of rejecting the
values. According to him, “when we ignore values, it is like not making any difference in
pure water and dirty water.” Pure Science: When we will adopt above parameters,
political science will become pure science.

Achievements of Behaviourism

The behavioral approach has widened the scope of political and came to dominate the political
science for its higher degree of reliability instead of a higher degree
of generality. Thus it focused on micro-level situations rather than attempting macro-level
generalizations.

1) Revival of Political Science:

Behaviouralists arrested the decline of political science and gave it a scientific and empirical
direction.
2) Electoral Behaviour Analysis:
Significant contribution in analyzing electoral behaviour, helping political parties frame
strategies and programs effectively.
3) Theory-Practice Distinction:
Helped in understanding the gap between theoretical claims and ground realities.
• E.g. Elitist and pluralist studies exposed the real nature of democracy in Western
countries and socialism in communist states.
4) Understanding Developing Countries:
Behavioural research proved useful in studying political systems in developing areas where
traditional approaches failed.
-Highlighted the gap between constitutional text and political context.
-Encouraged field studies and empirical investigations.
5) Growth of Comparative Politics:
Gave a major boost to comparative politics as a subfield, focusing on real-world political
processes rather than legal-institutional frameworks.
6)Advancements in research methodology
The behaviourists made significant achievements in the development and refinement to the tools
and techniques to the research including Content analysis,case studies,interviewing and
observation and statiscal methods.

Criticism of Behavioural approach

Though behaviouralism made a breakthrough in the field of political Science, it has been
criticized on many fronts. Some of its weaknesses have been identified as follows:
● Behaviouralism concerns more with Techniques than Results- Behaviour list attach too
much importance to the techniques and methods and do not worry at all about the
theoretical importance of the subject. While doing the research, the behaviour lists have
chosen only such topics for research in which better techniques are an available and they
have ignored the rest. Besides that they have not bothered about the results.
● Behaviouralism emphasise the importance of behavioural effect at the cost of
institutional effects- it should be noted particularly that American behaviour lists have
altogether neglected the effects of the institutions upon the society and concentrated
their efforts only at the behavioural aspect of the individuals and groups confined mainly
in America.
● Study of politics can never be value-free-the critics of behaviouralism contend that
politics can never be value free as held by the behaviour lists. In politics very selection of
subjects for investigation is determined by values.
● Behaviouralism emphasis static rather than current situation- Behaviour lists has been
concentrating their study mainly on the static subjects rather on the current problems. In
 ●

the beginning behaviour lists justified they were filling the gap left by the institutionalism
but now it cannot be justified as the burning problems such as threat of nuclear war,
hunger, famine, undernourishment etc. The behaviour lists have so far ignored all these
urgent problems because that does not suit their study.
● Difficulties in studying ever changing behaviour- it is very difficult to study the ever
changing behaviour of man because the emotions, ideas and thinking go on changing
continuously. Therefore, absolutely no correct predictions can be made about the
behaviour of man. Moreover, it is very difficult to measure the role of various factors
governing the behaviour of man.
● Behavioural research depends too much on other sciences- political science is
depending upon other social sciences particularly sociology and anthropology and
borrowing so much from them that it is apprehended that the very identity, integrity and
autonomy of political science may be lost. Inter-disciplinary approach can be helpful in
understanding many political problems but it cannot solve all the complexities about
human behaviour.

Conclusion : Despite the criticism, the contribution of behaviour revolution to political science
needs to be acknowledged. Certain specific areas in political science for example study of voting
behaviour, enquiry into political process etc, have been benefited greatly by the new approach.
The salutary results of behavioural movement may be summed up as new awareness about the
needs of scientific research greater degree of empiricism and an increasing use of new analytical
technique.

Post Behaviouralism

Post-Behaviouralism was again propounded by David Easton in his presidential

address to the American Political Science Association in 1969 which relied on relevance and
action. It laid new emphasis on ‘values’, on issues of justice, freedom, and [Link] Easton
pointed out that post behaviouralism was both a movement and an intellectual tendency.

David Easton, who gave the principles of behavioralism himself acknowledged that “Political
scholars sitting in ivory towers, perfecting their techniques have ignored the purpose for
which the technique is used.”
It is true that behavioralists had produced rich literature on election studies but such studies are
not sufficient. Political scholars cannot ignore the normative issues like justice, rights, liberties
etc. Thus scholars like Alfred Cobban blamed positivists and empiricists. Dante Germino blamed
‘ideological reductionists’ responsible for the decline of the discipline
Features of post behavioralism
David Easton gave one more lecture to American political science association. This lecture is
titled as ‘Credo of Relevance’. David Eastern called for ‘Creative theory’. The two parameters of
the creative theory are 1) Action & 2) Relevance. It means whatever research person is
choosing, it should be relevant, action oriented for the benefit of society. Thus he acknowledged
the decline of the discipline because of behavioralists. Easton clarified that technique is
important but the purpose for which the technique is to be used is more important.

Easton clarified that it is not rejection of behaviouralism rather it is taking behaviouralism

forward. We can say that traditionalism is thesis, behaviouralism is antithesis while post
behaviouralism is synthesis. The assumptions, methodologies, approaches remain same like
that of behavioralists. The only difference it makes is
○ Technique can be compromised for the sake of relevance.
○ There is no need to be value neutral, values are needed.

● David Easton has given seven features of post behavioralism.

○ Technique is important but the purpose for which the technique is used is more
important. It is better to be vague than to be non-relevant.
○ Post behavioralism does not reject values, rather invite values.
○ Theory should have capacity to solve the crisis.
○ We should promote such values which contribute towards the flourishing of human
civilization.
○ Political science is applied science, rather than pure science.
○ The responsibility of social scientists is bigger than the responsibility of natural
scientists.
○ Political science is extremely useful discipline, needs to be actively promoted by
universities, research foundations.

The Decline of Political Theory

● During the mid 20th century the exponent of political science began to question the
relevance of traditional political theory. David Easton in his work “Political System: An
enquiry into the state of political science” (1953) asserted that the traditional political
theory was devoid of observation. It could not explain the political reality. To lay the
foundation of science in the study of politics it became necessary to rescue it from the
study of classics and history.
● Easton pointed out that there was no outstanding political philosopher after Marx and J.
●
S. Mill. During the Second World War, theorists of all the other Social Sciences were
actively involved in the process and decision making while political scientists remained at
back footing.
● David Easton in his article “The Decline of Modern Political Theory” had identified the
following reasons for the decline of political theory:
○ Historicism
◆ Easton argued that writers like George H. Sabine, C.L. Wayper, A.J. Carlyle,
R.W. Carlyle and Lindsay have taken the subject very close to the discipline of
history. A deep study of their works reveals that they have been motivated
less by an interest in analyzing and formulating new value theory than in
retelling information about the meaning, internal consistency, and historical
development of contemporary and past political values
○ Moral Relativism
◆ David Easton accused David Hume and Max Weber of having relativistic
attitude towards ‘Values’. They neglected what consequences they have for
the ‘facts. Even with the rise of Fascism and Nazism which challenged the
long tradition of political theory, the political theorists failed to subject the old
values to critical analysis and imaginative reconstruction. Easton stressed on
the reviving critical theory which once again shall act as a bridge between the
needs of society and the knowledge of social sciences
○ Confusion between Science and Theory
◆ David Easton accused that the use of both science and theory in a wrong way
by the political scientists was also responsible for the decline of political
theory. They confused science with theory and forgot that theory goes
beyond science
○ Hyper-factualism
◆ After Easton tried to build a behavioural science, the behavouralism was
charged with over-factualization and under-theorization. Easton accepts this
charge and further builds a post-behavioural approach to arrest the decline of
theory.
● Therefore, there was an appeal for going after behavioral political science. After one and
half decades of launching Behaviouralism, David Easton changed his view and in his
address to American political science Association he pitched for post behavioural
revolution.
● The debate on the decline of Political Theory was also joined by other prominent thinkers
Alfred Cobban argued that Political Theory lost its significance in capitalist as well as
communist systems. Political Theory practically had to play no role in sustaining these
systems capitalist system was degraded into aristocracy and military state while
communist system was converted to oligarchy.
 ● Dante Germino in his work ‘beyond ideology the revival of Political Theory (1967)’
argued that there were two major causes for the decline of Political Theory first, the craze
of science (positivism) second, culmination of ideological evolution into Marxism.
According to Germino to understand the new role of Political Theory it was necessary to
integrate it with philosophy. It is critical to study the principle of right order in human
existence and enquiry into right and wrong. Political philosophy deals with problems of
men confronted during his social existence.
● Seymour Martin Lipset in his work “Political man the social bases of politics”stated that
the values of contemporary society had already been decided. The form of democracy in
the United States was close approximation to the good society. Leo Strauss in his famous
paper “What is political philosophy?” considered the science of politics as the symptom of
the decline of Political Theory. The adaptation of the positivist approach led to the
ignoring of normative issues.

Resurgence of Political Theory

Nevertheless, Isaiah Berlin says that political theory is neither dead nor in the state of decline. He
argues that there cannot be an age without political philosophy, and as long as rational curiosity
exists, political theory would not die nor disappear. George H. Sabine also opined that “if political
theory is systematic, disciplined investigation of political problems, then it is difficult to say that
political theory was dead in the 1950s and 1960s.” In the latter half of the 20th century, political
thinkers like John Rawls, C. B. Macpherson, Robert Nozick, Jurgen Habermas, Alasdair
MacIntyre, Michael Walzer, and Herbert Marcuse revived the great tradition of political
philosophy. Marcuse suggested that the language of social science supports status quo and
pointed to the risk involved in the demand for scientific study of politics, as terminology based
on observation and measurement leaves no scope for critical vision—for example, in democracy,
people’s participation when measured by voter turnout does not assess the capacity of the
electoral system to uphold the spirit of democracy. By the 1970s, the dichotomy between
political science and philosophy largely subsided. David Easton emphasized the importance of
values in his post-behavioural approach, where normative inquiry did not hesitate to use
assumptions derived from empirical methods. Hannah Arendt, in her work The Human Condition,
criticized behaviouralism and emphasized the unique and responsible role of human beings,
reviving normative political theory through her reflections on totalitarianism, power, and modern
democracy. Political theory found a monumental revival in John Rawls’ Theory of Justice, where
he adopted Locke’s social contract theory and Kant’s individualism, arguing that “justice is the
first virtue of social institutions as truth is of systems of thought.” He challenged the notion that
normative theory is incompatible with scientific methods, stating that moral theory also begins
with data—moral judgments. In 1974, Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia rejuvenated
political theory, blending normative analysis with empirical findings. Similarly, C. B. Macpherson’s
theory of democracy revived the normative aspect by critiquing existing models for lacking value
content. He developed a substantive theory of democracy aimed at enhancing the creative
freedom of citizens, rather than merely focusing on procedures.

Positivism vs Post Positivism

Scientific inquiry should rely only on observable and measurable facts, not subjective
[Link] to this epistemological stance,what counts as knowledge can be captured
through sensory [Link] knowledge goes beyond thus into subjective boundaries,such
information does not qualify as [Link], according to positivists, is the only medium
to unravel [Link] natural sciences (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology) are considered true
sciences by [Link],Social sciences (e.g. political science, sociology) are excluded
from the positivist framework because social sciences depend on subjective human
experiences that cannot be measured or observed objectively.

Social scientists do not work in labs; their laboratory is [Link] social sciences, knowledge is
derived from attitudes, relationships, life stories, etc., which cannot be controlled or
[Link] argue that such knowledge lacks objectivity and therefore is not scientific.

Post Positivism

Emerged in the 20th century as a complete rejection (not just revision) of core positivist
[Link] positivism argues that scientific reasoning is quite similar to common sense
[Link] denotes that our individual understanding of day to day life is similar to the
understanding of the [Link] only difference is that scientists follow systematic
procedures, unlike laypersons.
-Unlike positivists,post positivists point out that our Observations are not always reliable; they
can be prone to [Link], post-positivists are known as critical realists — they are critical of
the very reality they study.

Since they are critical of reality, post-positivists do not rely on a single method of scientific
[Link] believe that each method can have errors.
These can only be avoided if a number of methods are used. This is referred to as triangulation.
Post-positivism also assumes that the scientists
are never objective and are biased due to their
cultural beliefs. In this sense, pure objectivity
cannot be achieved. This highlights that there are vast differences between positivism and post-
positivism, even though both are grounded in objectivity.

David Easton’s Input-Output Model

David Easton was one of the pioneering political scientists to apply systems theory to political
analysis. He introduced a behavioral and structural-functional model of politics, famously
known as the Input-Output Model in his works "A Framework for Political Analysis" and "A
Systems Analysis of Political Life". Easton conceptualized the political systemas a set of
interactions through which values are authoritatively allocated for a society.

Key Features of Easton's Political System:

. Authoritative Allocation of Values:
○ Politics involves decisions that are binding for society.
○ The political system regulates this process through institutions and actors.
. System of Regularized Relationships:
○ It consists of persistent patterns of interaction among people and institutions.
. Self-Regulating and Adaptive:
○ The system has internal corrective mechanisms and can adjust to stress through
feedback.
. Dynamic yet Persistent:
○ Despite radical changes in components, the system persists due to built-in
resilience.

Structure of the Political System:

Easton visualized the political system as an organic whole comprising:

● Inputs
● Outputs
● Feedback
● Environment (Internal and External)
Inputs: Demands and Supports
Inputs are external stimuli from the environment that affect the political system.
. Demands:
○ These are claims for allocation of values, e.g., policies, rights, resources.
○ Citizens or groups express their needs or preferences.
○ If unaddressed, demands may cause stress in the system.
. Supports:
○ Indicate acceptance, loyalty, and trust in the system.
○ May be:
◆ Specific support: based on short-term satisfaction of demands.
◆ Diffuse support: long-term attachment to the system regardless of
immediate benefits.

Outputs:
● These are the decisions, rules, and policies made by the political system in response to
inputs.
● Successful outputs may increase support; failure may reduce legitimacy.

Feedback Mechanism:
● The feedback loop ensures responsiveness and adaptability.
● Outputs are evaluated by the public, leading to further inputs (new demands/support).
● This enables the system to self-correct and evolve.

David Easton,has regarded cultural norms as a stabilizing [Link] help regulate the volume
and nature of demands,reducing system [Link] saw the political system in constant
flux die to pressures and [Link],it survives by managing demands,generating adequate
support and adapting through feedback.

Limitations and Criticisms of Easton’s Political system approach

While Easton’s Input-Output Model brought structural clarity and systemic orientation to political
analysis, it has faced several critical challenges from scholars across ideological and
methodological spectrums.

1. Excessive Abstraction
● S. P. Verma argues that Easton’s model is too abstract and detached from empirical
 ●
political realities.
● It lacks operational utility and is difficult to apply in the study of real-world political
systems.

2. Conceptual Inadequacy
● The model overemphasizes stability and persistence, while neglecting conflict, change,
and disruption—features inherent in actual political life.
● Easton's core idea of "allocation of values" is too broad and simplistic.

3. Narrow Definition of Politics

● William Mitchell criticizes Easton’s definition of politics as value allocation, stating that:
○ It reduces politics to a singular function.
○ It fails to recognize that not all values are allocated by the political system (e.g.,
economic systems allocate wealth/resources).

4. Ambiguity in System Boundaries

● Easton’s stress on defining the "boundaries" of the political system was problematic.
● Critics argue that political systems cannot be isolated from economic, social, and
psychological dimensions.
● Evans observed that Easton failed to distinguish the "political" from the "non-political,"
making boundaries vague and impractical.

5. Neglect of Human Agency

● Easton, like Almond and Parsons, largely ignored individuals as political agents.
● The approach focuses more on systems and structures than on human action and
participation.

6. Lack of Empirical Testability

● The model does not yield testable hypotheses, making it methodologically weak.
● Thorson argues that Easton’s general theory is too broad to be applied meaningfully to
any specific political system.

7. Conservative and Ideological Bias

● Easton’s approach appears to be status-quo oriented.
● As a functionalist model, it favors system maintenance and persistence over
transformation or revolution.
● Critics like Eugene Miller argue that it aligns with liberal capitalist ideology, validating
dominant political structures rather than critiquing them.
8. Ignorance of Conflict and Crisis
● The model fails to account for class conflict, revolutionary change, or systemic
breakdown.
● Easton himself admitted, "Political science has failed to anticipate the crises that are upon
us."
● This reflects the model’s inability to deal with political instability and radical shifts.

Conclusion
While David Easton’s model made significant contributions to political systems theory by
bringing structure and systems thinking into political science, it remains limited in scope,
excessively abstract, normatively conservative, and methodologically weak for analyzing
dynamic, complex political realities—especially in times of crisis, transformation, or revolution.

Structural functional approach

Gabriel Almond's structural-functional approach is rooted in systems theory and Parsonian

sociology. He sought to create a comparative framework that could analyze both Western and
non-Western political systems. Almond’s ideas evolved over time, beginning in 1956 when he
described a political system as an inclusive concept that focused on totality and interactions. In
1958–59, along with colleagues at Princeton, Almond shifted focus toward the politics of
developing countries, deliberately avoiding formal institutional studies. Instead, he emphasized
political roles and functions that were universal across all systems. This work culminated in the
edited volume Politics of the Developing Areas, laying the foundation of modern comparative
politics.

Key assumptions

Political system is a set of patterned, role-based interactions, not between individuals

[Link] is an open system, interacting with other systems (economic, cultural, etc.).All
political systems—traditional or modern—perform the same basic functions, though through
different structures.

Four Universal Characteristics of Political Systems

[Link] systems have structures.
[Link] political functions are performed in all systems.
[Link] are multifunctional.
[Link] systems are culturally mixed (traditional + modern elements).

Functional Categories
A. Input Functions
. Political Socialization and Recruitment
○ Done through family, school, parties, trade unions, etc.
○ Introduces political norms and recruits members into politics.
. Interest Articulation
○ Expression of demands by groups (caste, business, farmer unions, etc.).
. Interest Aggregation
○ Group demands are filtered and shaped into policies by political parties.
. Political Communication
○ Information flow between government and people (via media, parties, reps).
B. Output Functions
. Rule Making – Legislature frames laws.
. Rule Application – Executive implements laws.
. Rule Adjudication – Judiciary interprets and enforces justice.

Relevance to Developing Countries

● Almond argued that input functions are crucial for understanding political modernization.
● Less developed systems exhibit:
○ Particularism, ascriptiveness, diffuseness
● Developed systems exhibit:
○ Universalism, achievement, specificity
● Political systems evolve from primitive → traditional → transitional → modern.

Criticism and Limitations of Almond’s Structural Functionalism

1. Conservative Ideological Bias
● Promotes status quo and system stability.
● Fails to explain radical change, conflict, and revolution.
● C. Wright Mills: Grand theory unrelated to real facts.
● Barrington Moore, Dahrendorf, Hacker: Biased toward Western liberal democratic values.
● Spiro: Ethnocentric.
● Lijphart: Reflects Anglo-American capitalist norms.
2. Methodological Problems
● Lack of operational clarity; vague and abstract.
● Structures and functions are often not well-defined or measurable.
● Don Martindale: Criticized its focus on closed systems, ignoring interaction with broader
society.

3. Ethnocentrism and Western Bias

● American cultural mythology embedded in analysis (Charles Powell).
● Emphasizes legislature, executive, judiciary—neglecting non-Western institutions and
informal politics.
● Assumes that modernization occurs in a linear Western path, ignoring alternative
trajectories.

4. Non-Applicability in Radical/Conflict Societies

● Fails to explain revolutions, class conflicts, breakdowns.
● Static view of politics—unable to analyze disruptive changes in developing countries.

Conclusion
Gabriel Almond’s structural-functional approach was a landmark in comparative politics, offering
a universal framework for analyzing political systems. However, it suffers from ideological bias,
methodological vagueness, and limited relevance in contexts of conflict, change, and non-
Western societies.

Definition of ideology
Term ideology was originally devised to describe the science of ideas which determine that how
ideas are formed and [Link] scholar Destutt De Tracy -first used this word ideology in
this [Link],term ideology is applied to the set of ideas which are adopted by a group in
order to motivate it for the achievement of predetermined goals.
Science of ideas is how described by different terms like sociology of knowledge (Karl Manheim)
and critical theory
View of Marx :according to Marx,ideology is a manifestation of false [Link]
class at any stage if social development uses ideology to maintain its authority
‘It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence but on the contrary,their
social existence determines the consciousness

Lenin what is to be done?-Ideology is a neutral concept which refers to the political

consciousness of different [Link] struggle will continue for a long [Link] proletariat (have
not)also needs [Link] socialism will be there ideology

George Lukacs,History of Class Consciousness-Marxism itself is ideological expression of the

proletariat ideology of bourgeoise is false not because ideology is false consciousness but
because bourgeoise class situation is strictly [Link] must exploit proletariat to maintain itself

Karl Manheim Ideology and Utopia ,he rejected Marx theory of ideology and said Marxism itself is
the ideology of a classzhe intrigued term ,’sociology of knowledge’

He said false consciousness have 2 forms

1)Ideology :It relies on false consciousness to maintain status quo
2)Utopia :it relies on false consciousness to change existing system,ruling class used ideology
and opposition use utopia

Social scientists :According to Manheim,those intellectuals who realise there side of truth is
partial and try to understand their opponents view,there social scientist should be given
opportunity to rule.

Ideology and totalitarianism

1)Karl popper : ideology is a characteristic of totalitarianism ,it has nothing to do with open
societies
2)Hannah Arendt in his book the origin of totalitarianism ,totalitarianism is a system of total
domination characterised by ideology and terror.

End of ideology debate

In mid 1950s and 1960s,western liberal countries declared that the age of ideology had come to
an [Link] of ideology implied that at the stage of industrial development,a country social
economic condition is determined by the level of its development not by its political ideology.

Key Arguments:

1)Ralph Dahrendrof : Class and class conflict in industrial society : western societies are no
longer capitalist society ,they had become post capitalist [Link] post capitalist
society,industry and industrial conflict are [Link] do not influence politics and other
sphere of social life
2)Daniel Bell (The End of Ideology, 1960):In post industrial society,service sector expand faster
than manufacturing [Link] it is characterised by dominance of technical elite
3)Seymour Martin Lipset:Fundamental problems of the Industrial Revolution have been
solved,so no longer need of an [Link] and Right have converged in mature democracies.
4)W.W. Rostow:Stages of economic growth :A non communist manifesto (1960)
● All societies pass through five stages if growth ,ideology play no role in growth .Stages
● 1)Traditional society
● 2)Pre condition for take off
● 3)Take off
● 4)Road to Maturity
● 5)Age of high mass consumption
● 5)J.K. Galbraith -New Industrial Sate (1967)
● Power in society vested in bureaucracy and technocracy not in the hands of capitalists
6)Anthony Giddebs :Beyond Left and Right :Future of Radical politics
Left and right has no relevance,there is only one globalised [Link] is a new
ideology .Post modernist also support end of ideology
Critics of end of ideology thesis

However, this thesis has been critically challenged from multiple fronts.
• Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School argued that ideology persists in
subtler forms through mass culture and consumerism, creating a “one-dimensional
man” who lacks critical consciousness.
• C. Wright Mills held that ideology continues to serve the power elite,
especially in capitalist democracies.
• Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony shows that ideology remains
deeply rooted in civil society and institutions.
• Nicos Poulantzas and neo-Marxists argued that ideology is structurally
linked to the capitalist state.
• Postmodernists and post-Marxists like Laclau and Mouffe highlighted the role of
discourse in sustaining ideologies.

Thus, ideology has not ended; it has transformed and adapted to new contexts.
End of history- Francis Fukuyama

Based on Fukuyama’s 1989 essay “The End of History?”, expanded into the 1992 book “The End
of History and the Last Man”.Published post-Cold War, after the collapse of the Soviet Union
and ascendancy of liberal [Link] by Hegel’s idea of history as a linear
progression of human freedom and Kojève’s interpretation of Hegel.

Core Thesis
● “End of History” = end point of ideological evolution.
● Liberal democracy is the final form of government—no alternative ideology (like
monarchy, fascism, communism) will surpass it.
● Not the end of events, but the end of major ideological conflict.
● History is an evolutionary process toward liberty and equality.
● Even if there are temporary setbacks, liberal democracy will dominate in the long term.

Clarifications / Misinterpretations Addressed

● Events still occur after the end of history (e.g., wars, crises).
● Fukuyama does not claim that American democracy is the universal model.
○ He views the EU model as closer to the "post-historical world".
● He does not deny flaws (racism, poverty, sexism) in democracies but claims no viable
revolutionary alternativeexists

Arguments Supporting the Thesis

. Democratic Peace Theory
○ Mature democracies rarely or never go to war with each other.
○ Though contested, it supports liberal democracy as a peace-promoting system.
. Post-Cold War Trends
○ Decline in:
◆ Interstate wars
◆ Revolutionary conflicts
◆ Refugee crises
◆ Ethnic violence
○ Rise in democracies after fall of military regimes in:
◆ South America
◆ Southeast Asia
◆ Eastern Europe
. No Compelling Alternative
○ Islamism, Marxism, authoritarianism lack global appeal.
 ○ Democracies persist as the most legitimate and aspirational systems.

Criticisms of the Thesis

1. Ideological Critique
● Jacques Derrida:
○ Fukuyama uses empirical data selectively.
○ Shifts between idealism and reality to suit his thesis.
● Marxists (e.g., Perry Anderson):
○ Capitalist democracies still suffer from inequality, racism, poverty.
○ Disagree with his use of Hegel, prefer historical materialism.
2. Civilizational & Religious Challenges
● Radical Islam and tribalism:
○ Fukuyama underestimated their mobilizing power.
○ Seen in 9/11 attacks, rise of fundamentalism.
● Benjamin Barber – "Jihad vs. McWorld" (1995):
○ Describes conflict between global capitalism (McWorld) and tribal/religious
identity (Jihad).
● Samuel Huntington – "The Clash of Civilizations" (1996):
○ Civilizations, not ideologies, will be the main source of conflict.
○ Islam has "bloody borders".
3. Authoritarian Resurgence
● China: One-party capitalist system.
● Russia: Semi-democracy with authoritarian tendencies.
● Azar Gat (2007): Rise of authoritarian powers could reverse the end-of-history trend.
● Robert Kagan (2008): Title “The Return of History and the End of Dreams” rebuts
Fukuyama.
● Fukuyama responds:
○ Even authoritarian leaders mimic democracy (e.g., Putin, Chávez).
○ China's leaders invoke democracy rhetorically (e.g., Hu Jintao).
4. Democratic Decay & Civil Society Crisis
● Orange Revolution and Arab Spring:
○ Initially pro-democratic but mostly failed or reversed.
● Backsliding in democracies: Turkey, Thailand, Nicaragua.
● Fukuyama admits failure to deliver governance—not ideology—is a bigger issue.
● Key deficits: Security, economic growth, public services.
● Warns of “political decay” in mature democracies (e.g., USA):
○ Crony capitalism
○ Institutional gridlock
 ○ Loss of civic trust
5. Populism & Post-Fact World
● Rise of populism post-2016:
○ Trump's election, Brexit undermined liberal norms.
● Fukuyama acknowledges democracies can go backward.
● “America’s political rot” threatens global liberal order.

Pyqs pointers

John Plamenatz’s statement, “Political theory is not an escape mechanism but an arduous
calling,”

It underscores the seriousness and responsibility inherent in the discipline of political theory. Far
from being an abstract or utopian detachment from reality, political theory demands deep
engagement with the moral, ethical, and institutional dilemmas that confront political life.

Political theory has often been criticized for being too idealistic or disconnected from practical
politics. However, Plamenatz rejects this notion. According to him, theorizing about politics is not
about escaping into intellectual fantasy; rather, it is about critically examining power structures,
justifying or questioning the legitimacy of authority, and envisioning normative ideals such as
justice, liberty, and equality. It is an arduous calling because it demands intellectual honesty,
analytical clarity, and the courage to challenge dominant ideologies and unjust practices.
Throughout history, political theorists have assumed this difficult role. Plato’s Republic grappled
with the idea of justice in a deeply unjust society. Marx’s historical materialism questioned the
moral foundations of capitalism. More recently, thinkers like Rawls, Arendt, and Habermas have
addressed issues of fairness, totalitarianism, and deliberative democracy with intellectual rigor
and a commitment to real-world relevance.
Moreover, political theory is also a tool of emancipation. It clarifies concepts, critiques dogma,
and helps citizens and leaders make sense of conflicting values in a pluralistic society. Especially
in a time of populism, polarization, and democratic backsliding, the role of political theory
becomes even more essential.
In conclusion, Plamenatz’s assertion reminds us that political theory is a moral and intellectual
endeavor that requires rigorous engagement with the world rather than retreat from it. It
challenges scholars not to merely interpret the world, but, as Marx once said, to also strive to
change it.
‘Political Theory is, quite simply, man’s attempt to consciously understand and solve the
problems of his group life and organization. It is the disciplined investigation of political
problems. Not only to show what a political practice is, but also to show what it means. In
showing what a practice means, or what it ought to mean, political theory can alter what it is.’
(Sabine).

George Sabine observation highlights the dual role of political theory—descriptive and
normative. Political theory is not merely a record of political practices but a reflective and critical
inquiry into their meaning, justification, and potential for transformation.
Sabine emphasizes that political theory is man’s conscious effort to understand the complexities
of collective life—authority, liberty, justice, and rights. It is not passive contemplation but an
active, disciplined investigation into political life. By interpreting political practices and
examining their normative foundations, theory helps societies understand not only what exists
but also what ought to exist.
Political theory thus has a transformative capacity. For instance, Locke’s theorization of natural
rights gave philosophical legitimacy to liberal democracy. Similarly, Marx's critique of capitalism
redefined class relations and inspired revolutionary politics. In this way, political theory doesn't
just explain practices—it can reshape them.
Moreover, theory helps challenge ideologies, clarify values, and promote informed citizenship. In
an age of democratic backsliding and populism, political theory serves as a moral compass and
critical lens.
In conclusion, Sabine rightly presents political theory as a dynamic, interpretive, and normative
discipline, vital for both understanding and improving political life.

Theories of state

The term state is much older than its [Link] first appeared in the etymological form of “stato” in
the writings of [Link] meaning of the date in the sense of body politics became
common in England and France in the later part of the 16th century.

Political science is the science of the state -R.G gettel

Political science begin and ends with the state :Garner
David Easton wanted the term state should be abandoned
State is the power which has authority over man -Machiavelli
A state is a human community that claims the monopoly of legitimate use of physical force within
a given territory -Max Weber

Jean Bodin identified the state as a lawful

government that consists of several households,their possessions along with the sovereign
powers.
Herbert spencer regards the state as a committee of management which has no intrinsic
authority beyond the ethical sanction bestowed on it by the consent of the citizens

The state is distinguished from all other associations by it’s exclusive investment with final power
of coercion -RM Maciver (The Modern State)

Once a man is a resident of a given state ,legally he has no choice but to human society united
but common obedience to single sovereign -Watkins

State and society

Society is an association of human beings that fulfills all their needs — from cradle to grave —
including emotional, economic, cultural, and moral [Link] State is a part of society, created
to fulfill political needs like order, law, and [Link] can live without the state,
especially in primitive conditions, but not without society, as it is essential for human
development and [Link] state is formed out of the social needs and derives its legitimacy
from [Link] state depends on society for its existence and functioning, and vice versa —
society relies on the state for protection and regulation.

State and civil society

Civil society refers to the intermediate sphere between the individual and the [Link] includes
non-state associations like family, school, media, religious institutions, NGOs, [Link] is a product
of the freedom of association and expression, and though it lacks coercive legal authority like
the state, it exercises moral [Link] to Gramsci, civil society plays a key role in
maintaining ideological control through institutions like family, church, and education — crucial
for hegemonic [Link] term “civil society” was first coined by Cicero in Roman political
thought.
State and Government
Government is the visible and operational arm of the [Link] state is an abstract and
permanent entity, while government is temporary and [Link] government gives form
to the state by exercising its sovereignty, enforcing laws, and implementing policy.A good or bad
government reflects the administrative efficiency but does not alter the essence of the state,
which is considered a symbol of national greatness.

State and Nation

● Terms State and nation are often used interchangeably in common use but both represent
different sets. A nation would be defined as a community feeling among the people who
recognize that they are distinct from other communities and wish to control their own
affairs.
● This feeling could be based on common language, religion, culture, values and history. It
also indicates the desire to have a future together.
● The state represents a legal and geographical entity with definite territory, population, and
common law that may not be homogenous. So, it might be the case that nation and state
won’t coincide.
Example, the Kurdish people do belong to different states, Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Turkey consider
themselves to be a single Nation. Also, Jews consider themselves a nation despite living in
different states

Diverse perspective on the state

Organic theory of the state

It represents the earliest thinking about nature of the state with an organism or a living body and
the individuals with its organs
This has following implications

1)State as a Natural Growth –

The state is not artificially created but evolves naturally, like a biological organism.
2)Supremacy of the Whole (State) –
Just as no organ can exist independently of the body, no individual can exist outside the state.
The state precedes the individual.
3)Functional Differentiation –
Like different organs serve different purposes, different institutions and individuals in the state
perform specialized roles (e.g., army, judiciary, executive).
4)Unity and Interdependence –
All parts of the state are interdependent and integrated, working for the health and survival of
the whole.
Major advocates of organic theory of state includes Plato,Hegel,Bluntschli and spencer

Criticism
-authoritarian bias :justifies suppression of individual rights in favour of state supremacy
-Anti -democratic : undermines liberal individualism and freedoms
-Biological analogy is misleading :state I’d a man made institution not a living being

2)Mechanistic theory of state

The mechanistic theory treats state as an artificial [Link] postulates deliberate efforts
behind the formation of state this implies possibility of 2 patterns
-one before the origin of the state
-other after creation of the state
According to this theory,state is not a natural institution but an artificial device invented by man
for their mutual benefit
Exponents of social contract theory includes Hobbes ,Locke ,Rousseau are regarded as main
exponent of social contract

3)liberal view of the state

4)Neo liberal view of the state :4 core
Core Postulates of Neo-Liberalism:
● Primacy of the Market:
○ Seeks restoration of free-market supremacy lost during Keynesianism.
○ Advocates laissez-faire economics, with belief in the morality and efficiency of
market outcomes.
● Maximization of Individual Liberty:
○ Promotes rolling back the state, especially from economic activities.
○ Sees state intervention as a threat to individual autonomy.
● Monetarism:
○ Influenced by Milton Friedman and others.
○ Inflation, not unemployment, is viewed as the main problem.
○ Advocates regulation of money supply to control inflation.
● Retreat from Welfare State:
○ Critiques welfare policies for creating dependency culture.
○ Advocates cutting welfare spending and reducing the state's social role.
The Neo liberals are the advocates of a Minimalist Role for the [Link] are inherently
suspicious of the state.
● Minimalist State:The state should only provide law and order, defense, and protection of
property [Link] further role is seen as distortion of natural social and economic
relations.
● Focus on Individual Liberty:Individual should be free from coercion not just by other
individuals, but also by state, religion, family, and social [Link] of choice is
paramount.
● Supremacy of Rights Against the State:Rights such as property and contract are natural
and [Link] rights cannot be surrendered to the collective or state authority.
● Free Markets Ensure Freedom:State redistribution through taxation is seen as unjust
[Link] taxation is viewed as penalizing success and [Link], if
left free, are considered the best tools for efficiency, prosperity, and liberty.
● Night-Watchman State Ideal:
○ Radical libertarians argue for no government at all, bordering on
[Link] neo-liberals accept a minimal state limited to police, courts,
and defense.

Theories of the state

The social contract theory, prominently advanced by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-
Jacques Rousseau, holds that the state is a product of a voluntary agreement among individuals
who abandoned the "state of nature" to form a political society. The state of nature, as
conceptualized by these thinkers, was a pre-political and lawless condition where individuals
enjoyed natural rights but lacked security and order. The contract was a conscious act through
which individuals created political authority to ensure collective protection. However, the nature
of the state emerging from this contract differed among thinkers. Hobbes envisioned an absolute
sovereign (Leviathan), where individuals surrendered all rights for security. Locke advocated a
limited government meant to safeguard life, liberty, and property. Rousseau, in contrast,
proposed a democratic state grounded in general will and popular sovereignty.

Despite it’s philosophical elegance, the theory faces criticism for being historically inaccurate,
legally one-sided, and conceptually simplistic in assuming the state's sudden origin.
Nonetheless, its significance lies in challenging the divine origin theory and providing a secular
and rational foundation for modern democratic governance based on consent and the rule of law.
2)The historical or evolutionary theory explains the origin of the state as a result of gradual and
continuous growth rather than a sudden or deliberate act. According to this view, the state is a
natural institution that evolved over time due to various social, economic, and political factors.
Human beings are inherently social, and their instinct to live in groups led to the formation of
families, clans, and tribes, which gradually grew into organized political communities. Kinship
bonds initially formed the basis of social organization. Religion played an early role in fostering
moral discipline and social cohesion, while the need to regulate economic activities like property
and trade introduced the necessity for governance. Over time, the use of force helped
consolidate territories and political power, and growing political consciousness among people
created awareness about collective identity and order. Scholars such as Burgess, MacIver, and
Garner have supported this theory. Unlike the divine or social contract theories, the
evolutionary perspective holds that the state is neither a supernatural institution nor the
result of a man-made agreement but rather the product of a slow and natural historical
process.

3) The Marxist or class theory of the state, most notably articulated by Friedrich Engels in The
Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, argues that the state is neither eternal nor a
natural institution. Instead, it emerged at a particular historical stage when society became
divided into antagonistic classes due to the institution of private property. The state, in this view,
is a product and instrument of class domination—created by the economically dominant class to
maintain control over the oppressed. In different historical epochs, the nature of this ruling class
varied: slave-owners in ancient times, feudal lords in the medieval period, and capitalists in the
modern era. The state functions through public institutions such as the military, police, judiciary,
and bureaucracy, all of which serve the interests of the ruling class by using coercive power. It
also collects taxes, holds property, and raises loans to sustain its structure. While the Marxist
theory offers a powerful critique of the relationship between state and class power, it has been
criticized for being overly reductionist by neglecting moral, cultural, and historical factors.
Moreover, its assumption that the state is always an oppressive tool is not universally applicable
in contemporary democracies.

4)
The Social-Democratic perspective of the state stands in contrast to the Marxist-socialist
outlook, particularly in its rejection of revolution and emphasis on democratic processes. It
includes various shades such as evolutionary socialism, Fabianism, guild socialism, and
parliamentary socialism, all of which advocate for change through gradual and constitutional
means rather than class struggle or violent revolution. One of the key features of this
perspective is the complete abandonment of revolutionary methods in favor of parliamentary
democracy. Socialist parties, under this model, transform from narrow class-based
organizations into broad-based people’s parties aimed at promoting general welfare. Socialism,
for the social democrats, is inseparable from democracy and must be achieved through
legislation within a democratic polity.
This perspective places a high value on human freedom and personal dignity. The state, in this
framework, is viewed as one among several associations in society and is not considered
superior to others. It plays the role of a coordinator and leader, facilitating the work of other
social institutions but not interfering in their internal affairs. As an agency of public welfare, the
state is constituted democratically and functions within a liberal framework that respects both
individual liberty and social control over the economy. The aim is to harmonize the two—
ensuring economic justice without compromising freedom. Thus, the social-democratic state
is both an instrument for fulfilling the goals of socialismand a protector of individual rights,
committed to creating an environment in which people can realize their full potential.
Exponent :Harold Laski

5) The Gandhian Perspective of State

The Gandhian (after the name of M.K. Gandhi: 1869-1948, the Father of Nation) perspective of
state provides a unique blend of what it is and what it should be. Gandhiji condemned the state
as he found it in the West and favoured a polity popularly called Ramrajya, the state he had
wanted it to [Link] all anarchists, Gandhiji nurtured distrust for all types of power, including the
political power. Power, Gandhiji held, is by its very nature coercive and compulsive: it imposes,
obstructs and spies; its existence means the absence of free will, of inner self and all that is
eternal in the individual.
In Gandhiji’s own words: ‘The state represents violence in concentrated and organised form. The
individual has a soul but the state is a soulless machine; it can never wean from violence to
which it owes its very existence.
But Gandhiji was not at all an anarchist. He was anarchist to the extent that he declared the state
as an embodiment of force. He is, in a way, very close to the classical individualists or the New
Right libertarians of our [Link] advocated not a monolithic state, but a state with minimum
functions, Nozcle’s minimal state. He is of the opinion that until the society becomes self-
regulative and self-evolving and until the individual becomes perfect, the state would, so long,
be necessary, He fully subscribes to what Theorem had advocated: that government is the best
which governs the least.
To some extent, Gandhiji was nearer Marx in so far as he propounded a type of society which is
stateless in character. Like any Marxist, Gandhi ji opposed the institution of the state as an
instrument of oppression and exploitation; like all Marxist, he found all evils in private property;
like all Marxists, he condemned the partisan state. But, at the same time, Gandhiji visualised in
his Ramrajya a society without coercion and without force.
● By conviction, Gandhiji was a spiritualistand to that extent, there is much what is non-
materialist in Gandhiji. According to him,real swarajya is not merely the attainment of
political freedom but much more than that. According to him, swarajya begins from the
individual; it is the rule of the self, it is a matter of self- evolution and self- regulation. The
real power lies with the individual; more the power advances up, more does it become
‘decentralised. In Gandhiji’s Ramrajya, the whole system, From Individual to the central
polity, works itself, without any imposition and without any compulsion. His Ramrajya is a
state without coercion, and to that extent stateless; it is a state without the use of
violence, and to that extent, free and emancipative.

Theories of sovereignty

It is a modern concept, associated with the rise of modern nation state. Hobbes gave the first
complete theory of the sovereignty of the state. Hobbes clearly established state absolutism.
Ended the confusion of ‘two swords’, clearly defined that law is command of sovereign, it comes
with the power of punishment.

Monistic theory of sovereignty

● The monistic theory of sovereignty comes from Hobbes’s theory, hence it can also be
called as Hobbesian theory of sovereignty. It led to the evolution of the monistic theory
of sovereignty.
● The best exponent of the monistic theory is John Austin. Hence it is also known as
Austinian theory.

Evolution of monistic sovereignty theory

● Monistic theory emerged out of the experience of the medieval age where sovereignty
was fragmented. It led to the chaos and hence the idea was accepted that on a particular
set of people, living in a particular territory, the authority of state will be absolute.
○ Neither any association outside the state (roman church) nor any associations inside
the state (local churches or communities), can challenge the authority of the state.
Hence the entire power in a defined territory got centralized at one place. Hence it
is called as the monistic view.
● The theory of sovereignty of state is closely associated with the theory of law. The
 ●
monistic theory clearly established law as ‘command of sovereign’. It is because of this
attribute Max Weber described modern nation state as an institution having monopoly over
the use of violence in a particular territory.
One of the most acceptable definition of sovereignty (monistic theory) is given by John Austin.
”If a determinate (explicit/specific) human superior, not in a habit of obedience to the like
superior, receives habitual obedience, from the bulk of the society, then that human superior is
sovereign and that society is a political society… law is command of sovereign.’‘ John Austin
● Determinate human superior: In medieval times, there was a confusion as to which
authority is superior. Now it is clear that state is superior. Thus the characteristic of
sovereignty is 1. Superiority and 2. Determination.
● Not in the habit of obedience to the like superior: It means sovereign does not obey any
other sovereign. There is a difference between being a state which is sovereign and being
a colony or dominion. There is no authority over the state. Thus the sovereignty means
absolutism.
● Receives habitual obedience: State is an institution which majority respects because
command of sovereign is law.
● Political society means state.
Thus the characteristic of sovereignty from the perspective of monistic theory is Determinate,
absolute, inalienable or non-transferrable, permanence and enforceability.
Why monistic theory is not desirable?
● It is threat to international peace. It concentrates too much power in the hands of the
states, there is a fear of state becoming autocratic (anti-democratic). And it also does not
give the real explanation of sovereignty.
● According to Laski with emergence of federal form of govt. it has become ‘impossible’,
misadventure to locate the sovereign. According to scholars like Duguit and Krabbe, state
is not the only source of law, there are multiple sources of law, most important being
customs and traditions (positive school of law vs sociological school of law). Monistic
theory ignores the growth of international organizations and international law.
● According to the historians like Henry Maine, there is no example in the history which can
be put forward as an ideal example of Austin’s theory of sovereignty. Henry Maine cites the
example of Raja Ranjit Singh of Punjab, who also could not exercise the sovereignty in the
way Austin describes.
Pluralistic theory of sovereignty:
● Exponents – Laski and MacIver
Evolution
● Monistic theory dominated till second world war. It was accepted that state has absolute
powers, there are no limitations internal or external on the powers of the state, not even
international law. Adherence to such ideas led to the recurrence of wars in Europe.
 ○ The consequences of 1st and 2nd WW were unacceptable. Hence it was realized
that there is a need to modify the theory of sovereignty. There is a need to give
importance to international law and promote respect for human rights.
● It has led to the experimentation of the ideas like European union. It has diluted the
sovereignty of the state and transferred the power of decision making from the state to
new supranational institutions beyond the state.
○ Both after 1st WW and 2nd WW, there is an emergence of international institutions,
international law and it was realised powers of the states have to be made limited.
Thus emerged the idea of the pluralistic theory of the sovereignty
● Pluralist theory is a rejection of monistic theory. According to monistic theory, power is
to be concentrated at one place whereas according to pluralistic theory, power of the state
should be distributed among different associations.
○ According to pluralists state is an association like many other associations. Man has
created various associations for fulfilment of his interest. State alone cannot fulfil all
the interests of man. One of the best exponent of pluralist theory is Laski.
○ According to Laski ‘since society is federal, authority should also be federal.’
Krabbe held that “The notion of sovereignty must be expunged from political
theory.”
Philosophical basis of pluralistic theory of sovereignty
● Laski has given the philosophical basis. Universe is multi-dimensional. Man is a part of
universe, so man is also multi-dimensional personality.
● Man has multiple needs, and hence man has created multiple institutions. State alone does
not fulfil all the needs of man, hence other associations also deserve share in man’s
obligation.
Types of pluralists
Moderate Pluralists e.g. Laski
● According to moderate pluralists, state is one of the associations among various
associations. However state is more important than other associations.
● According to Laski, it happens because of the unique role played by the state. The role of
conflict resolution. Which is also called as equilibrium maker. Hence for Laski state is the
keystone of the social architecture. It means society cannot continue without state.
● Problem in Laski’s ideas.
○ On one hand he is skeptical with respect to the power exercised by the state. So he
wants to limit the powers. Hence he says that “Since society is federal, authority
should also be federal.”
○ At the same time he realizes the importance of the state and is forced to accept that
the state is the keystone of the social architecture.
Extreme Pluralists e.g. MacIver
● Extreme pluralists do not give any primacy to the state. For them state is just one of the
 ●
associations. Who is MacIver? MacIver is a sociologist whereas Laski is a political
scholar. Hence there is difference in there attitude. It is natural for Laski to give
importance to the state.
● According to MacIver there are many institutions and associations which are prior to state,
not dependent on state for their existence e.g. Church. MacIver gives the concept of
‘service state’. According to him, state commands because it serves. It means state
deserves the respect only when it fulfills the useful functions.
● According to MacIver, state is both the guardian of law and the child of law. Means
state’s purpose is to maintain law and order and at the same time, state is also under the
law. State cannot exercise arbitrary powers. State powers are limited (the concept of rule
of law).
● According to MacIver, the general will is not the will of the state, but will of the people for
the state. It means It is misunderstood as if state enjoys ultimate powers. Totalitarian
rulers misused the concept. The concept of general will does not give ultimate powers to
the state. It gives ultimate powers to the people. It is people’s wish, which is expressed
through the general will. State itself has to abide by the will of the people.
Critical evaluation of Pluralistic theory:
● Pluralistic theory is more realistic explanation. In the age of federalism and growth of
multiple associations like UN, ICJ, EU, we cannot accept the monistic view that law is just
the command of sovereign.
● Monistic theory is relevant for jurists lawyers. It is a legal fiction. On the other hand
pluralistic theory is sociological and political explanation.
● However, it is also inconsistent. They are against the state, but they do not eliminate the
state [ this is also the major difference in anarchists and pluralists ]. When state exists, it
automatically gains primacy over other associations. Thus state has to be recognized as
higher than other associations rather than just like any other association. It is said that
pluralists want to keep the cake and have it too.
Conclusion
● Even when pluralism is inconsistent it does not mean it is irrelevant. Consistency is not the
most important requirement of a sound theory. Pluralism is relevant because it is more
realistic and more conducive for international peace.

Impact of Globalization on Sovereignty of the States

● Globalization is defined as borderless world or de-territorization.
● Historically nation state has been a territorial concept. Nation states have been carved out
of the Roman empire. The definite territory or border became the essential element.
Sovereignty denotes the supreme power to make law lies with the state.
● If nation state can be considered as a billiard ball with hard shell, the forces of
 ●
globalization e.g. ICT (info. and comm. technology), Market integration, International
Organizations, Int. laws, Global civil society etc. have made this shell porous / penetrable.
Thus conceptually the territorial states and globalization are antithetical forces.
● There is a lack of consensus among the scholars. Some believe that globalization has
weakened the sovereignty, whereas others believe that state is in command of
globalization. Hence we can analyze the impact on the basis of three perspectives.
. Globalists perspective.
◆ According to them globalization is real and it has diluted the sovereignty of
the state, both internal and external.
. State Centric perspective.
◆ Globalization is on the losing end, the world continues to be state centric.
States are controlling globalization.
.
. Transformationalists view.
◆ Globalization and sovereignty are not a ‘zero-sum game’. In some contexts
state is winning and in some contexts globalization is winning.
● Views of Sorenson
. Globalization has not impacted all the states equally. Some are winning and some
are losing.
Kenichi Ohame, The Borderless World
● According to Kenichi Ohame, world is turning into global economy with political
boundaries becoming less important. Due to development of ICT people are able to access
lifestyles across the world and want best of everything. People want global products and
governments are becoming more and more powerless in controlling it. This is true
especially for developed countries like USA, EU, Japan.
● Individuals have become global citizens because of their consumption habits – and
government can no longer control consumption habits for fear of vote bank. Also,
transnational companies no longer see themselves as rooted in one country. All this have
eroded ability of governments to control economies.
● He also argues that globalization of economy makes use of military forces less likely since
economies have become interdependent. Slump in another economy will also affect
country’s own citizens.
● Role of state has been limited to producing conditions conducive for business and welfare
activities in general.
Criticism
● It’s not true that countries cannot control their trades. Recent tariff increase by USA on
imported goods from various countries is good example for this. With economies
becoming interlinked governments across world might have reduced intervention in
business but it does not reduce their power to do so.
 ● USA, Russia are using their military forces abroad too, contrary to what Ohame proposes.
● According to global pessimists – he overstates power of consumers. While in reality,
corporations and bankers have more power.
Susan Strange
● According to her neither economist nor political thinkers have proper understanding of
global financial market. Economist’s understanding is poor since they rely too much on
economic models and don’t have proper idea of power.
● While understanding that of political thinkers is woeful. Since they only think in terms of
power and politics. One needs a balanced approached. A study of both economics and
political science to have realistic understanding.

3 most important theories

Post colonial theory of the state

● Post colonial theory of the state aims at studying and analysing the state in third world
counties ,which were basically former colonies.
● USA is not considered as a colonial state because, all post colonial state are continuing
with the legacy of colonialism described as neo-colonialism by the founding father of
Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah.
The concept
● Focus on power dynamics: Post-colonial theory of state examines the power dynamics
between the former colonizers and the newly independent states, as well as within the
post-colonial states themselves.
● Critique of Eurocentrism: The theory challenges the Eurocentric perspective that
dominated colonial rule and seeks to deconstruct the Western-centric narratives and
knowledge systems that were imposed on the colonized societies.
● Exploration of hybrid identities: Post-colonial theory explores the formation of hybrid
identities in post-colonial states, where indigenous cultures and traditions interact with the
legacies of colonialism.
● Analysis of neocolonialism: The theory also analyzes the continued influence of
neocolonialism, where former colonial powers maintain economic and political control over
post-colonial states through various means such as economic dependency and cultural
imperialism.
● Examination of cultural imperialism: Post-colonial theory of state examines how cultural
imperialism perpetuates power imbalances by imposing dominant cultural norms and
values on post-colonial societies, often leading to the marginalization of indigenous
cultures.
● Critique of development models: The theory critiques the development models imposed
 ●
by colonial powers and international institutions, arguing that they often perpetuate
inequalities and fail to address the specific needs and aspirations of post-colonial states.
● Emphasis on agency and resistance: Post-colonial theory highlights the agency and
resistance of post-colonial states and their efforts to reclaim their own narratives,
identities, and political systems.
● Intersectionality and post-colonial feminism: The theory also explores the
intersectionality of gender, race, and class in post-colonial states, and the specific
challenges faced by women in these contexts, giving rise to post-colonial feminism.
The nature of post colonial states has been analyzed by scholars from different perspectives.
The two prominent perspectives are:
● Modernization perspective
● Marxist perspective.
Libral View: (Modernisation and political development theory)
● The dominant belief among the liberals was that the developing state with an independent
source of rationality and its ability to stand outside and above society could initiate and
pursue programmes of development for the benefit of the whole society with the help of
the modernising elite.
○ First, this notion of an Interventionist State was in line with the colonial statist
tradition.
○ Second, since the civil society was under- developed as a result of colonial
intervention so the post-colonial state assumed centrality to the state formations.
● It was widely felt that the development model- put forward primarily by the Princeton
School theorists like Powell, Verba, Coleman, Pye, Eisenstadt and Binder among others
to be followed by liberal institutionalists like Huntington, Weiner was Euro-centric and
was very much an ideological cover to conceal the neo-colonial mechanism of exploitation.
It was criticized by Neo-marxists and feminists alike.
Prominent works from liberal perspective
Gunnar Myrdal
● The Soft State is a term introduced by Gunnar Myrdal in his Asian Drama to describe a
general societal “indiscipline” prevalent in South Asia and by extension much of the
developing world – in comparison to kind of modern state that had emerged in Europe.
Myrdal used the term to describe:
○ … all the various types of social indiscipline which manifest themselves by
deficiencies in legislation and, in particular, law observance and enforcement, a
widespread disobedience by public officials and, often, their collusion with powerful
persons and groups … whose conduct they should regulate. Within the concept of
the soft states belongs also corruption.
● For Myrdal a major causal factor was colonial powers’ destruction of many of the
traditional centers of local power and influence and failure to create viable alternatives.
 ●

Coupled with this was the development of an attitude of disobedience to any authority
which was central to the nationalist politics resistance. This attitude persisted after
independence. Such soft states are seen as unlikely to capable of imposing the right
development policies and would be unwilling to act against corruption at all levels.
Fred Riggs
● Fred Riggs in his book, “The Ecology of Public Administration” has explored the
dynamics of interaction between public administration and its external environment. The
ideal models of Fused, Prismatic and Diffracted societies aimed at studying the pre-
historic, developing and developed societies.
● Riggs called functionally diffused societies as ‘Fused’ and the functionally specific
societies as ‘Diffracted.’ The society that was intermediate of these types of societies was
called Prismatic.
● Prismatic Society had features of both Fused and Diffracted Societies. Riggs emphasizes
that all societies are generally Prismatic and no society can be called purely Fused or
Diffracted.
● The Basic Characteristic of Prismatic Societies are:
○ Heterogeneity: High degree of heterogeneity in a prismatic society due to
simultaneous presence of different kinds of systems, practices and viewpoints.
○ Formalism: High degree; due to discrepancy between formally prescribed and
effectively practices i.e. between norms and reality.
○ Overlapping: High degree; due to formally differentiated structures of a diffracted
society coexist with a undifferentiated structures of a fused society.
○ Nepotism: The considerations of caste, religion, family and loyalty are the deciding
factors of official recruitment.
○ Poly-normative: Co-existence of modern, traditional norms leading to lack of
consensus on norms of behavior.
○ Poly-communal: Hostile co-existence of communities.
○ Bazaar canteen system:
◆ The economic subsystem which combines both market economy and
traditional economy. Hence prices of goods keep fluctuating. A small section
exploits a large number and controls economic institutions. Prices of goods is
determined by relationship between people and officials so it varies largely.
◆ In this model, market factors are developed without increase in capital so
businessmen try to increase their influence on politics and administration for
personal ends. Black market, adulteration, hoarding, inflation is seen.
Exploitation, poverty, social injustice are main features.
○ Authority and Control: Authority is centralized but control is localized so
dominance of administrators is seen.
Marxist approach
 ● There are two approaches.
○ Instrumentalist approach.
○ Structuralist approach.

Instrumentalist approach (dependency theories)

● Given by the scholars of third world countries. Primarily Latin America and Africa. This
theory is relevant to understand the nature of states in these regions. Even can be applied
for middle east.
● Exponents: A G Frank (LA), Sameer Amin (Egypt), Immanuel Wallerstein.
○ They categorize state into two groups. – Core State, Peripheral state.
○ These states are interlinked – they are interlinked because of capitalism becoming
‘world system’.
○ Core countries are advanced countries – They reflect the concentration of economic
power, political power, technological power, cultural power, military power… The
states in core countries are the instruments of their bourgeoise class /capitalist
class.
○ Peripheral states – These states are in the state of ‘dependency’. Dependency
denote
◆ a) Unequal exchange.
◆ b) Uneven development
○ As a result of dependency, there is a development of underdevelopment (poverty).
These states are not autonomous, they are instrument of the states in core
countries, which in turn are the instruments of their own bourgeoise class.
○ According to them, the only way these countries can achieve development is by de-
linking themselves from the international economy controlled by core countries and
focusing on ‘national autonomous development’.

Structural Approach or Relative autonomy approach

● This theory for post colonial states is given by Pakistani scholar. Hamza Alvi. His theory is
applicable for the states in south Asia, particularly for Pakistan. According to Hamza
Alvi, state in Pakistan is ‘overdeveloped’.
● He believes that the instrumentalist theory will not be the right approach. The state in core
countries can be called as the instrument of the bourgeoise class, however states in these
societies cannot be called as an instrument of a particular class. Specific historical
condition have made the states in these countries as autonomous, most powerful class in
itself.
● The power in these societies is concentrated in the state (executive/civil services). e.g.
Pakistan can be called as ‘military-bureaucratic’ oligarchy. Similarly India was also known
 ●

as ‘inspector raj’, though the change is taking place in India under the forces of
globalization (rise of civil society and judicial activism).

Applicability or Contemporary relevance

● The Indian independence movement led by Mahatma Gandhi and other nationalist leaders
against British colonial rule exemplifies the post-colonial struggle for self-determination
and the establishment of a democratic state.
● The dismantling of apartheid and the subsequent transition to democracy under Nelson
Mandela’s leadership showcases the challenges faced by a post-colonial state in
addressing historical injustices and building a multi-racial society.
● The Nigerian Civil War and subsequent efforts to establish a stable democratic system
demonstrate the complexities of post-colonial state-building, including ethnic tensions,
resource management, and governance challenges.
● The Algerian War of Independence against French colonial rule and the subsequent
nation-building process highlight the struggles faced by a post-colonial state in
establishing its own political and cultural identity.
● The Mau Mau uprising against British colonial rule and the subsequent independence
movement illustrate the resistance and struggles faced by post-colonial states in
reclaiming their land and resources.
● The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict showcases the challenges faced by a post-
colonial state in asserting its sovereignty and addressing the legacies of colonialism and
occupation.

Theory of Overdeveloped State

● As the dependency theory as a paradigm of explanation suffered a decline in the
seventies, there emerged more adequate opportunities for those who favoured examining
the relationship between class and the state in the developing societies of Asia, Africa
and Latin America.
● Hamza Alavi, writing in the concrete context of South Asia did pioneer work in this regard.
Alavi grounded his state theory on the historical specificity of the post-colonial
societies. He attributed this as emanating from the structural changes brought about by
colonial domination as well as distant history, culture and tradition of these societies.
● The major contention of Alavi is that the post colonial state dominates the politics as well
as the civil society because of its overdeveloped [Link] ideological as well as
the coercive apparatus of the post colonial state ,being overdeveloped in nature
dominates all the indigenous social forces .
○ Alavi attributes this to the historical process of colonial capitalist development
 ○
taking place in these [Link] colonial state,equipped with the powerful military
bureaucratic apparatus, mechanisms of powers and institutional practices regulated
and controlled the indigenous social class.
● Alavi traces a historical symmetry between the nature of colonial and post-colonial state in
this regard as due to absence of a properly developed capitalist class bureaucratic military
oligarchy have become all too common a phenomenon in the post-colonial states.
● It follows that post-colonial state is not the instrument of a single class. It is relatively
autonomous because of the overdeveloped nature of state apparatus as well as because it
mediates as well as act on behalf of three dominant proprietary classes- the metropolitan
bourgeoisie, the indigenous bourgeoisie and landed classes having competing interests.
● Thus the post-colonial state is entrusted with the task of preserving a social order which
the ruling classes’ interests are embedded.
● At the time of decolonisation the post-colonial state assumed a new and relatively
autonomous economic role that was not paralleled in the classical bourgeois state
because the state in the post colonial society directly approaches a very large part of the
economic surplus and deploys it in bureaucratically directed economic [Link]
massive scale of public expenditure established an independent economic base for the
state and enabled it to enjoy an autonomous economic role.
● According to Alavi and Saul there has been yet another factor that defines the crucial
significance of state in post-colonial societies. ‘They refer to the special ideological
function of the state to create territorial unity, legitimacy and a sense of nationhood.
● The three factors, taken together, according to Alavi and other post-colonial state
theorists . illuminate the centrality of state to post-colonial social formations. In such a
situation of high relative autonomy ,the bureaucracy figures as an important component in
its own right in the determination of the state policies.
● It follows that we can discern a general theory of the post-colonial state. While three
classes, namely metropolitan bourgeoisie, the indigenous bourgeoisie and the landed
peasantry may be regarded as economically dominant and therefore exercising directly or
indirectly political dominance or control., state personnel/ bureaucratic bourgeoisie1 petty
bourgeoisie may be judged to be the ruling or governing element being most active in the
political process and indeed holding the rein of government.
● Post colonial state theorists, despite its theoretical sophistication with its ability to
underline the significance of historical understanding, failed like the dependency theorists
to take into consideration the distinctive colonial experiences of the different countries of
Asia, Africa and Latin America.
○ As Neera Chandhoke puts it; ‘Different countries had witnessed different kinds of
anti-colonial struggles, based on specific experiences of colonialism, their own
histories of and traditions of protest, distinctive political ideologies, intellectual
contributions and stemming out of all of them, differing vision of future. And after
 independence, various countries embarked on different paths of building
institutions, creating legitimizing ideologies, patterns of political mobilization, and
nation state projects’.
Criticism :
● Essentialism: Critics argue that post-colonial theory often essentializes the experiences
and identities of colonized peoples, reducing them to a singular narrative and overlooking
the diversity within these communities.
● Lack of Agency: Some critics argue that post-colonial theory tends to portray colonized
peoples as passive victims of colonization, neglecting their agency and resistance in
shaping their own destinies.
● Eurocentrism: Critics argue that post-colonial theory often reproduces Eurocentric
frameworks and perspectives, failing to adequately challenge the dominance of Western
knowledge and theories in the field of political science.
● Overemphasis on Cultural Factors: Some critics argue that post-colonial theory places
excessive emphasis on cultural factors in understanding post-colonial states, neglecting
other important factors such as economic structures and power dynamics.
● Lack of Empirical Evidence: Critics argue that post-colonial theory often lacks empirical
evidence to support its claims, relying heavily on theoretical frameworks and abstract.
● Neglect of Internal Dynamics: Some critics argue that post-colonial theory tends to focus
more on the external factors of colonization and overlooks the internal dynamics and
complexities within post-colonial states.
● Neglect of Non-Western Perspectives: Critics argue that post-colonial theory often fails
to incorporate non-Western perspectives and voices, reinforcing the dominance of
Western knowledge and theories in the field.
Conclusion
● Despite its criticisms, post-colonial theory has played a crucial role in challenging
Eurocentric perspectives and highlighting the legacies of colonialism.
● The theory provides valuable insights into the power dynamics between colonizers and
colonized, shedding light on the exploitation and marginalization experienced by post-
colonial states.

Feminist theory of the state challenges traditional political theories for being androcentric,
normative, and fundamentally male-biased. Feminists argue that political institutions and the
theories justifying them have historically marginalized women by reinforcing patriarchal power
structures. Rather than accepting the state as a neutral or benevolent actor, feminists interrogate
its role in sustaining gender hierarchies. Despite this, feminists maintain an ambivalent attitude
towards the state—acknowledging it as a patriarchal institution while also seeing it as a potential
instrument for gender justice.

The feminist perspective views politics as inherently gendered, advocating for the re-
examination of state power, public-private boundaries, and the socio-political roles assigned to
women. Catherine MacKinnon, in Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, asserts, “The state is
male in the feminist sense,”suggesting that law and policy reflect male perceptions and
priorities.
The famous feminist slogan “the personal is political” reflects how private matters like sexuality,
family roles, and domestic labor are deeply political and require state intervention.

Although earlier writers, including Mary Wollstonecraft, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and Simone
de Beauvoir, had offered “a rich description of the variables and locales of sexism,” they had
not produced a general theory of state based on sex-based hierarchy.
● MacKinnon proposes Toward a Feminist Theory of the State as an answer to this
perceived problem. MacKinnon takes Marxism as her theory’s central point. She argued
that unlike liberal theories, “Marxism confronts organized social and gender dominance
in a state.”
● Perceptions of the state in the feminist discourse have undergone increasing attention
since the 1970s along which different waves of feminist movements.
● The ideological critiques (as a discourse) and changing gender relations and feminist
issues have also exerted a greater influence on it.

The concept
● According to feminist perspective, women constitute a deprived section in all parts of the
world. Besides, women often become victims of state violence in many parts of the world.
● Feminist perspective is concerned with the two crucial aspects of the nature of the
state:
. State as an instrument of regulation of the public sphere:
◆ State should interfere and check male domination in the private life. The
oppression and deprivation begins at home.
◆ This continues at the political level. The state has generally been dominated
by men.
◆ In order to secure justice to woman, the sphere of purely personal
relations between man and woman will also have to be regulated by the state.
◆ The phrase “the personal is political”, or “The private is political” arose in
the second-wave feminism from the late 1960s. It underscored the
connections between personal experience and larger social and political
 structures.
◆ The idea that women being unhappy in their roles as housewives and mothers
in homes was seen as a private issue. However, “the personal is political”
emphasizes that women’s personal issues (e.g sex, childcare, care providers
at home) are all political issues that need political intervention to generate
change.
. State as an instrument of power:
◆ The philosophy of state is power-centric, and the power is often
operationalized by the male or his representative structures.
◆ With the exclusion of women from power, the state tends to build its strength
on military power. It results in mounting tension among nations.
◆ Feminists criticize the militarization of nations. They have cited women are
peace loving and would have promoted increased cooperation among nations.
Thinkers’ Perspectives
● Simone de Beauvoir: Beauvoir argued that the state, as a patriarchal institution,
perpetuates gender inequality by reinforcing traditional gender roles and norms. She
emphasized the need for women’s liberation from these oppressive structures.
● According to Catherine MacKinnon, ‘Feminism has no theory of the state. It has a theory
of power: sexuality is gendered as gender is sexualized.’
○ Feminists study ‘power’. They study ‘patriarchy’ and how patriarchy results into the
subordination of woman as well as exploitation.
○ “When I look at the state, state appears male to me”.
● For feminists ‘personal is political’ which shows that state is an instrument of patriarchy. –
Kate Millett in ‘Sexual Politics’ (1971). She attempts to redefine politics as “power-
structured relationships, arrangements whereby one group of persons is controlled by
another.”
● “Personal is political” –Carole Hanisch
● Iris Mariam Young has given the concept of differentiated citizenship. It justifies
affirmative action by the state in favor of women.
● Iris Marion Young: Young’s theory of the “politics of difference” highlights the
importance of recognizing and valuing diverse experiences and perspectives within the
state. She argues that feminist movements should aim for inclusivity and challenge the
dominant power structures.
● Carole Pateman: Pateman’s perspective focuses on the concept of “sexual contract”
within the state. She argues that the state’s patriarchal nature is reinforced through the
regulation of sexuality and the control of women’s bodies.
Different form of feminism and their view towards state
● The patriarchal nature of the state is the central theme of feminist critique. It was epochal
largely in the second wave feminism, i.e., during the 1970s and continues to come.
 ● There are three basic forms of feminist theories
○ Liberal feminist theory
○ Social feminist theory
○ Radical feminist theory
Liberal feminist theory
● It is imbedded in classic liberal theory of the state.
● It emphasizes the value of freedom for individuals. Liberal feminists look at the state for
this role.
● They focus mostly to protect equal opportunities for women through legislation.
Socialist feminist theory:
● It focuses on the economic empowerment of women in a state.
● It advanced the philosophies of Karl Marx. It became popular in the women’s movement
during the 1960s and 1970s.
● As per socialist feminists, the liberal feminists basically addressed the situation of women
of the upper and upper middle classes only. As per them, women are oppressed in all
known societies, but the nature of this repression is different because of the different
economic realities.
● Akin to Marxists, socialist feminists viewed capitalism as a major factor in women’s
oppression. However, socialist feminists believe that capitalism is only one of the many
tangled factors that contribute to women’s oppression. Other factors include male
dominance, racism, and imperialism.
● Socialist feminists accepted the ideologies of radical feminists that gender roles need
to be abolished.
● While they recognize that “biology does play a role in determining personality, anatomy
does not limit our capabilities as human beings on an emotional or a physical level”.
○ The concept of gender and sex is different. A Feminists feel gender differentiation is
natural but sexual differentiation is artificial and men made.
○ Socialist feminists recommend that patriarchy and capitalism are combined into
one system. They consider that we must understand the continuing effects that
colonization, imperialism, and racism have on the women of the world.
Emotional labour and the Second shift
● Arlie Hochschild investigates and portrays the double burden experienced by late-20th-
century employed women.
● Within the workplace, women face challenges of segregation, lower wages, and sexual
harassment.
● At the same time, women provide the emotional labour at home that is ignored and
denigrated. Arlie Hochschild calls the it as the “second shift.”
● She argues that in the second shift, women give birth, socialize children and care for the
sick. They create the area of the home as a retreat for men from the realities of the
 ●

workplace.
Radical feminist theory
● Radical feminists view the state and society is fundamentally patriarchal, in which men
dominate and oppress women.
● Radical feminism calls for a radical reorganisation of society in which male dominance is
eliminated in all social and economic contexts.
● They seek to abolish patriarchy by challenging existing social norms, rather than through a
political process. It includes:
○ Challenging the traditional gender roles,
○ Opposing the sexual objectification of women, and
○ Raising public mindfulness about such issues as rape and violence against women.
State feminism
● It occurs when the state adopts policies that are beneficial to women’s rights and the
improvement of women’s lives. – McBride and Mazur 2010.
● State feminism is a state-supported liberal feminism. The term was coined by Helga
Hernes with particular reference to the situation in Norway, which had a tradition of
government-supported gender equality policies. – Helga Hernes (1987). “Welfare State
and Woman Power: Essays in state feminism”
Applicability or Contemporary relevance
● The Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017: This case study analyzes the amendment
to India’s maternity benefit laws, which extended the duration of paid maternity leave. It
demonstrates how feminist theory influenced policy changes to address gender disparities
in the workplace.
● The Women’s Reservation Bill: This case study explores the ongoing debate surrounding
the Women’s Reservation Bill in India, which seeks to reserve seats for women in
legislative bodies. It illustrates the challenges faced in implementing gender quotas and
the resistance from patriarchal power structures.
● Gender-Equal Cabinet: This case study examines Sweden’s achievement of gender parity
in its cabinet. It showcases how feminist theory influenced political practices and led to
the appointment of an equal number of men and women in ministerial positions.
● Gender Quotas in Parliament: This case study analyzes Rwanda’s successful
implementation of gender quotas, resulting in the highest percentage of women in
parliament globally. It demonstrates how feminist theory influenced policy changes to
enhance women’s political representation.
● #MeToo Movement: This case study explores the impact of the #MeToo movement on
American politics. It highlights how feminist theory and activism led to a significant shift in
public discourse and policy responses to sexual harassment and assault.
Alternative Theories
Eco-feminism
 ● Intersection of Gender and Environment: Eco-feminism explores the interconnectedness
of gender and environmental issues. It argues that patriarchal systems contribute to the
exploitation and degradation of the environment, as well as the subordination of women.
This theory calls for an understanding of the gendered dimensions of environmental
problems and the inclusion of women’s perspectives in environmental decision-making.
● Care Ethics: Eco-feminism emphasizes care ethics, which values interconnectedness,
empathy, and responsibility towards nature and other living beings. It challenges the
dominant ethic of exploitation and advocates for a more sustainable and nurturing
relationship with the environment.
● Critique of Capitalism: Eco-feminism critiques the capitalist system for its emphasis on
profit and growth, which often leads to environmental degradation and social inequalities.
It argues for alternative economic models that prioritize sustainability, social justice, and
the well-being of both humans and the environment.
● Women as Environmental Stewards: This theory recognizes the historical and
contemporary roles of women as environmental stewards and caretakers. It highlights the
knowledge and practices of indigenous and local women in sustainable resource
management and calls for their inclusion in environmental decision-making processes.
Criticism
● Feminists do not propose any theory of state. Even in the words of its greatest
proponents Catherine MacKinnon, ‘Feminism has no theory of the state. It has a theory of
power.’
● Overemphasis on Gender: Critics argue that feminist theory of the state tends to prioritize
gender as the primary axis of oppression, neglecting other important factors such as
economic inequality or political power dynamics.
● Essentializing Men: Some critics argue that feminist theory of the state can essentialize
men as the oppressors, failing to recognize the ways in which men can also be
marginalized or oppressed within patriarchal systems.
● Lack of Empirical Evidence: Critics argue that feminist theory of the state often relies on
anecdotal evidence or personal experiences, rather than rigorous empirical research,
which can weaken its claims and generalizability.
● Overemphasis on the Public Sphere: Some critics argue that feminist theory of the state
tends to focus primarily on the public sphere and political institutions, neglecting the
importance of private and interpersonal relationships in shaping women’s experiences.
● Lack of Policy Solutions: Critics argue that feminist theory of the state often falls short in
providing concrete policy recommendations or strategies for achieving gender equality,
which can limit its practical impact.
● Lack of Consensus: Some critics argue that feminist theory of the state is fragmented and
lacks a unified framework, making it difficult to develop a cohesive and comprehensive
understanding of gender and the state.
 ● Feminist theory of state does not explain the actual role of state in deprivation of status of
women.
● This theory has descriptions of the state’s treatment of gender difference. However, it has
no analysis of the state as gender hierarchy.
● It is fundamentally based on Marxism and confronts organized social and gender
dominance. However, it does not propose any political basis.
● This theory does not focus on the political aspects. Violence, exploitation, subordination
etc. are the central theme of the feminist critic of the state.
Conclusion
● Although, the feminists do not propose a concrete theory of state, they have presented
important components of a modern democratic state. Having foundation upon Marxism,
they argue for an egalitarian state for women.
● Feminist theory is an extension of the general movement to empower women. Feminism
can be elaborated as a recognition and critique of male supremacy, which puts efforts to
change it.
● At the same time, the feminists recognize state as a legitimate entity. They believe that
only state can improve the status of women.

Pluralist theory of the state

● The pluralist perspective sees the state as a neutral mechanism that mediates between
competing interests of various social groups.
● It is both descriptive (explaining how power works in democracies) and normative
(prescribing fair power distribution).

Key Characteristics
● Rejects a single center of power; society has multiple centers of power.
● The state acts as an impartial arbitrator in distributing scarce resources.
● State legitimacy depends on being a guardian of justice.
● Only a democratic state can evolve into a truly pluralist one, as it permits freedom of
association.
● Independent groups form to protect specific and common interests of citizens.
● Civil society is seen as the bulwark of democracy.
● Authoritarian states suppress pluralism by not allowing group autonomy.

Historical Development
● Early Challenge to Sovereignty:
 ○ Leon Duguit rejected state sovereignty as absolute.
● British Pluralists:
○ Harold Laski and MacIver emphasized competing groups as power centers.
○ State must compete with associations for public loyalty.

American Pluralists
● Robert Dahl & Charles Lindblom:
○ Politics, Economics and Welfare (1953) and Who Governs? (1961).
○ Society has dispersed political power.
○ Introduced the term polyarchy: democracy as multiple competing interest groups.
○ Government acts as a neutral broker, not a dominating force.
● N. Polsby (1963): Argued that no single group dominates, highlighting a horizontal
distribution of power.

Criticism
● Internal Inequality:
○ Some groups lack internal democracy; elites dominate within groups.
● Privileged Capital:
○ Lindblom (1977) in Politics and Markets admitted business groups have undue
influence in market-driven societies.
● Unequal Competition:
○ Dahl (1982) in Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy admitted that not all political
forces compete equally.
● Need for Redistribution:
○ Dahl recommended redistributive policies to balance power between groups.

Conclusion
● The pluralist theory highlights the diversity of power in a democratic setup and the role of
the state as a mediator.
● However, critics point out that economic and social inequalities distort the ideal of equal
group competition, leading to elitist domination.
● The theory, therefore, remains influential but contested, especially in real-world
democratic contexts.

Justice
Justice is a foundational concept of political theory and practice. Justice is primarily the domain
of moral philosophy but it has to be implemented by a political order. Hence, the concept has
been found in the inquiries of all political thinkers and is a subject of all political dialectics.

The word ‘justice’ is derived from the Latin words Jungere (to bind/tie together) and jus (a
bond/tie). As a moral political value, justice is interlinked with other values such as liberty,
equality, and fraternity.
● According to D.D. Raphael, justice is a Janus-like (two-faced) concept. It is both legal
and moral.
●
● The term justice has been assigned different meanings by people of different times and
spaces. Its implication also varies accordingly. What is just in the past may be severe
injustice today. For example, Slavery was considered to be just in ancient Greek
philosophy as it served social order but today slavery is one of the worst values. Various
constitutions vow to end slavery and establish equality for human beings. An eye for an
eye was the concept of justice in medieval times but today justice is seen as more of a
reformatory concept.
● In the Ancient classical theory of justice, Plato has presented a normative concept in his
book “Republic”

Justice according to Plato:

● Justice demands that “every person should remain at the station allotted by nature which
means he should fulfil the duties for which he is capable.” When this condition is satisfied,
the state is deemed to be just.

“Justice is today the central and commanding concept of current mainstream normative political
philosophy.” – Tom Campbell

Distributive Justice

In political philosophy, justice is closely linked to the issue of distribution, giving rise to the idea
of distributive justice. At its core, distributive justice concerns the principles and mechanisms by
which resources, opportunities, and benefits are allocated within a society. This makes justice
not only a moral or ethical concept but also a deeply political one. The contentious nature of
distributive justice arises from the fact that resources in society are limited, while claims upon
them are many and varied. The central question becomes: on what basis should these limited
resources be distributed—need, merit, equality, liberty, or utility?
The idea of justice as distribution is not new; its roots can be traced back to ancient Greek
philosophy. Plato, for example, envisioned an ideal state as a just state. He viewed justice as a
harmony between the three classes of society—rulers, warriors, and producers—each performing
their natural function. For Plato, justice lay in everyone doing what they were best suited to do,
thereby ensuring social order and cohesion. This early notion laid the groundwork for later
debates about the moral grounds of resource allocation.
Modern theories of distributive justice consider several key criteria. One is need, where justice
requires that resources be distributed in accordance with the individual requirements of citizens,
ensuring at least a minimum standard of living for all. Another criterion is desert, which holds
that distribution should reflect individual merit, effort, and contribution—those who work harder
or display greater skill deserve greater rewards. A third principle is freedom of choice, which
argues that inequalities resulting from individuals' voluntary decisions should be seen as just,
provided everyone has the genuine opportunity to choose freely. Then there is the principle of
utility maximization, inspired by utilitarianism, which seeks to allocate resources in a way that
brings the greatest happiness or welfare to the greatest number. Finally, there is equality, which
demands that everyone be treated the same and receive equal shares. However, critics argue
that formal equality often fails to account for historical and structural disadvantages, which is
why thinkers like Michael Walzer and Iris Marion Young propose more nuanced concepts like
complex or differentiated equality.
The state plays a central role in ensuring distributive justice. Through public policy, law, and
institutional frameworks, the state must structure and implement the principles of just
distribution.

Procedural Justice
● Focuses on the procedure or rules that must be just, not necessarily the outcomes.
● Assumes that a just procedure will naturally lead to a just outcome, regardless of context
(historical, economic, social).
● Justice is ensured if the law is impartial and the rules are fair, even if the result may
appear unequal.
● Emphasizes individual liberty and autonomy; individuals are responsible for their choices.
● The state’s role is minimal, limited to enforcing fair rules.
● Associated with libertarian thinkers like Robert Nozick, who uphold the entitlement
theory (just acquisition + just transfer).
● Does not advocate for redistribution; inequality is accepted if it arises from voluntary
actions.
Substantive Justice
● Concerned not only with just procedures but also with just outcomes.
● Argues that treating everyone equally in an unequal society won’t lead to a just result.
● Believes in redistribution of wealth and resources to create fairness.
● Supports state intervention to ensure equality of opportunity, especially for the
disadvantaged.
● Justice is seen as a continuous process, not a one-time outcome.
● Promotes fair allocation of goods like wealth, income, opportunities, regardless of social
or economic background.
● Requires responsible agents—individuals, groups, institutions, state—to uphold fairness.
● Closely associated with John Rawls’ theory of Justice as Fairness, especially his
difference principle (benefit the least advantaged).

John Rawls’ theory of “Justice as Fairness” is one of the most influential contributions to modern
liberal political thought. His ideas were first outlined in a 1957 article and later developed in his
landmark book A Theory of Justice (1971). He further refined his arguments in Political Liberalism
(1993) and The Law of Peoples (1999). Rawls presented a liberal theory of justice rooted in the
social contract tradition but adapted it to fit a modern democratic society committed to liberty
and equality.
Rawls believed that justice is the first virtue of social institutions, just as truth is for systems of
thought. He introduced a model based on pure procedural justice, where the fairness of the
process guarantees the fairness of the outcomes. Unlike utilitarianism, which seeks the greatest
happiness of the greatest number, Rawls argued that justice must respect individuals as ends in
themselves, not as means to achieve overall [Link] developed an alternative based on
Kantianism, a rival school of utilitarianism.

Rawls considered the principle of utility as incompatible with the conception of social
cooperation among free and equal individuals for mutual advantage and with the idea of
reciprocity implicit in a well-ordered society.

At the core of his theory is the belief that individuals are rational and moral agents with an
innate sense of justice. This view of human nature serves as the foundational premise from which
individuals, placed in a hypothetical original position behind a veil of ignorance, would choose
fair and just principles to govern society.

Rawls’ theory attempts to balance procedural and substantive justice by ensuring that a just
process leads to just outcomes. He emphasizes the distribution of primary goods—which
include rights, liberties, opportunities, income, and wealth—while allowing individuals to
pursue their own rational life plans or secondary goods. Importantly, Rawls refrains from
defining what is good for individuals, maintaining that autonomous individuals are best suited to
make such determinations for themselves.

The theory includes two main principles of justice:

○
○ Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal
basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all”.
○ “Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
◆ a. to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just
savings principle, and
◆ b. attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair
equality of opportunity.”
● The first principle is often called the greatest equal liberty principle. Part (a) of the second
principle is referred to as the difference principle . Part (b) is referred to as the equal
opportunity principle.

Each principle must be fully satisfied before moving to the next:

● Equal liberties cannot be sacrificed for better economic or social outcomes.
● Opportunity equality (2b) comes before justifying any inequality in wealth (2a).

•Rawls’ quote:
“A principle does not come into play until those previous to it are either fully met or do not apply.”

Why lexical order matters?

● Prevents trade-offs between basic rights and economic benefits.
● Ensures that liberty and equality of opportunity are non-negotiable, foundational
conditions for any just society.

Veil of Ignorance (Hypothetical Thought Experiment)

Rawls introduces the veil of ignorance to determine fair principles of [Link] are
placed in an original position, abstracted from all social and personal identities (e.g., class,
race, gender, abilities, conception of the good).They are ignorant of their actual position in
society (who they will be once the veil is lifted)
Purpose and Rationale
 • Prevents bias and self-interest in the selection of principles of justice.
• Individuals are risk-averse: fearing they could end up as the worst-off, they
would choose principles that benefit the least advantaged.

Assumptions about Individuals in Original Position

Not tabula rasa (blank slates), but:
Possess basic knowledge of economics, psychology, and political [Link] an innate
sense of [Link] rational and moral agents.

Even without knowing their social status, individuals aim to maximize access to primary goods:
• Rights
• Liberties
• Opportunities
• Income and wealth
• Self-respect

Principles Chosen Under the Veil

Will select principles that:
• Guarantee basic liberties to all (Equal Liberty Principle).
• Provide fair equality of opportunity.
• Maximize the benefit of the least advantaged (Difference Principle).
Reflective Equilibrium
• Moral judgments and principles are refined through rational reflection and
deliberation.
• Leads to coherence and consistency between considered moral beliefs and
general principles.
• Ensures that even deviations from principles must have rational
justification.

Significance
Shows that justice is not just about outcomes, but about just procedures chosen under fair
[Link] morality and rationality in [Link] laid out the foundation of
Rawls’ contractarian liberal theory of justice.

Criticism of Rawls theory of justice

Criticism of Rawls theory of justice

C B Macpherson argues that Rawls theory of justice and its claims of universalities is very much
culture specific. So, contrary to its claim of universality, C B Macpherson argues that Rawls
theory of justice is very much limited to a particular, cultural context.
According to Macpherson, Rawls theory essentially, rationalizes liberal beliefs and values. So,
despite of his claim of ‘veil of ignorance’ or the original position, according to C B Macpherson,
what Rawls theory essentially does is to rationalize a liberal set of values and beliefs. That
means, his theory is applicable only to a society which is a liberal society or a government or a
liberal government with welfare orientation.
Therefore, the claim of universality is something, problematic, according to C B Macpherson. He
argues that thus, it is a defense of liberal democratic governments or societies with welfare
orientation. Therefore, it cannot be argued that it is something which is universally, applicable.

Limitations of Rawls theory

Rawls conception of justice has been criticised on the following grounds

Brian Barry in the liberal theory of justice (1973) doubts the rationality of individuals in Rawls
original [Link] that it is difficult to define who the least advantaged are in any complex
society

Communitarian Critique
● Michael Sandel (Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, 1982):
○ Rawls' individual is a "disembodied self", detached from social context.
● Charles Taylor:
○ Criticizes the atomistic conception of the individual; believes community precedes
the individual.
● Michael Walzer (Spheres of Justice, 1983):
○ Justice must be grounded in social meanings and community-specific norms, not
abstract principles.
○ Argues that distribution of goods depends on how goods are understood within
each society.
○
○ 3. Libertarian Critique – Robert Nozick
● In Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974), Nozick:
○ Defends property rights and individual liberty.
○ Argues against Rawls' redistribution of primary goods, likening it to theft.
 ○ Proposes Entitlement Theory: only just acquisition and just transfer make a
distribution just.
○ Opposes state interference, including redistributive taxation, which violates
natural rights.

4. Marxist Critique
● Accuse Rawls of:
○ Focusing only on distribution within capitalism, ignoring class-based exploitation.
○ Using "veil of ignorance" as an abstract and unrealistic hypothetical.
○ Argue that justice must address relations of production and private property
ownership.

5. Amartya Sen’s Capability Critique

● Challenges Rawls' primary goods metric.
● Argues that individuals differ in their ability to convert goods into freedoms (e.g., due to
age, health, disability).
● Introduces Capability Approach:
○ Justice should be based on people’s real freedom to achieve what they value
(functionings).
○ Criticizes Rawls for ignoring conversion differences between individuals.

6. Ronald Dworkin – Luck Egalitarianism

● Distinguishes between:
○ Brute luck (e.g., disability) – not within one’s control.
○ Option luck (e.g., gambling losses) – results from choices.
● Argues justice must account for inequality caused by brute luck, not by personal choices.
● Criticizes Rawls for treating all inequalities equally, regardless of their cause.

Feminist Critique – Susan Moller Okin

● In Justice, Gender and the Family (1989):
○ Argues that Rawls ignores the family as a central site of injustice.
○ Family is treated as private sphere, beyond justice, but it’s where gender inequality
begins.
○ Women face unequal division of labor in the family, leading to public inequalities.
● Other feminists:
○ Criticize Rawls' individual as autonomous and rational, a male-biased conception.
○ Argue it excludes values like care, empathy, and cooperation, traditionally
associated with women.
 ○
associated with women.

Overlapping Consensus – John Rawls

In Political Liberalism (1993), John Rawls modifies and refines his earlier theory of justice from A
Theory of Justice (1971) in light of what he calls the “fact of reasonable pluralism.” This refers
to the inevitable existence of a diversity of incompatible yet reasonable moral, philosophical, and
religious doctrines in a democratic society. Rawls acknowledges that his original assumption—
that a just society could be built around a single comprehensive moral doctrine—was unrealistic
in modern liberal democracies.

Shift from Comprehensive to Political Conception of Justice:

Rawls does not abandon the core of his theory—justice as fairness—but reconceives it as a
“political conception of justice” rather than a comprehensive doctrine. A political conception is
freestanding—it does not derive its validity from any particular religion or philosophy, but from
shared political values embedded in the public culture of democratic societies, such as fairness,
freedom, and equality.

The Problem of Stability:

Given pluralism, Rawls seeks a basis for political stability that does not require agreement on
deeper metaphysical or moral truths. The challenge is: How can citizens with conflicting but
reasonable comprehensive doctrines still endorse the same political principles?

The Idea of Overlapping Consensus:

Rawls introduces “overlapping consensus” as the answer. It means that citizens affirm the same
political conception of justice—such as Rawls’s two principles of justice—but each for different
reasons grounded in their own comprehensive doctrines.
• For example, a Christian might support equal liberty out of a belief in human
dignity, while a secular humanist might support it for reasons of autonomy.
• The overlap is not in the deeper doctrines, but in their converging political
implications.

This consensus differs from a modus vivendi, which is a mere strategic truce based on power
balance and mutual advantage. A modus vivendi lacks moral stability and can unravel if
circumstances change. An overlapping consensus, however, provides a deeper moral
endorsement of political institutions.

Rawls’s Framework for Global Justice – The Law of Peoples

In The Law of Peoples, John Rawls extends the principles of justice as fairness to the
international sphere but modifies his approach significantly to accommodate the realities of
international pluralism. Rather than applying his difference principle globally, Rawls proposes a
distinct conception of global justice, built on a “Society of Peoples”.

Key Concepts and Foundations:

1. Society of Peoples:
Analogous to citizens in a domestic social contract, Rawls conceptualizes states (or
“peoples”) as rational actors who agree upon fair principles to regulate international
conduct.
2. Original Position at the Global Level:
Representatives of liberal and “decent” non-liberal peoples meet behind a veil of
ignorance—unaware of the specific identity of their societies—to decide on a set of
principles, termed the “Law of Peoples.”
3. The Eight Principles of the Law of Peoples:
Rawls proposes eight core principles to guide international relations:
• Peoples are free and independent.
• Peoples are equal and parties to the agreement.
• Peoples have the right to self-defense but no right to wage war.
• Peoples should observe non-intervention.
• Peoples should honor treaties and commitments.
• Peoples should observe just conduct in war (jus in bello).
• Peoples should respect human rights.
• Peoples have a duty to assist “burdened societies.”

Types of Societies in Rawls’s Global Framework:

1. Liberal Peoples:
 Democratically organized societies that ensure basic rights, equal citizenship, and
the rule of law.
2. Decent Non-Liberal Peoples:
These societies may not be fully democratic but are “well-ordered” internally. They
respect human rights, consult citizens on governance, and maintain public reason.
Rawls argues that liberal societies should tolerate and respect decent societies to
avoid moral imperialism.
3. Burdened Societies:
These are societies facing historical, economic, or political challenges that prevent
them from becoming well-ordered. The duty of well-ordered societies is to offer
assistance to help them develop just institutions.
4. Outlaw States:
These states violate human rights, pursue aggressive war, and disrupt global peace.
Rawls considers them legitimate targets for coercive action, including sanctions
and, in extreme cases, intervention.

Core Features of Rawls’s Global Justice:

• No Global Difference Principle:
Rawls explicitly rejects extending the difference principle (redistribution of wealth
to benefit the least advantaged) to the international level. He draws a clear
distinction between a domestic society, where distributive justice is applicable, and
the Society of Peoples, where states are assumed to be self-sufficient.
• Human Rights and Minimal Global Duties:
Rawls limits global justice to the protection of human rights, respect for
sovereignty, and a duty of assistance to burdened societies. The aim is not global
equality but enabling self-sustaining well-ordered societies.
• Neutrality and Toleration:
Reflecting his political liberalism, Rawls insists on tolerating reasonable non-liberal
regimes, as long as they respect basic human rights. Liberal peoples must avoid
imposing their values through coercion.
• Focus on International Peace:
Peace and stability are central. Rawls’s framework emphasizes just war theory,
diplomacy, and mutual respect over redistribution.
⸻

Criticism of Rawls’s Global Justice Model:

• Cosmopolitans like Charles Beitz and Thomas Pogge criticize Rawls for not
globalizing the difference principle, arguing that justice demands redistribution
across borders in a highly interdependent world.
• Critics argue Rawls’s theory legitimizes inequality by assuming states are
self-contained and ignoring structural global injustices like colonialism or unequal
trade.
• Others defend Rawls for offering a realistic utopia: a morally grounded but practical
vision for global cooperation without erasing cultural and political differences.

Amartya Sen (Capabilities approach)

His theory can be argued also, as an extension of John Rawls theory. That means, some of the
values that is put forward by Rawls is acknowledged by Amartya Sen as well. Sen extended the
argument of Rawls and said that we also, need to take into consideration the differential needs
and requirements of different people depending upon their age, sex, gender, or genetic
endowments. So, people may require different kinds of primary goods like most importantly, what
people do with their primary goods. So, their capability to convert the primary goods is more
important for us to take into consideration, while we are arguing or discussing about justice
rather than limiting the argument merely, to distribution or re-distribution of primary sources.

Thus, Amartya Sen’s theory of justice is regarded as both a critique and also, an extension of
Rawls theory of justice. It is known as the capability approach to justice, where the focus is
not merely, on liberty or freedom, but on the capability, that means, individual capacity to make
choices whether that capability is enhanced or not. It arises questions like what are the
differential capabilities of different individuals. Understanding this interpersonal understanding
of differential capabilities is necessary, for ensuring overall justice or ensuring that everyone is
capable or has the opportunity, to live a life which they value. To ensure that the focus or
emphasis should not be merely, on the primary sources or on the idea of liberty, but to see,
whether individuals are capable enough, to use or convert the primary resources into skills or
resources which enable them to lead a life which they, value. This is called the capability
approach to justice.
Amartya Sen critiques Rawls for focusing only on the distribution of primary goods without
considering whether individuals can actually use them to lead a life they value.
Sen argues that individuals have differential needs based on factors like age, health, sex, and
social status.
● E.g., the needs of a sick person vs. a healthy one, or a child vs. an adult, are not the same.
Equal distribution of primary goods does not guarantee justice, as individuals differ in their
ability to convert these goods into real benefits or freedoms.
For Sen, what individuals can actually do with resources (their capabilities) is more important
than just having access to them.
Justice should be based on actual outcomes and freedoms, not merely the means.
Sen’s capability approach emphasizes:
● Individual freedom to choose between alternatives.
● The ability to convert resources (primary goods) into a life one values.
Capabilities represent real freedom, according to Sen, and thus are central to achieving justice.
In contrast, Rawls sees the redistribution of goods as a means to freedom, but does not examine
whether individuals can effectively utilize those goods.
Without strengthening capabilities, freedom and justice cannot be fully realized, even if
resources are equally distributed.
Hence, Sen shifts the focus of justice from the distribution of means (goods) to the realization
of ends (freedoms and capabilities).

Nozick (Libertarian critique, Entitlement theory of justice)

Libertarian perspective on justice also treats liberty of the individual as its central problem. But it
focuses on formal liberty and insists on minimal role of the state in economic activities of
individuals. It regards the right to property as an important ingredient of individual liberty. It is
largely opposed to the idea of welfare state. This perspective is chiefly represented by Nozick s
theory of justice.

NOZICK'S THEORY OF JUSTICE

Robert Nozick (1938-2002), an American philosopher, in his Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974)
sought, to advance an alternative to Rawls's theory of justice. Whereas Rawls sought to
moderate his libertarianism by a modicum of egalitarianism and communitarianism, Nozick
adhered to libertarianism in its pure form. If Rawls is known as a 'left liberal' or egalitarian liberal
advocating a substantially redistributive welfare state, Nozick may be described as a 'right
liberal' or libertarian committed to a laissez-faire 'nightwatchman' state.
Nozick’s Critique of Rawls
 ● Nozick rejects Rawls’s distributive justice model which treats wealth and goods as if they
arrived like “manna from heaven.”
● He emphasizes that justice in holdings must account for how goods are acquired—not
just how they are distributed.
Three Modes of Acquisition (Sources of Entitlement)
. Self-Ownership
○ Individuals have absolute rights over their own selves—including body, brain,
talents.
○ One is free to use their limbs, intelligence, and efforts as they wish.
○ This is the foundation of Nozick's individual liberty argument.
. Natural World (Original Acquisition)
○ Land, water, minerals, etc., are unowned parts of the world.
○ Individuals can acquire parts of nature by mixing their labor, as per the Lockean
Proviso (as long as it doesn’t harm others).
○ Entitlement arises when acquisition is just and does not worsen the position of
others.
. Products of Labor (Transformation of Nature)
○ Goods produced by applying labor to natural resources—like crops, tools, factories.
○ If someone creates something, they have a natural right to its ownership.
○ These goods can be voluntarily transferred to others, thereby justifying new
ownership.

Robert Nozick’s Principles of Entitlement (from Anarchy, State and Utopia, 1974)
Nozick lays down a historical theory of justice in holdings based on how property is acquired
and transferred over time.
According to him, a person is entitled to their holdings if they are acquired through the following
three principles:
1) Principle of Initial Acquisition
● Concerns how people first come to own unowned natural resources (like land, water,
minerals).
● Inspired by Locke’s Proviso: One may acquire something from nature only if:
○ It doesn’t worsen the condition of others.
○ There’s "enough and as good left for others".
● Example: If someone settles on unclaimed land but leaves enough for others, the
acquisition is just.
● Problem: In real life, satisfying this condition is extremely difficult.
2)Principle of Voluntary Transfer
● Deals with how property can be legitimately transferred from one person to another.
 ● Must happen via:
○ Free exchange, gift, or contract.
○ No coercion, force, or fraud.
● Reflects Kantian ethics: Treat individuals as ends in themselves, not as mere means.
● Thus, slavery contracts are morally invalid—even if voluntarily entered.

3)Principle of Rectification of Injustice

● Applies when holdings are acquired through force, theft, fraud, or coercion.
● The state or an international body may be justified in correcting past injustices.
● Includes reparations, compensations, or restoration of rights/resources.
● Example: If a corporation takes control of the only water source, depriving others, it
violates justice and must be rectified.

Criticism of Nozick’s Entitlement theory of justice

1)Bias towards capitalism and the rich
Nozick is seen as an ideologue of capitalist, market-based [Link] favors the rich and
resourceful, with no regard for the socially [Link] theory absolves the wealthy of
any social responsibility or moral obligation to the less fortunate.
2) Misuse of ‘Justice’ to Justify Oppression
While justice is often viewed as the “voice of the oppressed,” Nozick’s theory upholds existing
[Link] notion of rectification appears to legitimize the wealth of global economic
manipulators.
Example: His criticism of oil-rich nations' control over a scarce resource (oil) is viewed as
unjustified interference
3) Opposition to Redistributive Welfare State
Nozick rejects taxation for redistribution as morally wrong, comparing it to “forced labor.”
He believes taxing the rich to help the poor violates individual autonomy and self-
[Link] becomes a matter of voluntary charity, not a requirement of justice.
4) Ignores Structural Injustice
Nozick fails to recognize that market societies themselves create structural [Link]
treating existing holdings as morally justified, he overlooks historic exploitation and power
imbalance.

Communitarian theory of justice

Michael Walzer (1935- ), American political philosopher, in his celebrated work Spheres of
Justice (1983) enunciated a communitarian theory of justice, although in some respects it is akin
to liberal-pluralist point of view. Walzer argued that the quest for a universal theory of justice
was misguided, because it was futile to look for any principle of justice outside the community—
particularly its history and culture. The requirements of justice could only be identified in the
context of a particular community, its practices and institutions.

The communitarian critique of Rawls' theory of justice primarily challenges his conception of the
individual as an autonomous, rational, and self-defining agent, detached from their social
context. Communitarians argue that individuals are not isolated selves, but embedded within
their communities, shaped by cultural, historical, and social ties. According to this view, the
notions of ‘good’ or ‘just’ are not outcomes of pure individual rationality, but are socially
constructed and determined by the collective values of the community. They criticize Rawls's
use of the ‘veil of ignorance’ as an unrealistic abstraction that strips individuals of their real-life
identities and social experiences. Thinkers like Michael Sandel, in Liberalism and the Limits of
Justice, reject Rawls’s idea of the abstract self and argue against the liberal principle of state
neutrality, stating that the state cannot remain neutral in morally significant matters. Michael
Walzer goes further by rejecting Rawls's universalism and insisting that justice must be rooted in
specific cultural and social contexts. For communitarians, therefore, justice is a pluralistic and
context-sensitive concept, not a universally applicable abstraction.

Michael sandel’s arguments

1)critiques state neutrality :claims neutrality may protect unjust ideologies
2)he calls for state intervention to protect marginalised groups and deepen democratic justice
3)Liberal neutrality may weaken democracy by ignoring the lived experiences of subordinated
groups

Michael walzer theory

● Rejects Universalism: Justice cannot be based on abstract, universal principles.

● Justice is Pluralistic: Justice is a human construct based on social meanings unique to
each community.
● Distributive Justice: Depends on shared meanings of goods within a society (e.g., caste
system in India).
● ‘Complex Equality’:
○ Inequality in one sphere (like wealth) should not translate into other spheres (like
education, politics).
 ○ Prevents domination of a few in all spheres of life.
● Equality Across Spheres: Justice demands autonomy of each distributive sphere to
maintain fairness.

Equality

The idea of equality is the central feature of modern political thought. Classical and Medieval
thinkers considered hierarchy as natural and inevitable while Modern thinkers started with the
assumption that all human beings have equal moral worth. Aristotle, for instance, discovered
that ‘inequality’ was a cause of rebellion in many states. He defined justice as “treating equals
equally and unequals unequally”. It insisted on recognition and maintenance of existing
inequalities in society—between master and slave, between rich and poor, between morally
superior and morally inferior, and so on. The modern idea of equality, on the contrary, seeks the
reduction in inequalities insofar as they can be proved to be unjust according to the prevailing
social consciousness.
● Today Equality is a highly complex concept; there are as many forms of equality as there
are ways of comparing the conditions of human existence. Example: moral equality, legal
equality, political equality, social equality, sexual equality, racial equality and so forth.
● Moreover, the principle of equality has assumed a number of forms, the most significant of
which have been formal equality, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. We
will discuss these concepts one by one in this chapter.
“Equality is basically a process of equalization. So first of all equality implies the deficiency of
special rights. Secondly, it implies that everyone should get enough opportunities for
growth.” -Harold Laski

History of Equality Debate

●
● In classical Greece, Aristotle in his book “Politics” distinguished three social classes and
noted the significant difference between citizens and slaves, men and women in terms of
rational and civic capacities. Participation in the Polis was restricted to the citizens only.
Similarly, in Hindu Society, according to the classical text, the society was divided into four
(Varnas). All rights and duties were based upon this classification.
● Stoicism
○ Greek philosopher Zeno founded the Stoic School in Athens in the early 3rd century
BC and supported equality among men. It is one of the earliest examples of doctrine
of equality in western political thought. The Stoics concluded that all human beings
 possess reason and thereby all mankind is differentiated from other animals and is
united. Humanity does not admit of degree. As such all men are equal as men. The
Stoic philosophers gave the idea of universal brotherhood and they were opposed to
slavery.
● During medieval feudalism, legal privileges were based upon status and birth. In short,
different types of inequalities have been long enduring, giving rise to the notion that
inequality is inevitable in social relations. Different ideologies justified inequality on
grounds of superior race, ancestry, age, sex, religion, military strength, culture, wealth,
knowledge, etc.
● From the 15th to the 17th centuries, the cry for equality was against the landowners’
status and religious intolerance and was raised by Puritans, Levellers, doctrine of natural
rights and John Locke. Simultaneously, the movements of Renaissance and Reformation
raised a powerful voice against the legal privileges of the clergy and nobility based upon
birth and demanded equality by birth. The French revolution and American civil war
promoted the idea of equality.
○ “Men are born free and equal and they are free and equal in their rights”
● In the modern world, equality has been accepted as a basic principle of organising human
life. The economic and social dimension of equality emerged during the nineteenth century
and was the result of conflicts and struggles between the capitalist/ industrial classes on
one hand and workers and peasants on the other. As a result, along with legal equality,
demand for economic and social equality was raised by liberal socialists and Marxist
writers alike such as J S Mill, TH Green, Babeuf, Karl Marx etc
● In the twentieth century, the demand for equality became more persistent. Today, it has
become the sine qua non for the socio-economic mobility typical of a highly industrialist
society. The national liberation movements against imperialism and colonialism,
movements against apartheid, socialist revolutions in Russia, China and East European
countries brought the issue of equality to the forefront.
● The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 extended the recognition of equality
which had hitherto been accepted as the aim of all strata of industrialised countries to the
people of the third world countries who had been discriminated against, thus contributing
to the eventual emergence of an international society based upon socio-economic
equality.
● Today, every modern political constitution has some notion of human equality inscribed as
a fundamental law and every political theory of any importance has contributed to the
nature and feasibility of socio-economic equality.
According to Turner, inequality is multi-dimensional and the elimination of one aspect of
inequality often leads to the exaggeration of other aspects of social, political and cultural
inequalities.
Equality can be understood in positive and negative terms

Negatively, it implies the elimination of unjust privileges, whether feudal, economic, or social.
Positively, it emphasizes the equal availability of opportunities for individuals to develop their
personality and potential

According to Harold Laski equality means:

● Absence of special privileges.
● Adequate opportunities are laid open to all to realise the implications of one’s own
personality.
● All must have access to social benefits and no one should be restricted on any ground.
● Absence of economic and social exploitation.
●
● ryan Turner in his book “Equality” has given a comprehensive meaning of equality in terms
of following:
○ Fundamental equality of persons is:
◆ Common to cultural, religious and moral traditions typically expressed in
statements such as ‘all are equal in the eyes of God’.
◆ Concerned with the equality of men as men; something called ‘human nature’,
‘human dignity’, ‘personality’ or ‘soul’ by virtue of which they must be treated
as fundamentally equal.
◆ Found in the Marxist tradition, it is claimed that all human beings are defined
by praxis, i.e. all human beings are knowledgeable, conscious and practical
agents.
○ Equality of opportunity
◆ This means that the access to important social institutions should be open to
all on universalistic grounds, especially by achievement and talent.
◆ This type of equality believes in meritocracy, where the occupational
structure of society is filled on the basis of merit in terms of universal criteria
of achievement and not on the basis of age, sex, wealth, caste, religion, etc.
○ Equality of conditions where there is an attempt to make the conditions of life
equal.
○ Equality of outcome of results
◆ It is the most radical notion of equality.
◆ It means that through legislation and other political means, equalities of
results are achieved regardless of the starting point or natural ability.

Dimension of Equality
Dimension of Equality

Legal equality
● Legal equality can be described in two ways: Equality before law and Equal protection of
law. All individuals should be treated equally by the law irrespective of their caste, race,
colour, gender, religion, social background and so on. This principle ignores the fact that
handicaps imposed by caste, gender or social background could be so overwhelming that
individuals would not be able to benefit from the formal equality that the law bestows upon
all individuals.

Equality before law Equal protection of law

Equal subject of all classes to the Law will not make any distinction
ordinary law of the land between the people
administered by the ordinary law
courts’.
‘like should be treated alike’ right to equal treatment in similar
circumstances
it has a negative connotation. It is positive in connotation
law does not discriminate on the Equal protection requires
basis of personal attributes such affirmative action by the state
as birth, position, gender etc towards unequal by providing
facilities and opportunities.

Political Equality
● According to Lipson, normally, many had always been governed by few for the benefits of
the few. Political equality is associated with democratic institutions and the right to
participate in the political process. The demand for political equality is summarised in ‘one
man one vote’ which is the basic principle of political equality.
● Its wider dimensions are
○ The right to vote,
○ The right to stand for elections,
○ To hold public office
○ Right to express opinion
○ Right to form association/ party with no distinction (made) on the basis of caste,
 ○
colour, sex, religion, language etc
● According to Laski, political equality means the authority which exerts that power must be
subject to rules of democratic governance.
Economic Equality
● The economic equality of early liberals was equality of choosing one’s trade or profession
irrespective of his caste, creed or economic status. It was also understood as freedom of
contract or that everybody is equal in so far as the contractual obligations are concerned.
● According to Laski, economic equality is largely a problem of proportion. Economic
equality is two folds:
○ It is a matter of status and
○ It is a matter of property and income.
● With regard to property and income the issue is what methods the state should seek to
correct inequality in their distribution. The liberal state through its policy of mixed
economy, methods of differential taxation, regulation and raising the wages by methods of
social expenditure and other welfare services has been making corrections in the wide
disparities of wealth. The state taxes the rich to provide welfare to the poor.
● However, Liberal socialists feel that in spite of the fact that state action has resulted in
greater diffusion of property, the permanent ownership of capital resources and the
disparity between rich and poor continues to increase.
Social Equality
● Social equality is concerned with equality of opportunity for every individual for the
development of his personality. It means abolition of all kinds of discrimination based upon
caste, creed, religion, language, race, sex, education, etc.
● It involves questions such as how the state should promote equality of different classes,
castes etc. How gender equality can be ensured. How equal pay for equal work can be
ensured removing stereotypes of society.
● Social equality also depends on accessibility of public services, education, health etc on
equal basis to facilitate social mobility. This can be enhanced by affirmative action of the
state.
● Equality Vs Equity
○ The word equality is defined as “the state or quality of being equal;
correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.”
○ The word equity is defined as “the quality of being fair or impartial; fairness;
impartiality” or “something that is fair and just.”
○ In modern times, the usage of the word equity has increased due to concerns about
social justice and a desire for fairness for historically oppressed groups.
○ In terms of the law, minority groups often have technically equal rights but are still
treated unfairly due to unequal access to resources or opposition from dominant
groups who deny others equal representation while still acting within the law
 groups who deny others equal representation while still acting within the law

Formal Equality
● Most important defender of equality is English philosopher John Locke, who advocated
natural equality. Immanuel Kant extended this idea by describing universalism and
equality as a consequence of this universal humanity, all individuals should be treated
equally.
● Formal equality can be called legal equality. All individuals should be treated equally by
the law irrespective of their caste, race, colour, gender, religion, social background and so
on. While this was a welcome step in the fight against special privileges based on race,
gender, social background and other similar criteria, it remained a very limited notion on its
own.
● Marx in his essay ‘On the Jewish Question’ contended that formal equality while being a
significant step forward could not bring about human emancipation. While the market did
free people from the barriers imposed by social rank and other similar categories, it did
nevertheless create differences based on classes that were upheld by the existence of
private property. This implied that individuals had starkly different market values and
hence, Marxists describe formal equality in this context as market equality, which is little
more than a façade to disguise the deeply unequal nature of society.
● Equality of What?
○ Equality of opportunity
○ Equality of capability
○ Equality of outcome
Equality of opportunity
● The idea of equal opportunities can be found in the writings of Plato, who proposed that
social position should be based strictly upon individual ability and effort, and that the
educational system should offer all children an equal chance to realise their talents.
● Equality of opportunity means the removal of all obstacles that prevent personal self-
development, a right that should surely be enjoyed by all citizens. The implication is that
equality requires that all individuals begin from a level playing field. Social democrats
and modern liberals believe that such equal opportunity is the cornerstone of social
justice.
● Equality of opportunity points towards an meritocratic inegalitarian ideal. Thus, the
consequences of this need not be egalitarian at all. Precisely because everyone started
equally, unequal outcomes are acceptable and legitimized. This inequality would then be
explained in terms of differing natural talents, ability to work hard or even luck.
● This idea rests on the distinction between nature and convention, the argument being that
distinctions that emerge on the basis of different natural qualities like talents, skills, hard
work and so on are morally defensible.
 ● However, differences that emerge out of conventions or socially created differences like
poverty, homelessness are not.
● The underlying assumption is that so long as the competition has been fair, advantage
itself is beyond criticism. Egalitarians work with a wider definition of equality of
opportunity that would give everyone the means to develop their capacities in a satisfying
and fulfilling way. An egalitarian society would not deny to some people the genuine
opportunity to develop their capacities.
● However, some have argued that a rigorous and consistent application of the principle may
lead to widespread state intervention in social and personal life, threatening individual
liberty and perhaps violating the principle of formal equality. For example, the family could
be regarded as one of the major obstacles to the achievement of equal opportunities
through the inheritance of wealth and the provision of different levels of parental
encouragement, social stability and material affluence.

Equality of capability
Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach
● Amartya Sen’s capability approach is a moral framework for deciding the type of equality
we want to achieve. It proposes that social arrangements should be evaluated primarily
according to the extent of freedom people have to promote as well as achieving functions
they value.
● Amartya Sen’s capability theory approach is a theoretical framework that involves two core
normative claims.
○ First, the assumption that freedom to achieve well-being is of primary moral
importance.
○ Second, that freedom to achieve well-being must be understood in terms of people
with capabilities.
● The capabilities approach goes directly to the quality of life that people can actually
achieve. This quality of life is analyzed in terms of the central concepts of “functioning”
and “capability”. Sen argues that the correct approach to assessing how well people are
doing is their ability to live a life that we have reason to value, not their wealth of resources
or subjective well-being. But to begin to assess how people perform in terms of capacity,
we first need to determine which functions are important to the good life and how much,
or at least we need to specify an assessment procedure to determine this.
● The scope of this approach is quite vast; all factors that can potentially affect people’s
capabilities are relevant for consideration. Included in the domain of capability theory are
all possible factors – social and political processes, gender, inequality, discrimination of all
types, social exclusion, disability, environmental conditions, personal and psychological
factors – that can possibly influence human capabilities, which is the prime measure of
human well-being. In this sense, it is a complete human development model.
Equality of Outcome
● The idea of an equality of outcome is the most radical and controversial face of
egalitarianism. Whereas equal opportunities require that significant steps are taken
towards achieving greater social and economic equality, far more dramatic changes are
necessary if ‘outcomes’ are to be equalised. It shifts attention away from the starting point
of life to its end results, from chances to rewards.
● Defenders of equality of outcome believe that the guarantee of all other equalities would
be inadequate so long as equality of outcome is not ensured. Marx, for instance, was of
the opinion that any right to equality circumscribed by a bourgeois economy can only be
partial. He, thus, argued for absolute social equality, possible only if private property was
abolished
● Critics of equality of outcome point out that such a pursuit would only lead to stagnation,
injustice and worse of all tyranny. Stagnation results from the fact that social ‘levelling’
serves to cap aspirations and remove the incentive for enterprise and hard work. Hayek,
for instance, has argued people being very different have different aspirations and goals
and any system that treats them equally actually results in inequality. The drive for
equality, it is argued, is at the cost of individual liberty. The imposition of socialist
egalitarian measures, it is argued, undermines the dignity and self-respect of the
individual and the inherent paternalism accompanying such measures denies the ability of
the individual to be a rational chooser. Policies that aim to promote equality by
redistributing wealth do little more than rob the rich in order to pay the poor.

Inequality
Inequality is as old as human [Link] becomes problematic only when perceived as
[Link] and early modern societies saw inequalities as [Link] Marx and Engels
argued that inequality between classes is rooted in [Link] divisions are man made
and [Link] is detrimental to human development and happiness

Rousseau ,in his Discourse on the origin of inequality(1755) ,drew an important distinction
between two types of inequalities found in social life :natural inequality and conventional
inequality . Natural or physical inequality, as a statement of fact, consists in the differences of
age, health, bodily strength and qualities of mind and [Link] inequality, on the other
hand, consists in the different privileges that some men enjoy to the exclusion of others, such as
inequalities of wealth, prestige and power.

Liberal theory holds that as long as inequality can be justified on the basis of merit, abilities or
special contribution to society, it is acceptable. However, what is meritorious, special or a
contribution to the society, are all circumscribed by the specificities of the society in question.
Moreover, it is very difficult to isolate the worth of an individual’s contribution. In recent times,
however, modern liberals such as Rawls and Dworkin have rejected merit and desert as criteria
for justifying inequality.

Macpherson has criticised Rawlsian equality on the grounds that it assumes the inevitability of
institutionalized inequalities between classes. In doing this, Rawls ignores the fact that class
based inequalities create unequal power relationships among individuals of different classes and
would, thus, impinge on other aspects of equality.

Liberty or Freedom,Equality and Justice

Liberty and equality are considered as antithetical to each other, as attempts to establish
equality imply coercion and loss of liberty. Early liberal thinkers like Locke, Adam Smith,
Bentham, James Mill, and Tocqueville felt that there should be minimum restrictions on the
liberty of the individual. Example, Locke did not include equality in the list of three natural rights.
De Tocqueville considers equality as a danger for liberty. It is implied that since individuals are
different in terms of their skills and abilities, differences in their lives are bound to exist, and any
attempt to correct this will have to be accompanied by authoritarian suppression and hence, loss
of liberty

However, the above conception of liberty is negative liberty i.e. absence of interference in the
life of an individual. In the modern era this is supported by scholars like Bagehot, Hayek, Milton
Friedman, Mosca, Pareto etc. The demand for economic and social equality rose in the 19th
century by the socialists and positive liberals made equality the prime requirement of liberty.
Positive liberty stated that equality enhances the freedom to make choices and helps in
fulfilment of material and economic requirements of society. Positive liberals maintained
that liberty and equality are complementary to each other and the state was assigned the task of
correcting the social and economic imbalances through legislation and regulation

Inequality in access to resources like education and basic services limits individual freedom
and [Link] satisfaction of basic economic needs, liberty is
[Link], T.H. Green, Hobhouse, Lindsay, Tawney, Barker, Laski, Macpherson
among [Link] for equality of opportunity to enable the realization of individual
potential and personality.
Liberty a precondition for equality

Liberty acts as a catalyst in enabling individuals to overcome social impediments and strive
toward equality in status and opportunity. Scholars broadly agree that without liberty, the
realization of equality remains a distant goal. J.S. Mill rightly argued that no state can become
great by dwarfing its citizens, underscoring the importance of liberty in personal growth. Rawls
also emphasizes the priority of liberty through his lexical ordering of justice principles, placing
the Liberty Principle above Equality of Opportunity and the Difference Principle. Liberty, in its
truest sense, involves meaningful and effective choices, which are only possible when individuals
have access to social and institutional power, economic means, education, and knowledge.
Amartya Sen’s capability approach similarly affirms that liberty is essential for acquiring the skills
and capabilities necessary for human development. Thus, liberty and equality are not in
opposition; rather, they are complementary normative ideals central to political theory and
democratic life.

Justice and Equality

● Like liberty, the relation between equality and justice is also a controversial one. The issue
of equality has provoked particularly intense debate when it has been applied to the
distribution of wealth or income in society, what is commonly referred to as ‘social justice’.
Whereas some insist that an equal, or at least more equal, distribution of rewards and
benefits is desirable, others argue that justice demands that natural differences among
humankind should be reflected in the way society treats them.
● As we have discussed earlier, our society consists of number of inequalities based upon
age, sex, caste, ability, education, social status, wealth, opportunity etc. Historically, such
inequalities have not only been justified but also perpetuated. Early liberalism, while
championing the cause of legal and political equality, did not bother about the economic
and social inequalities resulting from freedom of contract, open competition and private
property.
● However, with the advent of socio-economic equality, the struggle against the prevailing
inequalities became an important element of justice. Justice demands that politics should
operate to produce equality of opportunity, equality of treatment, uniform distribution of
goods and services, one-man one-vote etc.
● In the discussion of Equality and Justice, the contribution of John Rawls is most
important. For Him a just society would involve the maximisation of equal basic liberties
where the liberty of one person would not be in conflict with the liberty of others. To
 develop the sense of justice in case of social and economic inequalities, he wanted to
arrange these inequalities in such a way that they contribute to the greatest benefit of the
least advantaged in the society. Thus he preferred that all essential social goods should be
distributed equally among all, unless an unequal distribution of these goods would be to
the advantage of the least favoured members of the society.
● According to Kymlicka, the relationship between equality and justice is also found in the
works of Karl Marx, Robert Nozick etc. While libertarianism believes that equality means
equal rights over one’s labour and property, the Marxists take it as equality of income and
wealth. Thus, it can be summed up with the thought of Dworkin that equality lies at the
heart of all contemporary theories of justice.
‘Every plausible political theory has the same ultimate value, which is equality and that ‘each
person matters equally’ is at the heart of all contemporary theories of justice’. – Dworkin

Dworkin View of Equality

● Ronald Dworkin has given the theory of resource equality. Resources Equality means the
possibility of having equitable resources so that everyone can carry out their conception
of what is good or well being. For a variety of reasons, well-being is too subjective and we
don’t know what that means.
● Imagine a situation where hundred shipwrecked people landed on a desert island, so they
have to organize themselves as a society and they have to decide how to distribute the
resources that are given by the island.
● The Dworkin’s idea is to organize an auction in which each person receives a hundred
shells. The one hundred shipwrecked people will be auctioned off with their shells and
there are a number of lots to be auctioned off. In front of each of the lots, each will put the
number of shells he is willing to use to finance his desire.
● In Dworkin’s idea, there is no inequality because everyone will have the same resources so
no one will be able to buy everything, there will be no monopoly story, and everyone will
have to make calculations about what he is willing to put in his resources. From the
moment he chooses, the person commits his special responsibility. The end of the auction
will be considered fair as long as each person does not envy the other’s endowment.
● As an outcome we arrive hypothetically at a situation where there is no envy because
everyone has been able to buy their own conception of the good, then, at that point, we
will be in a hypothetical situation of non-injustice.
● What about those people who would have been injured, and what do we do for people who
will inevitably get sick and who at some point, what about those who ended up wasting
their resources in wrong choices? In other words, what do we do about things that are not
choices, but are bad luck? This is explained through division of luck in two types: Optional
luck and Brute luck. In optional luck, the risks are taken through rational choices and
 hence the disadvantages are a person’s own choice. But in Brute luck, a person has no
choice such as being born in a lower caste in India. Here, we have to be conscious about
brute luck and the state will have some kind of role. This whole concept is known as Luck
Egalitarianism.
● Way forward for those would be the idea of insurance. People should buy insurance for any
such bad luck or wrong choices. Thus the Strict Equality of resources holds that a
distribution of property rights in resources is just if and only if it results in everyone having
the same amount of resources while Dworkin’s equality of resources says that a
distribution of rights and responsibilities is just if and only if it is a result of people’s free
choices after an initial strictly equal resources distribution coupled with insurance against
natural handicap.

Affirmative Action

Affirmative action refers to a set of public policies and legal measures designed to address
historical and systemic discrimination against disadvantaged social groups. The objective is to
ensure equal access to opportunities in education, employment, political participation, and other
spheres of public life.

Origins and International Recognition:

The term “affirmative action” first appeared in the United States under Executive Order No.
10925 (1961), signed by President John F. Kennedy, requiring government contractors to ensure
non-discriminatory practices in [Link] policy later expanded to include gender (1967)
and other categories such as ethnicity, disability, and age.
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD),
1989, recognized affirmative action (Article 2.2) as a legitimate tool to address inequality,
provided it does not lead to permanent preferential treatment.

Purpose and Justification:

Affirmative action aims to:

• Promote equal opportunity for disadvantaged groups.
• Bridge gaps in employment, education, and leadership representation.
• Rectify historical injustices, such as slavery, caste discrimination,
colonialism, or gender oppression.
• Foster substantive equality through compensatory or corrective measures.
Forms of Affirmative Action:
1. Direct Measures:
• Quotas/reservations in education, jobs, or politics (e.g., caste-based
reservations in India).
• Target-based recruitment/admission policies.
2. Indirect Measures:
• Capacity-building programs.
• Financial aid, coaching, or outreach to under-represented groups.
• Skill development and infrastructure support.

Affirmative Action in India:

• In India, affirmative action is known as “Reservation” and primarily targets
Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes
(OBCs).
• It is rooted in the principles of social justice and equality of opportunity
enshrined in Articles 15(4), 16(4), and 46 of the Indian Constitution.
• It has also been extended to economically weaker sections (EWS) in the
general category (103rd Amendment Act, 2019).

Global Perspectives and Debates:

• United States: Affirmative action remains contentious, especially regarding
race-based preferences in college admissions (e.g., Students for Fair Admissions v.
Harvard, 2023).
• UN View: The UN Human Rights Committee emphasizes that equality
sometimes demands differential treatment to dismantle systemic discrimination.
• Survey Data: According to a USA Today poll (2005), majority of Americans
support affirmative action for women, while support for racial minorities is more
divided.

Criticism and Challenges:

• Reverse discrimination: Critics argue it may unfairly disadvantage
meritorious individuals from majority or non-reserved categories.
• Perpetuation of identities: Long-term affirmative action may entrench
identity politics rather than erode inequality.
• Merit vs. social justice: There’s a philosophical debate between equality of
opportunity and merit-based systems.
 opportunity and merit-based systems.

Conclusion:

Affirmative action is a vital instrument of social engineering that seeks to transform formal
equality into real equality. However, its design, duration, and scope must be periodically
reassessed to ensure that it achieves its objective without creating new forms of injustice. As
Christophe Jaffrelot (2003) notes, affirmative action is not merely a tool for redress but a step
toward creating an inclusive and representative polity.

Rights
The concept of rights is politically less contentious than equality or justice . • However,
there is far less agreement about the grounds on which these rights are based, who should
possess them, and which ones they should have.
● The concept of rights or ‘human rights’, originates from the voice of protest oppression
perpetrated by the dominant groups in society. Rights are meant to safeguard the
individual from the irresponsible and arbitrary use of power by the ruling class.

Concept of Rights
● Laski defines:
○ Rights as the conditions of social life without which no one can seek, in general, to
be at his best.
○ As the definition suggests,
. they are the conditions of social life and thus there cannot be any rights in the
state of nature, thus, nobody can seek to be at his best in the state of nature.
. Laski holds that rights are not concessions granted by the state. For men, to
be him, to own his own personality, to develop his own character requires
certain rights which must be recognized by the society or state. On the
contrary, they are superior to the state, because they provide for a standard
to judge the state itself. For since the State exists to make possible that
achievement, it is only by maintaining rights that its end may be secured.
. Rights, therefore, are prior to the State in the sense that, recognized or not,
they are that from which state’s validity is derived.
● Thus, rights are those claims which must be recognized by the society or state and the
recognition of those rights and protection of rights are considered as essential for the
individuals to develop fully, to be at himself or to be the best version of himself. This
discourse on rights is fundamental aspect of modern political philosophy.
● The conception of social life essentially entails a relationship between Rights and Duties.
●
When rights are erected on moral foundations they are essentially accompanied by duties.
So, rights are meaningless, if it does not invoke obligations or duties on the part of others.
● Person’s rights or claims or entitlements, necessarily, require other individuals or groups,
society, or the state to have certain obligations towards those individuals and similarly,
same individual must also, recognize the rights of others. Therefore, other rights become
one’s own obligation, to recognize or extend those rights to other individuals also. So,one
person’s rights or claims or entitlements are necessarily, another person’s obligations. So,
rights and duty must go hand in hand, but it is not equal to each other.
● The obligation is what you are obliged to do for others, for the society, state, and other
members in society. But rights are your due, your own entitlements or claims against other
members or society or the state. So, rights are those claims which individuals make
against, the state or society which needs to be secured by the law or constitution. Thus,
there are broadly, speaking two kinds of rights. They are- legal and moral rights.
● Laski carefully points to their correlation.
○ “The possession of rights . . . does not mean the possession of claims that are
empty of all duties . . . Our rights are not independent of society, but inherent in it…
To provide for me the conditions which enable me to be my best self is to oblige me,
at the same time, to seek to be my best self. To protect me against attack from
others is to imply that I myself will desist from attacking others. “
○ The concept of rights postulates that the state as well as the individual shall pursue
the ideal objects of society. Accordingly, the duty of the individual is coextensive
with the duty of the state. If the state fails in its duty, it is the duty of the individual
to resist the state.
○ Moreover, as the rights of man are subservient to the common good, it is his duty to
contribute to the common good in exercise of his rights. A shared conception of a
collective end — a common good — is the basis of society’s existence, and is also
the basis of the individual’s existence as a moral agent. Hence, achieving the moral
end of man is dependent on the recognition of oneself as a purposeful agent who
can only progress within a society of other purposeful moral agents. This echoes
the Kantian idea that a fundamental element of rights is adherence to the
categorical imperative.
● Similarly, T H Green argues that we are entitled to rights because this enables us to
fulfil our moral agency, and thus, to contribute to the common good. The purpose of
rights should not be seen as a protection of the individual from social authorities, because
‘a right against society, as such, is an impossibility’. Green says “the human
consciousness postulates liberty’, Liberty involves rights; rights demand the state”.
● Thus rights become rights only when there is corresponding duty attached to [Link]
correlation between rights and duties also determine whether Rights are claims or a mere
entitlements. The claim versus entitlement debate is reflective of age old debate on legal
 versus moral right.
● Rights, are said to have no meaning without duties and one person’s rights necessarily,
involves another person’s duties or vice versa. So, the rights and duties must go hand in
hand.
● The idea is the very formation of modern state which is based on certain assumptions and
one of the assumptions for the formation of the state is that it recognizes the individual
as a right bearing citizen or a member. Therefore, state has certain obligations to
recognize certain rights of individuals and also, it must protect those rights.
Some of the basic features of rights are:
● Rights are claims of individuals and it exists only, in a society, when others exist to
recognize those rights, and these are the products of social living.
● Rights are recognized by the society as common claims of all the members of that society.
● So, rights are rational and reasonable moral claims which individuals seek to get
recognized by the state and other members of the society.
● Rights are equally, available to every member of the community and not to a particular
member or a group of individuals or privileged members in the society. Rights if,
understood as claims, recognized by the society, then those rights are available to every
member of society and not to a selected few. However, if there are some differences or
some kinds of preferential treatment given to certain groups or individuals from certain
groups, then those differences or differential treatment must be duly, justified.
● The scope or set of rights constantly, keeps expanding and changing with the passage of
time and new rights are included, such as in India, we have a set of fundamental rights and
now, the right to education which was earlier not part of our fundamental rights is now,
added to it and regarded as the fundamental right.
● Rights are not absolute. There are always, some reasonable restrictions on the right
which are deemed essential for maintaining public health, security order and morality.
● Rights are inseparably, related to duties or obligations, and there is a close relationship
between the two. There is a kind of intimate connection between rights and obligation,
although, both are not same.
Claims versus Entitlement:
● The claims and entitlements enable the individuals to make certain choice, to do
something or to get something done or to not to do something. So, the rights have some
elements of choice, some elements of voluntarily action on the part of the individuals, it
enables and gives the individual his or her due in the society or being a member of that
society.
● However, all the claims or entitlements that individual may seek from the society, or the
state may not be necessarily, regarded as rights. For the claims and entitlements to be
regarded as rights, the society or state must recognize them. In other words, rights are
recognized as claims.
 ○ Claims are strong rights in the sense because there is corresponding duty or
responsibility on someone to give it to the possessor of the right. Claims are rights
one must have.
○ Entitlements on the other hand are weak rights. One may deserve it but there is no
corresponding obligation/duty on anyone to give it to the possessor of the
entitlement.
◆ For example right to food was a mere entitlement earlier but post the
enactment of food security bill, it is a claim because there is a duty cast upon
the state to provide certain minimum amount of food to the claimants.
● Similarly fundamental rights are claims and Human rights are entitlements.

Legal and moral rights:

● Legal rights are rights which are enshrined in law and are therefore enforceable through
the courts. They have been described as ‘positive’ rights, in that they are enjoyed or
upheld regardless of their moral content. For example, Fundamental rights.
● Legal rights extend over a broad range of legal relationships. A classic attempt to
categorize such rights was undertaken by Wesley Honfeld in Fundamental Legal
Conceptions (1923). Honfeld identified four types of legal right.
○ First, there are privileges or [Link] allow a person to do something
for instance, to use the public highway or not to do something or perform some
obligations.
○ Second, there are claim-rights, based on which another person owes another a
corresponding duty – for example, the right of one person not to be assaulted by
another.
○ Third, there are legal powers. These are best thought of as legal abilities,
empowering someone to do something – for example, the right to get married or
the right to vote.
○ Fourth, there are immunities, according to which one person can avoid being
subject to the power of another – for instance, the right of young, elderly, and
disabled people not to be drafted into the army.
● A different range of rights, however, may have no legal substance but only exist as moral
claims. The simplest example of this is a promise. A promise, freely and rationally made,
invests one person with a moral obligation to fulfil its terms, and so grants the other party
the right that it should be fulfilled. Unless the promise takes the form of a legally binding
contract, it is enforced by moral considerations alone. It is, quite simply, the fact that it is
freely made that creates the expectation that a promise will be, and should be, fulfilled.
● In most cases, however, moral rights are based, rather, on their content. In other words,
moral rights are more commonly ‘ideal’ rights, which bestow on a person a benefit that
they need or deserve. Moral rights therefore reflect what a person should have, from the
 perspective of a particular ethical or religious system.
● The danger with moral rights is, however, that they may become impossibly vague and
degenerate into little more than an expression of what is morally desirable.

Theories of Rights
● Various theories regarding origin and justification of rights can be classified as:
. Natural theory
. Legal theory
. Conservative theory
. Libertarian theory
. Communitarian theory
. Multicultural theory.
Natural Theory of Rights
● This is the oldest theory of rights and has two traditions in it.
○ The first tradition belongs to the social contract propounded by John Locke .
○ The second tradition is called as the teleological and its main proponent was
Thomas Paine.
Social contract tradition:
● Essence of theory of natural rights is to limit the power of the state. The concept of
natural right is of modern times. We saw the ideas in American war of independence and
the French revolution.
● The theory of natural rights was in contradiction to the theory of divine rights of
medieval times.
○ According to it King had the absolute authority and people had no rights against the
king or absolute powers of state.
○ So the natural rights tradition as propounded by Locke talks about the natural rights
of man in which state has no absolute rights.
○ Government is a trust and people are trustees. Government can’t go against the
wishes of the people. If it does so, people have a right to revolt.
○ Locke held that right to life, liberty and property are the natural rights. Thus,
Lockean conception of state is of minimal state which must protect or recognize
individual rights and its only, task is to protect those rights and such rights are right
to life, property and liberty.
● In the social contract tradition, origin of rights is in intuition or reason rather than in any
institution or state.
○ The proponents of these rights hold that people inherit certain rights from the
natural law and before they come to live in the society, whether the civil or political
society or state, they used to live in the ‘state of nature’.
 ○ In this ‘state of nature’, they enjoyed certain natural rights in the words of Locke,
like right to life, right to liberty and property. Therefore, they argued that society and
state must recognize these rights which are not something, that is, recognized by
the society and state. But it is something, which individuals enjoyed in his ‘state of
nature’.
● Thus, it was Locke who tried to demonstrate how, natural rights, that is rights derived from
natural law i.e. reason could form the basis of the principles of governance. However,
many scholars and theorists, have criticized this natural right as being imaginary or
excessively, individualistic. Because it focuses on the individual as a self- defining
autonomous subject and ‘a historical’. There is no historical evidence to prove that there
was a ‘state of nature’.

Teleological tradition:
● Teleology means the doctrine of final causes. It signifies the view that any developments
are due to the purpose or design that is served by them. The teleological view of rights,
therefore, seeks to relate the rights of man with the purpose of human life. These rights do
not depend on any institutional arrangements, but ensue from the very nature of man and
serve the purpose of his life. These are, therefore, natural rights. It is a commonsense
based approach.
● They are a critic of social contract [Link] calls it illogical. Paine rejected the
doctrine of the social contract as it was ‘eternally binding, and hence a clog on the
wheel of progress’.
○ He asks that how can we bind next generation by the contract of a previous
generation. He insisted that every generation should be free to think and act for
itself. But rights to ‘liberty, property, security and resistance of oppression’,
which are the proud possessions of man in civil society, derive their sanction from
the natural rights’-existing in the individual’.
● Thus teleological tradition gives the end of meni.e objective or purpose of man. It is to live
with dignity and therefore some rights are essential to live with human dignity. Natural
rights are claimed to be eternal and immutable. But, in actual practice, they are capable of
immense variations. In short, the concept of natural rights is a subjective concept. Their
character depends on the views and values of the class which grasps, interprets, and
articulates them.

Theory of Legal Rights

● It is associated with the ideas of Hobbes andBentham. They are utilitarian’s and thus
prefer order over liberty. The theory of legal rights holds that all rights of man depend on
the state for their existence. There can be no right in the proper sense of the term unless it
is so recognized by the state. According to this theory,
 ○ no rights are absolute,
○ nor are any rights inherent in man as such.
◆ So state is the source of rights.
● Natural rights are not rights but they are power, as in the absence of state in the state of
nature, might become right. Thus, only when state comes into existence, people can enjoy
rights.
● This implies:
. in the first place, that there are no rights prior to the state, because they come
into existence with the state itself.
. secondly, it is the state which declares the law and thereby guarantees and
enforces rights—no rights can exist beyond the legal framework provided by the
state; and
. finally, as the law may change from time to time, the substance of rights also
changes there with—there can be no ‘fixed’ rights in any society, not to speak of
eternal or universal rights.
Bentham rejects the doctrine of natural rights as unreal and ill-founded. He calls natural rights
as nonsense upon stilts. Entire natural rights theory has no ground and only source of rights is
[Link] to Bentham Natural rights are terroristic language. It creates terror because if
we demand rights from state which it is unable to provide, it will result into anarchy and
[Link] condemns natural rights as an invention of fanatics, which are dogmatic and
unintelligible, devoid of reasoning. He calls them as [Link] is thus evident that the theory of
legal rights was advanced with a focus on political reality and to repudiate the imaginative
character of natural rights theory

Conservative Theory of Rights

● It holds that rights are the product of a long historical process. They differ from state to
state and from time to time because of the different levels of historical development of
society. Rights grow out of custom which stabilized through usage in several generations.
● This theory originated in eighteenth centuryconservative political thought. Its upholders
defended evolutionary change and deprecated revolution. At best, they supported a
revolution inspired by the established order of society.
○ Edmund Burke ,the greatest champion of historical theory of rights, criticized the
French Revolution (1789) for it was provoked by a conception of abstract rights of
man—liberty, equality, fraternity.
○ On the contrary, he glorified the English Revolution (1688) which sought to
reassert the customary rights that Englishmen had enjoyed from very early days,
and which had found expression in such documents as the Magna Carta (1215), the
Petition of Right (1628), etc.
 ● Thus, for them, customs and traditions are the source of rights and not nature and law.
Rights rooted in customs are reality and the rest of the rights are an illusion. The state has
only to recognize those rights of men which have already come into vogue through long-
standing usage and custom.
Liberation Theory of Rights
● Presently this theory comes closest to natural rights theory and has given the strongest
justification of absolute right to [Link] theory of rights which talks about
individuals, his welfare and happiness which must be given primacy over the welfare and
happiness of collectives or communities.
○ So, the libertarian conception gives primacy to individuals, his welfare and
happiness. An individual, here, is understood as a self-defining, autonomous
individual who is independent and above the society or collectivity.
○ They argue about giving primacy to the welfare and happiness of individuals over
the collectives or communities. This argument is in response to the egalitarianism,
multi- culturalism or the communitarian arguments about equality, rights, and
justice.
● The prominent champion of the libertarian theory of rights in contemporary times is
Robert Nozick. His book, Anarchy State and Utopia was published after John Rawls,
Theory of Justice.
○ This book is a libertarian reply to the egalitarian theory of Rawls. Rawls’s conception
of justice is responded to by this text of Robert Nozick called Anarchy State and
Utopia, where he defended the right to property and in no circumstances, if
property is acquired justly, it should be influenced upon or taken away for the re-
distributional purposes.
○ Rawls in this book, tried to reconcile the concerns of equality and community with
the demands and concerns of liberty, and development of the individuals.
● In response, to Rawls theory, Nozick argued that everyone has certain rights, such as
property rights which are absolute.
○ He argued against the infringement of the right to property of individuals in the
name of collective goods or welfare. His conception of justice is also called the
‘entitlement theory of justice’.
○ So, if individuals, acquire his or her property or if such acquiring is based on just
principle or through just means, then, it gives the individual certain entitlements
which cannot be taken away in the name of larger good or collective good. He gives
two ways, in which wealth can be legitimately, or justly, acquired by the individuals.
● First, he argued that a person who acquires the property in accordance, with the principle
of justice at that point, is entitled to that property.
○ So, the individual’s entitlement to property is based on this principle, whether he or
she has acquired that property through legitimate means, or not, and if such,
 ○

acquiring is based on legitimate or just means, then he or she is entitled to that

property.
● The second principle of acquiring property is that if, a person has acquired that property
through legitimate transfer from someone who is the rightful owner of that property.
○ So, if someone, who is the rightful owner of property and if he or she, transfers that
property to other individuals, then the other individual is entitled to that property.
Because it is, transferred to him or her, by someone, who is the rightful owner of
that property.
○ These are the two basic criteria of acquiring property which Nozick talks about and
any other criteria by which property is acquired, he considered that as unjust.
● So, Nozick, wanted to give primacy to the liberty and individual autonomy or freedom
without any consideration to the re-distributional aspect or equalizing factor that is,
argued by many egalitarian theorists and scholars. He wanted individuals to be given
maximum liberty, regardless of its consequences on the collective welfare or economic
implications of such liberty.

Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously

● Utilitarian’s argue that there is sufficient grounds to curtail or limit the rights of
individuals, if such limitations or curtailment is in the benefit of larger good or common
good of the society or humanity.
○ According to utilitarianism fundamental basis to determine the public policy is utility.
What government should do or not do is to be determined by the principle of utility.
○ It is determined by greatest happiness of the greatest numbers. This is a
majoritarian approach, and it will ignore the interest of a few who are non-
dominant.
● Dworkin gives his theory of rights in criticism to utilitarianism. Ronald Dworkin argued
about the significance or inalienability of rights in the sense, he wants those scholars to
take rights seriously, as the name suggests.
○ So, a right is not something, which can be compromised or tradeoff between other
kinds of goods or goods for the humanity. But rights are something which is
considered inalienable and very essential for the growth of individuals. It cannot be
traded off in some other goods or moral political values.
● In this essay, ‘Taking Rights Seriously’,philosopher and constitutional lawyer Ronald
Dworkin, argued, ‘rights are trumps. By this phrase ‘rights are trumps’, he meant that the
basic rights must take precedence over other norms, including, the interests or welfare of
the whole community or society.
○ So, there are certain fundamental rights which must be given primacy, to any other
goods that may be society collectively is desirable.
○ In other words, the rights are the possessions of individuals which cannot be taken
away or which cannot be traded off with some other goods.
 ○ Rights, are therefore, individual possessions which cannot be violated simply,
because such violations benefit other individuals or society.
● In Ronald Dworkin’s conception of rights is something, which is the possession of
individual which cannot be violated, even if, such violation is in the interest of other
individuals or groups of individuals or even for the good of society or community.
○ In that sense, his conception of rights is considered as inevitable or essential
possession of individuals which must not be taken away or infringed upon for the
sake of other goods or goods for the whole society.
● This understanding of rights is based on those foundational or constitutional notions of
rights which are used by the courts to override legislation contrary, to these rights, even if,
such legislations democratically, endorse or claims to serve the public good.
○ Here, we need to understand, we can take the example of Indian constitution. So,
Parliament is empowered to enact legislation in the service of people or for the
benefit of people.
○ In enacting such legislation, it cannot violate certain principles of the constitution or
certain rights given to the individual by the constitution.
○ If it does so, then such person or the members of the society, may request the
court, that means, supreme court or the high court which then, can review the
legislation enacted by the Parliament or duly, enacted by the Parliament.
○ And then, it decides, how far that enactment is in contrary to the principles of
constitution or violate, the rights protected in the constitution. And so far, it violates
or limits those enactments or legislation which can be nullified by the constitution.
We are talking about reviewing a Parliament Act or legislation through the
constitutional mechanisms or principles.
● The conception of rights as argued by Dworkin is about such kinds of rights, where those
rights cannot be taken away, even by the Parliamentary legislation in the name of serving
the common good. Thus, rights, for Dworkin are very essential for the growth of
individuals.

Communitarian Theory of Rights

● Communitarians regard rights or justice as important for the progress and development of
individuals and society. Like libertarians, communitarians equally, regard rights and justice
as very significant for the growth of individuals and society. However, they criticized, first
the ‘a historical’ and external criteria which is applied by the liberals, to criticize the actual
and everyday lived realities of communities in society. So, they want this discourse on
rights should be sensitive to the actual lived realities of different communities in society
and not having a kind of hypothetical, abstract or ‘a historical’ assumption about certain
rights.
● In the natural right theorists or the social contract predictions, we have seen how,
individual is assumed to be independent and autonomous of society and his or her
●

community. But in the actual lived reality, individual is always, embedded in his or her
community. However, the libertarian or liberal takes ‘a historical’ or abstract understanding
of individuals.
● They criticized not the universality, or the emphasis on justice, but the liberal conception
of individual. For the communitarians, individual is not an abstract, category or entity, but
is deeply, embedded in his or her social and cultural community. And if, that is so, one kind
of understanding of individuals as self- defining, autonomous individual is challenged and
criticized by the communitarians which believed that individual is embedded in his or her
social and cultural community. And that embeddedness gives a certain worldview which
defines the welfare to an individual.
● In the liberal conception, individual well-being and happiness is seen as independent and
autonomous of his or her community. Whereas, communitarians, argue that individuals
make sense of and enjoy his or her well-being or happiness in his or her community.
● Therefore, they argue that while allocating rights to individuals, we should also, take into
account his social and cultural backgrounds. In other words, the liberal conception wants
certain rights to be given to everyone universally, where there is no difference or
differentiation between two sets of individuals.
● However, communitarians, argues about granting certain rights to individuals not because
he is regarded as autonomous or self-defining individual, but because he or she belongs
to a certain community. The membership to that community should also, entitled that
individual to have certain differential rights.
● Michael Sandel in his book, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, argues for the
abandonment of the liberal notion of politics of rights and go for the politics of common
good.
● These are some of the flaws of liberal premises which regards individual as a unit and
therefore, the rights should be distributed based on understanding that the society is
constitutive of individuals and individual has their own rights and sense of good. There are
no collective or shared goals which can be defined or applicable to everyone in the
society. Michael Sandel, questions such kind of argument in liberalism.
● Michael Walzer is another such communitarian scholar, who argued that very quest for a
universal theory of rights is misguided. So, for Michael Walzer, the best way to identify, the
rights and goods is to find out, how a particular community understands the value of social
good.
● For Walzer, the good or social good is something, which is socially, constituted. It cannot
be decided ‘a priory’ or through philosophical argumentation or counter argumentation,
but society together, or communities together, constitute what is shared and what they
value as the social goods. In this way, for Walzer, rights and justice are more about cultural
interpretations, than about philosophical arguments
● He argued that shared principles of rights and justice require complex equality, that is, a
 ●
system or distribution which does not try to equalize all goods, like libertarian and those
who believed in the equality of outcome. But it seeks, to ensure that inequalities in one
sphere do not permeate into another sphere. That is, what Michael Walzer argued about
the first social constitution of good and second, it should be based on participation or on
the beliefs of every member in society. And society, thus, must not ensure to equalize the
distribution of good. But it must ensure that inequality in one sphere must not influence or
permeates in the other sphere of life, and that is how, he argued about differential or
differentiated rights, depending upon different conceptions of social goods by different
communities

Multicultural Perspective on Rights

● One of the biggest challenges of liberal democracies in contemporary times is to reconcile
between the ideal of equality on the one hand and social, economic, and cultural
differences of the community, on the other hand. There is an urge to equalize, to give
everyone equal access, to treat everyone equally, but there is a simultaneous presence or
existence of socio-economic and cultural differences.
● When a liberal state follows a universal or uniform approach to re-distribute, it does not
understand the differential needs of different individuals belonging to actual and different
communities in the society.
● Multiculturalists say that Universal citizenship is color blindness. There cannot be one size
fit all solutions for a multicultural society. The difference blind approach to rights is
insensitive to the differential needs of the individuals and communities. So, they argue, for
group rights which should be recognized for ethnic groups and national minorities. Thus,
we see an influence of communitarians on the multiculturalists.
● Will Kymlicka calls for special rights to national minorities. He creates hierarchy of rights
such as self government,special rights, polyethnic rights etc. on the basis of whether a
community is of refugees or immigrants or of national minorities etc. Will Kymlicka, argues
about giving special representation, or more autonomy, or to give rights based on their
language, and giving ownership to lands. In that way, the condition of minorities or national
minorities can be protected from encroachment and majority communities.
● Similarly, Bhikhu Parekh, argues that in a multi-cultural society, there exists a number of
cultural, linguistic and religious communities which generally, demand various kinds of
rights which are not possible to be accommodated within the liberal jurisprudence of
rights based on individual rights. Thus, the demands of different communities are not
possible to be accommodated within this liberal jurisprudence of rights. Parekh gives the
‘Harm principle’. According to it ,as long as certain right does not harm to others it could
be granted to minorities. For example wearing scarf or declaring holidays on Friday instead
of Sundays for Muslim community.

Human Rights
 ● It can be argued that the idea or premise of human rights discourse is based on the
principle of every individual having same or equal moral worth. Therefore, they have
certain rights which are inalienable or cannot be differentiated on the basis of their birth,
class, caste, religion, and [Link] human rights concept is essentially a liberal
discourse as it espouses Rationalism and Universalism i.e. Man is rational and all men are
rational and hence are morally equal.
● So, human rights are based on the principle that every individual has certain basic rights,
recognized and protected simply, by virtue of him or her being a human. There are no
other criteria required for the protection of these rights. These rights are guaranteed,
recognized, and must be protected simply, because a person is human-being and not
because he or she is a member of any particular community The premise of these rights
are based not because of the individual is a member of a particular community, but
because that individual or that person is member of humanity, or more precisely, he is a
human-being.
● Human rights are moral rights and aspirations. They are not claims and are just
entitlements. They were expounded in the backdrop of world war two. Where Hitler
symbolized majoritarianism and fascism was mobocracy, the idea of human rights was to
protect the non-dominant sections of society.A duty has been cast upon states to protect
the human rights of the individuals and the international community acts as a guarantor of
human rights.
● The human rights discourse transcends those boundaries of nation and state, and includes
every single individual on the planet. The human rights discourse, tries to include within its
fold different communities, races, religions and other kinds of communities, and groups
within its fold.
Justification of Human Rights
● Justification of human rights can be traced to
○ Natural rights tradition as found in Locke and Jack Donnelly
○ Dignity tradition as found in Kant and Alan Gewirth.
Natural rights tradition:
● Donnelly’s believe in the idea that through an engagement with liberalism it is possible to
discern a normative conceptualization of human rights that eschew the time/space
complex.(possibility of universalism).
Human dignity tradition:
● Alan Gewirth states that the relations between human rights and human dignity are many
and complex but one relation is primary: human rights are based upon or derived from
human [Link] is because humans have dignity that they have human rights.
Characteristics of Human Rights:
● Human Rights are Universal:
 ○ Human rights are universal because everyone is born with and possesses the same
rights, regardless of where they live, their gender or race, or their religious, cultural,
or ethnic background. The universality of human rights is encompassed in the words
of Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “All human beings are
born free and equal in dignity and rights.” They are not a monopoly of any
privileged class of people. They are universal in nature, without consideration, and
without exception. They are inherent in all individuals irrespective of their caste,
creed, religion, sex, and nationality. Human rights are enforceable without a national
border.
● Human Rights are Inherent:
○ Human Rights are inherent because they are not granted by any person or authority.
Human rights do not have to be bought, earned, or inherited; they belong to people
simply because they are human.
● Human Rights are Fundamental:
○ Human Rights are fundamental rights because, without them, the life and dignity of
man will be meaningless.
● Human Rights are Imprescriptible:
○ Human Rights do not prescribe and cannot be lost even if a man fails to use or
assert them, even by a long passage of time.
● Human Rights are Inalienable:
○ Human rights are conferred on an individual due to the very nature of his existence.
They are inherent in all individuals irrespective of their caste, creed, religion, sex
and nationality. Human rights are conferred to an individual even after his death.
The different rituals in different religions bear testimony to this fact. Human rights
are inalienable. Human Rights are inalienable because: they cannot be rightfully
taken away from a free individual and they cannot be given away or be forfeited.
They should not be taken away, except in specific situations and according to due
process. For example, the right to liberty may be restricted if a person is found
guilty of a crime by a court of law.
● Human Rights are Indivisible:
○ Human Rights are not capable of being divided. They cannot be denied even when
other rights have already been enjoyed. Irrespective of their relation with civil,
cultural, economic, political, or social issues, human rights are inherent to the
dignity of every human person. Consequently, all human rights have equal status,
and cannot be positioned in a hierarchical order. Denial of one right invariably
impedes the enjoyment of other rights. Thus, the right of everyone to an adequate
standard of living (say right of health or right of education) cannot be compromised
at the expense of other rights.
● Human Rights are Essential and Necessary:
 ○ In the absence of human rights, the moral, physical, social, and spiritual welfare of
an individual is impossible. Human rights are also essential as they provide suitable
conditions for the material and moral upliftment of the people. Human rights are
necessary for the fulfillment of the purpose of human life.
● Human Rights are in Connection with Human Dignity:
○ All individuals are equal as human beings and by virtue of the inherent dignity of
each human person. There should not be any discrimination on the grounds of race,
colour, ethnicity, gender, age, language, sexual orientation, religion, political or other
opinion, national, social or geographical origin, disability, property, birth or other
status. Human dignity should be maintained.
● Human Rights are Interdependent and Interrelated:
○ Human Rights are interdependent because the fulfilment or exercise of one cannot
be had without the realization of the other. The fulfilment of one right often
depends, wholly or in part, upon the fulfilment of others.
● Human Rights are Irrevocable:
○ Human rights are irrevocable. They cannot be taken away by any power or authority
because these rights originate with the social nature of man in the society of human
beings, and they belong to a person simply because he is a human being. No
government has the power to curtail or take away the rights which are sacrosanct,
inviolable, and immutable.
● Human Rights are Participative and Inclusive:
○ All people have the right to participate in and access information relating to the
decision making processes that affect their lives and well-being.
● Human Rights are Never Absolute:
○ Man is a social animal, and he lives in a civic society, which always put certain
restrictions on the enjoyment of his rights and freedoms.
● Human Rights are Dynamic:
○ Human rights go on expanding and changing with socio-eco-cultural and political
developments within the State. Judges must interpret laws in such ways as are in
tune with the changed social values.
● Human Rights Limit State Power:
○ States and other duty-bearers are answerable for the observance of human rights.
In this regard, they must comply with the legal norms and standards enshrined in
international human rights instruments. So human rights limit the state’s power.
● Generations of Human Rights:
○ When human rights are being discussed, they are often divided up into three
categories called generations. A reflection of the three generations of human rights
can be seen in the popular phrase of the French Revolution: liberté, egalité,
fraternité. These generations of human rights were first formally established by
 Karel Vesak, a Czech jurist, in 1979. This division of the types of human rights helps
improve conversations about rights, especially those involving legislation and the
role that governments play in human rights.
Generations of Rights
● Louis B. Sohn classified human rights into four generations which covers civil and
political rights, economic, social, and cultural rights, collective rights and subjective rights.
○ The Human Rights of First Generation (Civil and political rights)
○ The Human Rights of Second Generation (Economic, social and cultural rights)
○ The Human Rights of Third Generation (Collective rights)
○ The Human Rights of Fourth Generation (Subjective rights)
The Human Rights of First Generation-Liberty
● The human rights of the first generation are civil and political rights of the people. Civil
rights are related to the right to life and personal liberty which includes, right to life,
personal liberty, security, freedom of speech and expression, worship etc. Political rights
are the rights which allow the people to participate in government actions such as the right
to an election.
● Political rights are arising out when there is a clash between people and the government.
These rights are essential to every individual to reduce government arbitrary actions.
● Civil and political rights together are known as “Liberty Oriented Human Rights” and they
are also called negative rights because they protect people from excesses of the state.
The first generation of human rights speaks about various rights and its importance, it has
been incorporated in different Constitutions of various states.
● The first-generation human rights were also incorporated in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, 1948 from Article 3 to 21. Also in the International covenant on civil and
political rights 1966, American and African instruments of 1969 and 1981, the European
Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom 1950.
The Human Rights of Second Generation-Équality
● The second generation of human rights are socio-economic and cultural rights includes
right to work, right to education, freedom of association, right to insurance for sickness
and old age etc.
● This generation of human rights guarantees the right to equality and fulfilment of minimum
necessities to live as a human being. These rights are based on the availability of
resources and these rights impose duties on the government to fulfil them for the
betterment of individuals, hence it would be called “red rights”.(inspired by communism).
● These rights impose positive obligations on the state, hence they are called positive rights.
The Social, economic, cultural and rights of minorities together are known as “Security
Oriented Human Rights” because they provide basic security in the life of the people.
Also, if there is an absence of these rights the existing human beings will be in danger.
 These rights are incorporated from Article 22 to 28 in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, 1948, also in the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights,
1966.
The Human Rights of Third Generation-Fraternity
● The third generation of human rights is collective rights. These rights originated in the
20th century known as development-oriented human rights. These rights include
environmental rights such as the right to air, water, food, natural resources, pollution-free
environment, and other gifts of nature. These rights empower individuals to participate in
the all-round development of the country.
● According to Louis B. Sohn, every individual belongs to a community like family, religious
communities, social or political communities etc. The international law recognizes the
collective rights of the individuals who are grouped into a larger group, those rights can be
exercised jointly by the people and nations.
● The right to self-determination, right to development, right to peace and solidarity, right to
economic and social development, right to a healthy environment, right to natural
resources, right to communicate, right to participate in cultural heritage, right to
intergenerational equity and sustainability etc. are the third-generation human rights.
These are also called Green Rights. The implementation of these rights is based on
international cooperation; therefore these rights are called solidarity rights.
● According to Karen Vesak, “The third generationof human rights refers to the fraternity or
brotherhood. This category of rights is based on the sense of solidarity, which is essential
for the realization of the major concern of the international community such as peace,
development and environment”.
● The third generation of human rights expressed in various international documents such as
the Stockholm Declaration of the United Nation Conference on Human Environment 1972,
the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992 and other laws.
The Human Rights of Fourth Generation
● The fourth-generation human rights linked to the intergenerational justice or the rights of
future generations. This category includes rights related to genetic engineering.
● The human genome, genetic manipulation, vital fertilization, human embryos, euthanasia,
and eugenics are the activities which can generate complicated legal issues with ethical,
moral and religious values. Therefore, the European Council opinion to member states to
adopt principles which cover the relationship between genetic engineering and human
rights so that the right to life and dignity can be understood as a rift over genetic
characteristics of the individuals.

Politics of Human Rights

● Human rights are grounded on a liberal discourse. It is seen as a purely western construct.
Developing societies and societies in Global south see the Universality, equality etc. of
●

Human rights as a western way of ‘cultural imperialism’. Thus, in UNHRC conference

certain politicians of Southeast asian nations held that Human rights are another way of
imposing hegemony of the west and thus they gave the idea of ASIAN VALUES.
● In contrast to the western emphasis on individual and his or her exclusive rights, these
Asian leaders have argued that ‘Asian value’, this term is not homogeneous, within it there
is a lot of difference or [Link] argued that the ‘Asian value’ give priority to
the community lives rather than individuals, social order, respect for authority, general
welfare, loyalty to family, state, and nation. That is the kind of response to the western
focus on individuals and his or her exclusive [Link] rights and democracy are
western [Link] idea of human rights is based on the values very different from
Asian values and not suited to Asian [Link] western values emphasize on
individual,equality and liberty etc. the eastern values are communitarian ,hierarchy and
[Link], they argue that in these societies, historically and culturally, their sense of
welfare and happiness is constituted very differently, on different sets of values which are
not always, understood or appropriately, comprehended by the western theorists or
commentators.
In many Asian societies (e.g., China, India, Southeast Asia), there is a growing
critique of Western individualism.
Western political thought is seen as overly focused on the autonomous individual,
which some Asians view as self-destructive when applied to collective [Link] is
a renewed emphasis on “Asian values”, which promote community living,
collective well-being, and social harmony alongside individual development.

Core Asian Values (as identified by Mahathir Mohamad, based on David

Hitchcock’s survey):
1. An orderly society
2. Societal harmony
3. Accountability of public officials
4. Openness to new ideas
5. Freedom of expression
6. Respect for authority

These values reflect a balance between individual rights and social obligations,
emphasizing community cohesion and respect for structures.

● The comparable values held by Americans are:

○ freedom of expression;
○ personal freedom;
○ the rights of the individual;
○ open debate;
○ thinking for oneself;
○ the accountability of public officials.

Core Arguments of the ‘Asian Values’ Perspective:

1. Moral Decadence of the West:
• Lee Kuan Yew: Criticizes excessive individualism in the West (e.g., in the
USA), where individuals feel free to “behave or misbehave as they please.”
2. Cultural Justification for Human Rights Interpretation:
• Joseph Chan: Argues that declarations of human rights are vague and
subject to moral and political interpretation.
• This ambiguity allows Asian states to develop alternate understandings
of human rights, grounded in their own moral and cultural traditions.
3. Philosophical Foundations:
• Cultural Relativism: Argues that values and norms are context-specific
and no culture’s morality is inherently superior.
• Communitarianism: Prioritizes the community over the individual,
stressing social cohesion.
• Multiculturalism: Acknowledges diversity and encourages respect for
differing cultural practices.
4. Cultural Relativism – In Detail:
• Every culture has its own context for morality, politics, law.
• There is no universal standard of right/wrong or good/evil.
• Promotes tolerance, but also justifies controversial practices (e.g.,
genital cutting, authoritarianism).
• Seen as a reaction to Western-led universalism.
5. Critics of Cultural Relativism / Asian Values:
• Michael Ignatieff: Says cultural relativism is often used by authoritarian
regimes to legitimize repression.
• Amartya Sen: Argues that ‘Asian values’ are misused to justify
authoritarianism and suppress dissent.
• Jack Donnelly:
• Recognizes that all cultures have duty-based systems preserving
dignity.
 • But these are not equivalent to human rights.
• Human rights should be universal but adapted through cross-cultural
dialogue, not rejected outright.

Dworkin on Rights
● Dworkin’s task is to explain what is involved in taking rights seriously. He maintains that
people who believe there are moral rights “in the strong sense” are committed to believing
that government should tolerate law-breaking in some cases, namely, when laws conflict
with rights.
● Distinctions: Most of the rights that we talk about can be broken down into separate
elements. These include:
○ Claims: someone else has a duty corresponding to the right.
○ Privileges or liberties: the person with the right lacks a duty.
○ Powers: the person with the right has the ability to change rights and duties.
○ Immunities: others lack the ability to change the rights and duties of the person
with the right.
● The familiar rights that we began with combine these elements in various ways.
● Dworkin’s “rights in the strong sense” are claims or claim-rights (the terms are used
interchangeably). His “rights in the weak sense”are liberties or privileges.
Taking rights seriously
● Taking rights seriously, according to Dworkin, means that the normal justification for
government action is not good enough when the action might infringe on rights.
● But how should courts or other government officials resolve cases in which it is not clear
whether a government action would infringe on individual rights? Dworkin argues that it
will not do to balance society’s interests against those of the person whose rights will be
infringed. That would be to use the normal justification for government action.
Society’s rights
● Dworkin argues that a society that takes rights seriously will not try to balance individual
rights against society’s rights. The point was that a society that worked in this way would
always favor the society over the individual and that, Dworkin claimed, would not take
individual rights seriously.

eBooks
Prime
LOGIN
 ● The concept of rights is, politically less contentious than equality or social justice.
However, there is far less agreement about the grounds on which these rights are based,
who should possess them, and which ones they should have.
● The concept of rights or ‘human rights’, originates from the voice of protest oppression
perpetrated by the dominant groups in society. Rights are meant to safeguard the
individual from the irresponsible and arbitrary use of power by the ruling class.
Concept of Rights
● Laski defines:
○ Rights as the conditions of social life without which no one can seek, in general, to
be at his best.
○ As the definition suggests,
. they are the conditions of social life and thus there cannot be any rights in the
state of nature, thus, nobody can seek to be at his best in the state of nature.
. Laski holds that rights are not concessions granted by the state. For men, to
be him, to own his own personality, to develop his own character requires
certain rights which must be recognized by the society or state. On the
contrary, they are superior to the state, because they provide for a standard
to judge the state itself. For since the State exists to make possible that
achievement, it is only by maintaining rights that its end may be secured.
. Rights, therefore, are prior to the State in the sense that, recognized or not,
they are that from which state’s validity is derived.
● Thus, rights are those claims which must be recognized by the society or state and the
recognition of those rights and protection of rights are considered as essential for the
individuals to develop fully, to be at himself or to be the best version of himself. This
discourse on rights is fundamental aspect of modern political philosophy.
● The conception of social life essentially entails a relationship between Rights and Duties.
When rights are erected on moral foundations they are essentially accompanied by duties.
So, rights are meaningless, if it does not invoke obligations or duties on the part of others.
● Person’s rights or claims or entitlements, necessarily, require other individuals or groups,
society, or the state to have certain obligations towards those individuals and similarly,
same individual must also, recognize the rights of others. Therefore, other rights become
one’s own obligation, to recognize or extend those rights to other individuals also. So,one
person’s rights or claims or entitlements are necessarily, another person’s obligations. So,
rights and duty must go hand in hand, but it is not equal to each other.
● The obligation is what you are obliged to do for others, for the society, state, and other
members in society. But rights are your due, your own entitlements or claims against other
members or society or the state. So, rights are those claims which individuals make
against, the state or society which needs to be secured by the law or constitution. Thus,
 there are broadly, speaking two kinds of rights. They are- legal and moral rights.
● Laski carefully points to their correlation.
○ “The possession of rights . . . does not mean the possession of claims that are
empty of all duties . . . Our rights are not independent of society, but inherent in it…
To provide for me the conditions which enable me to be my best self is to oblige me,
at the same time, to seek to be my best self. To protect me against attack from
others is to imply that I myself will desist from attacking others. “
○ The concept of rights postulates that the state as well as the individual shall pursue
the ideal objects of society. Accordingly, the duty of the individual is coextensive
with the duty of the state. If the state fails in its duty, it is the duty of the individual
to resist the state.
○ Moreover, as the rights of man are subservient to the common good, it is his duty to
contribute to the common good in exercise of his rights. A shared conception of a
collective end — a common good — is the basis of society’s existence, and is also
the basis of the individual’s existence as a moral agent. Hence, achieving the moral
end of man is dependent on the recognition of oneself as a purposeful agent who
can only progress within a society of other purposeful moral agents. This echoes
the Kantian idea that a fundamental element of rights is adherence to the
categorical imperative.
● Similarly, T H Green argues that we are entitled to rights because this enables us to
fulfil our moral agency, and thus, to contribute to the common good. The purpose of
rights should not be seen as a protection of the individual from social authorities, because
‘a right against society, as such, is an impossibility’. Green says “the human
consciousness postulates liberty’, Liberty involves rights; rights demand the state”.
● Thus rights become rights only when there is corresponding duty attached to [Link]
correlation between rights and duties also determine whether Rights are claims or a mere
entitlements. The claim versus entitlement debate is reflective of age old debate on legal
versus moral right.
● Rights, are said to have no meaning without duties and one person’s rights necessarily,
involves another person’s duties or vice versa. So, the rights and duties must go hand in
hand.
● The idea is the very formation of modern state which is based on certain assumptions and
one of the assumptions for the formation of the state is that it recognizes the individual
as a right bearing citizen or a member. Therefore, state has certain obligations to
recognize certain rights of individuals and also, it must protect those rights.
Some of the basic features of rights are:
● Rights are claims of individuals and it exists only, in a society, when others exist to
recognize those rights, and these are the products of social living.
● Rights are recognized by the society as common claims of all the members of that society.
 ● So, rights are rational and reasonable moral claims which individuals seek to get
recognized by the state and other members of the society.
● Rights are equally, available to every member of the community and not to a particular
member or a group of individuals or privileged members in the society. Rights if,
understood as claims, recognized by the society, then those rights are available to every
member of society and not to a selected few. However, if there are some differences or
some kinds of preferential treatment given to certain groups or individuals from certain
groups, then those differences or differential treatment must be duly, justified.
● The scope or set of rights constantly, keeps expanding and changing with the passage of
time and new rights are included, such as in India, we have a set of fundamental rights and
now, the right to education which was earlier not part of our fundamental rights is now,
added to it and regarded as the fundamental right.
● Rights are not absolute. There are always, some reasonable restrictions on the right
which are deemed essential for maintaining public health, security order and morality.
● Rights are inseparably, related to duties or obligations, and there is a close relationship
between the two. There is a kind of intimate connection between rights and obligation,
although, both are not same.
Claims versus Entitlement:
● The claims and entitlements enable the individuals to make certain choice, to do
something or to get something done or to not to do something. So, the rights have some
elements of choice, some elements of voluntarily action on the part of the individuals, it
enables and gives the individual his or her due in the society or being a member of that
society.
● However, all the claims or entitlements that individual may seek from the society, or the
state may not be necessarily, regarded as rights. For the claims and entitlements to be
regarded as rights, the society or state must recognize them. In other words, rights are
recognized as claims.
○ Claims are strong rights in the sense because there is corresponding duty or
responsibility on someone to give it to the possessor of the right. Claims are rights
one must have.
○ Entitlements on the other hand are weak rights. One may deserve it but there is no
corresponding obligation/duty on anyone to give it to the possessor of the
entitlement.
◆ For example right to food was a mere entitlement earlier but post the
enactment of food security bill, it is a claim because there is a duty cast upon
the state to provide certain minimum amount of food to the claimants.
● Similarly fundamental rights are claims and Human rights are entitlements.
Legal and moral rights:
● Legal rights are rights which are enshrined in law and are therefore enforceable through
 ●
the courts. They have been described as ‘positive’ rights, in that they are enjoyed or
upheld regardless of their moral content. For example, Fundamental rights.
● Legal rights extend over a broad range of legal relationships. A classic attempt to
categorize such rights was undertaken by Wesley Honfeld in Fundamental Legal
Conceptions (1923). Honfeld identified four types of legal right.
○ First, there are privileges or [Link] allow a person to do something
for instance, to use the public highway or not to do something or perform some
obligations.
○ Second, there are claim-rights, based on which another person owes another a
corresponding duty – for example, the right of one person not to be assaulted by
another.
○ Third, there are legal powers. These are best thought of as legal abilities,
empowering someone to do something – for example, the right to get married or
the right to vote.
○ Fourth, there are immunities, according to which one person can avoid being
subject to the power of another – for instance, the right of young, elderly, and
disabled people not to be drafted into the army.
● A different range of rights, however, may have no legal substance but only exist as moral
claims. The simplest example of this is a promise. A promise, freely and rationally made,
invests one person with a moral obligation to fulfil its terms, and so grants the other party
the right that it should be fulfilled. Unless the promise takes the form of a legally binding
contract, it is enforced by moral considerations alone. It is, quite simply, the fact that it is
freely made that creates the expectation that a promise will be, and should be, fulfilled.
● In most cases, however, moral rights are based, rather, on their content. In other words,
moral rights are more commonly ‘ideal’ rights, which bestow on a person a benefit that
they need or deserve. Moral rights therefore reflect what a person should have, from the
perspective of a particular ethical or religious system.
● The danger with moral rights is, however, that they may become impossibly vague and
degenerate into little more than an expression of what is morally desirable.
Theories of Rights
● Various theories regarding origin and justification of rights can be classified as:
. Natural theory
. Legal theory
. Conservative theory
. Libertarian theory
. Communitarian theory
. Multicultural theory.
Natural Theory of Rights
● This is the oldest theory of rights and has two traditions in it.
 ○ The first tradition belongs to the social contract propounded by John Locke .
○ The second tradition is called as the teleological and its main proponent was
Thomas Paine.
Social contract tradition:
● Essence of theory of natural rights is to limit the power of the state. The concept of
natural right is of modern times. We saw the ideas in American war of independence and
the French revolution.
● The theory of natural rights was in contradiction to the theory of divine rights of
medieval times.
○ According to it King had the absolute authority and people had no rights against the
king or absolute powers of state.
○ So the natural rights tradition as propounded by Locke talks about the natural rights
of man in which state has no absolute rights.
○ Government is a trust and people are trustees. Government can’t go against the
wishes of the people. If it does so, people have a right to revolt.
○ Locke held that right to life, liberty and property are the natural rights. Thus,
Lockean conception of state is of minimal state which must protect or recognize
individual rights and its only, task is to protect those rights and such rights are right
to life, property and liberty.
● In the social contract tradition, origin of rights is in intuition or reason rather than in any
institution or state.
○ The proponents of these rights hold that people inherit certain rights from the
natural law and before they come to live in the society, whether the civil or political
society or state, they used to live in the ‘state of nature’.
○ In this ‘state of nature’, they enjoyed certain natural rights in the words of Locke,
like right to life, right to liberty and property. Therefore, they argued that society and
state must recognize these rights which are not something, that is, recognized by
the society and state. But it is something, which individuals enjoyed in his ‘state of
nature’.
● Thus, it was Locke who tried to demonstrate how, natural rights, that is rights derived from
natural law i.e. reason could form the basis of the principles of governance. However,
many scholars and theorists, have criticized this natural right as being imaginary or
excessively, individualistic. Because it focuses on the individual as a self- defining
autonomous subject and ‘a historical’. There is no historical evidence to prove that there
was a ‘state of nature’.
Teleological tradition:
● Teleology means the doctrine of final causes. It signifies the view that any developments
are due to the purpose or design that is served by them. The teleological view of rights,
therefore, seeks to relate the rights of man with the purpose of human life. These rights do
 not depend on any institutional arrangements, but ensue from the very nature of man and
serve the purpose of his life. These are, therefore, natural rights. It is a commonsense
based approach.
● They are a critic of social contract [Link] calls it illogical. Paine rejected the
doctrine of the social contract as it was ‘eternally binding, and hence a clog on the
wheel of progress’.
○ He asks that how can we bind next generation by the contract of a previous
generation. He insisted that every generation should be free to think and act for
itself. But rights to ‘liberty, property, security and resistance of oppression’,
which are the proud possessions of man in civil society, derive their sanction from
the natural rights’-existing in the individual’.
● Thus teleological tradition gives the end of meni.e objective or purpose of man. It is to live
with dignity and therefore some rights are essential to live with human dignity. Natural
rights are claimed to be eternal and immutable. But, in actual practice, they are capable of
immense variations. In short, the concept of natural rights is a subjective concept. Their
character depends on the views and values of the class which grasps, interprets, and
articulates them.
Theory of Legal Rights
● It is associated with the ideas of Hobbes andBentham. They are utilitarian’s and thus
prefer order over liberty. The theory of legal rights holds that all rights of man depend on
the state for their existence. There can be no right in the proper sense of the term unless it
is so recognized by the state. According to this theory,
○ no rights are absolute,
○ nor are any rights inherent in man as such.
◆ So state is the source of rights.
● Natural rights are not rights but they are power, as in the absence of state in the state of
nature, might become right. Thus, only when state comes into existence, people can enjoy
rights.
● This implies:
. in the first place, that there are no rights prior to the state, because they come
into existence with the state itself.
. secondly, it is the state which declares the law and thereby guarantees and
enforces rights—no rights can exist beyond the legal framework provided by the
state; and
. finally, as the law may change from time to time, the substance of rights also
changes there with—there can be no ‘fixed’ rights in any society, not to speak of
eternal or universal rights.
● Bentham rejects the doctrine of natural rights as unreal and ill-founded. He calls natural
rights as nonsense upon stilts. Entire natural rights theory has no ground and only source
 ●

of rights is state.
○ According to Bentham Natural rights are terroristic language. It creates terror
because if we demand rights from state which it is unable to provide, it will result
into anarchy and chaos.
○ Bentham condemns natural rights as aninvention of fanatics, which are dogmatic
and unintelligible, devoid of reasoning. He calls them as chimeras.
● It is thus evident that the theory of legal rights was advanced with a focus on political
reality and to repudiate the imaginative character of natural rights theory.
Conservative Theory of Rights
● It holds that rights are the product of a long historical process. They differ from state to
state and from time to time because of the different levels of historical development of
society. Rights grow out of custom which stabilized through usage in several generations.
● This theory originated in eighteenth centuryconservative political thought. Its upholders
defended evolutionary change and deprecated revolution. At best, they supported a
revolution inspired by the established order of society.
○ Edmund Burke ,the greatest champion of historical theory of rights, criticized the
French Revolution (1789) for it was provoked by a conception of abstract rights of
man—liberty, equality, fraternity.
○ On the contrary, he glorified the English Revolution (1688) which sought to
reassert the customary rights that Englishmen had enjoyed from very early days,
and which had found expression in such documents as the Magna Carta (1215), the
Petition of Right (1628), etc.
● Thus, for them, customs and traditions are the source of rights and not nature and law.
Rights rooted in customs are reality and the rest of the rights are an illusion. The state has
only to recognize those rights of men which have already come into vogue through long-
standing usage and custom.
Liberation Theory of Rights
● Presently this theory comes closest to natural rights theory and has given the strongest
justification of absolute right to [Link] theory of rights which talks about
individuals, his welfare and happiness which must be given primacy over the welfare and
happiness of collectives or communities.
○ So, the libertarian conception gives primacy to individuals, his welfare and
happiness. An individual, here, is understood as a self-defining, autonomous
individual who is independent and above the society or collectivity.
○ They argue about giving primacy to the welfare and happiness of individuals over
the collectives or communities. This argument is in response to the egalitarianism,
multi- culturalism or the communitarian arguments about equality, rights, and
justice.
● The prominent champion of the libertarian theory of rights in contemporary times is
 ●
Robert Nozick. His book, Anarchy State and Utopia was published after John Rawls,
Theory of Justice.
○ This book is a libertarian reply to the egalitarian theory of Rawls. Rawls’s conception
of justice is responded to by this text of Robert Nozick called Anarchy State and
Utopia, where he defended the right to property and in no circumstances, if
property is acquired justly, it should be influenced upon or taken away for the re-
distributional purposes.
○ Rawls in this book, tried to reconcile the concerns of equality and community with
the demands and concerns of liberty, and development of the individuals.
● In response, to Rawls theory, Nozick argued that everyone has certain rights, such as
property rights which are absolute.
○ He argued against the infringement of the right to property of individuals in the
name of collective goods or welfare. His conception of justice is also called the
‘entitlement theory of justice’.
○ So, if individuals, acquire his or her property or if such acquiring is based on just
principle or through just means, then, it gives the individual certain entitlements
which cannot be taken away in the name of larger good or collective good. He gives
two ways, in which wealth can be legitimately, or justly, acquired by the individuals.
● First, he argued that a person who acquires the property in accordance, with the principle
of justice at that point, is entitled to that property.
○ So, the individual’s entitlement to property is based on this principle, whether he or
she has acquired that property through legitimate means, or not, and if such,
acquiring is based on legitimate or just means, then he or she is entitled to that
property.
● The second principle of acquiring property is that if, a person has acquired that property
through legitimate transfer from someone who is the rightful owner of that property.
○ So, if someone, who is the rightful owner of property and if he or she, transfers that
property to other individuals, then the other individual is entitled to that property.
Because it is, transferred to him or her, by someone, who is the rightful owner of
that property.
○ These are the two basic criteria of acquiring property which Nozick talks about and
any other criteria by which property is acquired, he considered that as unjust.
● So, Nozick, wanted to give primacy to the liberty and individual autonomy or freedom
without any consideration to the re-distributional aspect or equalizing factor that is,
argued by many egalitarian theorists and scholars. He wanted individuals to be given
maximum liberty, regardless of its consequences on the collective welfare or economic
implications of such liberty.
Dworkin: Taking Rights Seriously
● Utilitarian’s argue that there is sufficient grounds to curtail or limit the rights of
●
individuals, if such limitations or curtailment is in the benefit of larger good or common
good of the society or humanity.
○ According to utilitarianism fundamental basis to determine the public policy is utility.
What government should do or not do is to be determined by the principle of utility.
○ It is determined by greatest happiness of the greatest numbers. This is a
majoritarian approach, and it will ignore the interest of a few who are non-
dominant.
● Dworkin gives his theory of rights in criticism to utilitarianism. Ronald Dworkin argued
about the significance or inalienability of rights in the sense, he wants those scholars to
take rights seriously, as the name suggests.
○ So, a right is not something, which can be compromised or tradeoff between other
kinds of goods or goods for the humanity. But rights are something which is
considered inalienable and very essential for the growth of individuals. It cannot be
traded off in some other goods or moral political values.
● In this essay, ‘Taking Rights Seriously’,philosopher and constitutional lawyer Ronald
Dworkin, argued, ‘rights are trumps. By this phrase ‘rights are trumps’, he meant that the
basic rights must take precedence over other norms, including, the interests or welfare of
the whole community or society.
○ So, there are certain fundamental rights which must be given primacy, to any other
goods that may be society collectively is desirable.
○ In other words, the rights are the possessions of individuals which cannot be taken
away or which cannot be traded off with some other goods.
○ Rights, are therefore, individual possessions which cannot be violated simply,
because such violations benefit other individuals or society.
● In Ronald Dworkin’s conception of rights is something, which is the possession of
individual which cannot be violated, even if, such violation is in the interest of other
individuals or groups of individuals or even for the good of society or community.
○ In that sense, his conception of rights is considered as inevitable or essential
possession of individuals which must not be taken away or infringed upon for the
sake of other goods or goods for the whole society.
● This understanding of rights is based on those foundational or constitutional notions of
rights which are used by the courts to override legislation contrary, to these rights, even if,
such legislations democratically, endorse or claims to serve the public good.
○ Here, we need to understand, we can take the example of Indian constitution. So,
Parliament is empowered to enact legislation in the service of people or for the
benefit of people.
○ In enacting such legislation, it cannot violate certain principles of the constitution or
certain rights given to the individual by the constitution.
○ If it does so, then such person or the members of the society, may request the
 ○
court, that means, supreme court or the high court which then, can review the
legislation enacted by the Parliament or duly, enacted by the Parliament.
○ And then, it decides, how far that enactment is in contrary to the principles of
constitution or violate, the rights protected in the constitution. And so far, it violates
or limits those enactments or legislation which can be nullified by the constitution.
We are talking about reviewing a Parliament Act or legislation through the
constitutional mechanisms or principles.
● The conception of rights as argued by Dworkin is about such kinds of rights, where those
rights cannot be taken away, even by the Parliamentary legislation in the name of serving
the common good. Thus, rights, for Dworkin are very essential for the growth of
individuals.
Communitarian Theory of Rights
● Communitarians regard rights or justice as important for the progress and development of
individuals and society. Like libertarians, communitarians equally, regard rights and justice
as very significant for the growth of individuals and society. However, they criticized, first
the ‘a historical’ and external criteria which is applied by the liberals, to criticize the actual
and everyday lived realities of communities in society. So, they want this discourse on
rights should be sensitive to the actual lived realities of different communities in society
and not having a kind of hypothetical, abstract or ‘a historical’ assumption about certain
rights.
● In the natural right theorists or the social contract predictions, we have seen how,
individual is assumed to be independent and autonomous of society and his or her
community. But in the actual lived reality, individual is always, embedded in his or her
community. However, the libertarian or liberal takes ‘a historical’ or abstract understanding
of individuals.
● They criticized not the universality, or the emphasis on justice, but the liberal conception
of individual. For the communitarians, individual is not an abstract, category or entity, but
is deeply, embedded in his or her social and cultural community. And if, that is so, one kind
of understanding of individuals as self- defining, autonomous individual is challenged and
criticized by the communitarians which believed that individual is embedded in his or her
social and cultural community. And that embeddedness gives a certain worldview which
defines the welfare to an individual.
● In the liberal conception, individual well-being and happiness is seen as independent and
autonomous of his or her community. Whereas, communitarians, argue that individuals
make sense of and enjoy his or her well-being or happiness in his or her community.
● Therefore, they argue that while allocating rights to individuals, we should also, take into
account his social and cultural backgrounds. In other words, the liberal conception wants
certain rights to be given to everyone universally, where there is no difference or
differentiation between two sets of individuals.
 ● However, communitarians, argues about granting certain rights to individuals not because
he is regarded as autonomous or self-defining individual, but because he or she belongs
to a certain community. The membership to that community should also, entitled that
individual to have certain differential rights.
● Michael Sandel in his book, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, argues for the
abandonment of the liberal notion of politics of rights and go for the politics of common
good.
● These are some of the flaws of liberal premises which regards individual as a unit and
therefore, the rights should be distributed based on understanding that the society is
constitutive of individuals and individual has their own rights and sense of good. There are
no collective or shared goals which can be defined or applicable to everyone in the
society. Michael Sandel, questions such kind of argument in liberalism.
● Michael Walzer is another such communitarian scholar, who argued that very quest for a
universal theory of rights is misguided. So, for Michael Walzer, the best way to identify, the
rights and goods is to find out, how a particular community understands the value of social
good.
● For Walzer, the good or social good is something, which is socially, constituted. It cannot
be decided ‘a priory’ or through philosophical argumentation or counter argumentation,
but society together, or communities together, constitute what is shared and what they
value as the social goods. In this way, for Walzer, rights and justice are more about cultural
interpretations, than about philosophical arguments
● He argued that shared principles of rights and justice require complex equality, that is, a
system or distribution which does not try to equalize all goods, like libertarian and those
who believed in the equality of outcome. But it seeks, to ensure that inequalities in one
sphere do not permeate into another sphere. That is, what Michael Walzer argued about
the first social constitution of good and second, it should be based on participation or on
the beliefs of every member in society. And society, thus, must not ensure to equalize the
distribution of good. But it must ensure that inequality in one sphere must not influence or
permeates in the other sphere of life, and that is how, he argued about differential or
differentiated rights, depending upon different conceptions of social goods by different
communities.
Multicultural Perspective on Rights
● One of the biggest challenges of liberal democracies in contemporary times is to reconcile
between the ideal of equality on the one hand and social, economic, and cultural
differences of the community, on the other hand. There is an urge to equalize, to give
everyone equal access, to treat everyone equally, but there is a simultaneous presence or
existence of socio-economic and cultural differences.
● When a liberal state follows a universal or uniform approach to re-distribute, it does not
understand the differential needs of different individuals belonging to actual and different
 ●

communities in the society.

● Multiculturalists say that Universal citizenship is color blindness. There cannot be one size
fit all solutions for a multicultural society. The difference blind approach to rights is
insensitive to the differential needs of the individuals and communities. So, they argue, for
group rights which should be recognized for ethnic groups and national minorities. Thus,
we see an influence of communitarians on the multiculturalists.
● Will Kymlicka calls for special rights to national minorities. He creates hierarchy of rights
such as self government,special rights, polyethnic rights etc. on the basis of whether a
community is of refugees or immigrants or of national minorities etc. Will Kymlicka, argues
about giving special representation, or more autonomy, or to give rights based on their
language, and giving ownership to lands. In that way, the condition of minorities or national
minorities can be protected from encroachment and majority communities.
● Similarly, Bhikhu Parekh, argues that in a multi-cultural society, there exists a number of
cultural, linguistic and religious communities which generally, demand various kinds of
rights which are not possible to be accommodated within the liberal jurisprudence of
rights based on individual rights. Thus, the demands of different communities are not
possible to be accommodated within this liberal jurisprudence of rights. Parekh gives the
‘Harm principle’. According to it ,as long as certain right does not harm to others it could
be granted to minorities. For example wearing scarf or declaring holidays on Friday instead
of Sundays for Muslim community.
Human Rights
● It can be argued that the idea or premise of human rights discourse is based on the
principle of every individual having same or equal moral worth. Therefore, they have
certain rights which are inalienable or cannot be differentiated on the basis of their birth,
class, caste, religion, and [Link] human rights concept is essentially a liberal
discourse as it espouses Rationalism and Universalism i.e. Man is rational and all men are
rational and hence are morally equal.
● So, human rights are based on the principle that every individual has certain basic rights,
recognized and protected simply, by virtue of him or her being a human. There are no
other criteria required for the protection of these rights. These rights are guaranteed,
recognized, and must be protected simply, because a person is human-being and not
because he or she is a member of any particular community The premise of these rights
are based not because of the individual is a member of a particular community, but
because that individual or that person is member of humanity, or more precisely, he is a
human-being.
● Human rights are moral rights and aspirations. They are not claims and are just
entitlements. They were expounded in the backdrop of world war two. Where Hitler
symbolized majoritarianism and fascism was mobocracy, the idea of human rights was to
protect the non-dominant sections of society.A duty has been cast upon states to protect
 the human rights of the individuals and the international community acts as a guarantor of
human rights.
● The human rights discourse transcends those boundaries of nation and state, and includes
every single individual on the planet. The human rights discourse, tries to include within its
fold different communities, races, religions and other kinds of communities, and groups
within its fold.
Justification of Human Rights
● Justification of human rights can be traced to
○ Natural rights tradition as found in Locke and Jack Donnelly
○ Dignity tradition as found in Kant and Alan Gewirth.
Natural rights tradition:
● Donnelly’s believe in the idea that through an engagement with liberalism it is possible to
discern a normative conceptualization of human rights that eschew the time/space
complex.(possibility of universalism).
Human dignity tradition:
● Alan Gewirth states that the relations between human rights and human dignity are many
and complex but one relation is primary: human rights are based upon or derived from
human [Link] is because humans have dignity that they have human rights.
Characteristics of Human Rights:
● Human Rights are Universal:
○ Human rights are universal because everyone is born with and possesses the same
rights, regardless of where they live, their gender or race, or their religious, cultural,
or ethnic background. The universality of human rights is encompassed in the words
of Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “All human beings are
born free and equal in dignity and rights.” They are not a monopoly of any
privileged class of people. They are universal in nature, without consideration, and
without exception. They are inherent in all individuals irrespective of their caste,
creed, religion, sex, and nationality. Human rights are enforceable without a national
border.
● Human Rights are Inherent:
○ Human Rights are inherent because they are not granted by any person or authority.
Human rights do not have to be bought, earned, or inherited; they belong to people
simply because they are human.
● Human Rights are Fundamental:
○ Human Rights are fundamental rights because, without them, the life and dignity of
man will be meaningless.
● Human Rights are Imprescriptible:
○ Human Rights do not prescribe and cannot be lost even if a man fails to use or
 ○
assert them, even by a long passage of time.
● Human Rights are Inalienable:
○ Human rights are conferred on an individual due to the very nature of his existence.
They are inherent in all individuals irrespective of their caste, creed, religion, sex
and nationality. Human rights are conferred to an individual even after his death.
The different rituals in different religions bear testimony to this fact. Human rights
are inalienable. Human Rights are inalienable because: they cannot be rightfully
taken away from a free individual and they cannot be given away or be forfeited.
They should not be taken away, except in specific situations and according to due
process. For example, the right to liberty may be restricted if a person is found
guilty of a crime by a court of law.
● Human Rights are Indivisible:
○ Human Rights are not capable of being divided. They cannot be denied even when
other rights have already been enjoyed. Irrespective of their relation with civil,
cultural, economic, political, or social issues, human rights are inherent to the
dignity of every human person. Consequently, all human rights have equal status,
and cannot be positioned in a hierarchical order. Denial of one right invariably
impedes the enjoyment of other rights. Thus, the right of everyone to an adequate
standard of living (say right of health or right of education) cannot be compromised
at the expense of other rights.
● Human Rights are Essential and Necessary:
○ In the absence of human rights, the moral, physical, social, and spiritual welfare of
an individual is impossible. Human rights are also essential as they provide suitable
conditions for the material and moral upliftment of the people. Human rights are
necessary for the fulfillment of the purpose of human life.
● Human Rights are in Connection with Human Dignity:
○ All individuals are equal as human beings and by virtue of the inherent dignity of
each human person. There should not be any discrimination on the grounds of race,
colour, ethnicity, gender, age, language, sexual orientation, religion, political or other
opinion, national, social or geographical origin, disability, property, birth or other
status. Human dignity should be maintained.
● Human Rights are Interdependent and Interrelated:
○ Human Rights are interdependent because the fulfilment or exercise of one cannot
be had without the realization of the other. The fulfilment of one right often
depends, wholly or in part, upon the fulfilment of others.
● Human Rights are Irrevocable:
○ Human rights are irrevocable. They cannot be taken away by any power or authority
because these rights originate with the social nature of man in the society of human
beings, and they belong to a person simply because he is a human being. No
 government has the power to curtail or take away the rights which are sacrosanct,
inviolable, and immutable.
● Human Rights are Participative and Inclusive:
○ All people have the right to participate in and access information relating to the
decision making processes that affect their lives and well-being.
● Human Rights are Never Absolute:
○ Man is a social animal, and he lives in a civic society, which always put certain
restrictions on the enjoyment of his rights and freedoms.
● Human Rights are Dynamic:
○ Human rights go on expanding and changing with socio-eco-cultural and political
developments within the State. Judges must interpret laws in such ways as are in
tune with the changed social values.
● Human Rights Limit State Power:
○ States and other duty-bearers are answerable for the observance of human rights.
In this regard, they must comply with the legal norms and standards enshrined in
international human rights instruments. So human rights limit the state’s power.
● Generations of Human Rights:
○ When human rights are being discussed, they are often divided up into three
categories called generations. A reflection of the three generations of human rights
can be seen in the popular phrase of the French Revolution: liberté, egalité,
fraternité. These generations of human rights were first formally established by
Karel Vesak, a Czech jurist, in 1979. This division of the types of human rights helps
improve conversations about rights, especially those involving legislation and the
role that governments play in human rights.
Generations of Rights
● Louis B. Sohn classified human rights into four generations which covers civil and
political rights, economic, social, and cultural rights, collective rights and subjective rights.
○ The Human Rights of First Generation (Civil and political rights)
○ The Human Rights of Second Generation (Economic, social and cultural rights)
○ The Human Rights of Third Generation (Collective rights)
○ The Human Rights of Fourth Generation (Subjective rights)
The Human Rights of First Generation-Liberty
● The human rights of the first generation are civil and political rights of the people. Civil
rights are related to the right to life and personal liberty which includes, right to life,
personal liberty, security, freedom of speech and expression, worship etc. Political rights
are the rights which allow the people to participate in government actions such as the right
to an election.
● Political rights are arising out when there is a clash between people and the government.
These rights are essential to every individual to reduce government arbitrary actions.
 ● Civil and political rights together are known as “Liberty Oriented Human Rights” and they
are also called negative rights because they protect people from excesses of the state.
The first generation of human rights speaks about various rights and its importance, it has
been incorporated in different Constitutions of various states.
● The first-generation human rights were also incorporated in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, 1948 from Article 3 to 21. Also in the International covenant on civil and
political rights 1966, American and African instruments of 1969 and 1981, the European
Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom 1950.
The Human Rights of Second Generation-Équality
● The second generation of human rights are socio-economic and cultural rights includes
right to work, right to education, freedom of association, right to insurance for sickness
and old age etc.
● This generation of human rights guarantees the right to equality and fulfilment of minimum
necessities to live as a human being. These rights are based on the availability of
resources and these rights impose duties on the government to fulfil them for the
betterment of individuals, hence it would be called “red rights”.(inspired by communism).
● These rights impose positive obligations on the state, hence they are called positive rights.
The Social, economic, cultural and rights of minorities together are known as “Security
Oriented Human Rights” because they provide basic security in the life of the people.
Also, if there is an absence of these rights the existing human beings will be in danger.
These rights are incorporated from Article 22 to 28 in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, 1948, also in the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights,
1966.
The Human Rights of Third Generation-Fraternity
● The third generation of human rights is collective rights. These rights originated in the
20th century known as development-oriented human rights. These rights include
environmental rights such as the right to air, water, food, natural resources, pollution-free
environment, and other gifts of nature. These rights empower individuals to participate in
the all-round development of the country.
● According to Louis B. Sohn, every individual belongs to a community like family, religious
communities, social or political communities etc. The international law recognizes the
collective rights of the individuals who are grouped into a larger group, those rights can be
exercised jointly by the people and nations.
● The right to self-determination, right to development, right to peace and solidarity, right to
economic and social development, right to a healthy environment, right to natural
resources, right to communicate, right to participate in cultural heritage, right to
intergenerational equity and sustainability etc. are the third-generation human rights.
These are also called Green Rights. The implementation of these rights is based on
international cooperation; therefore these rights are called solidarity rights.
 ● According to Karen Vesak, “The third generationof human rights refers to the fraternity or
brotherhood. This category of rights is based on the sense of solidarity, which is essential
for the realization of the major concern of the international community such as peace,
development and environment”.
● The third generation of human rights expressed in various international documents such as
the Stockholm Declaration of the United Nation Conference on Human Environment 1972,
the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992 and other laws.
The Human Rights of Fourth Generation
● The fourth-generation human rights linked to the intergenerational justice or the rights of
future generations. This category includes rights related to genetic engineering.
● The human genome, genetic manipulation, vital fertilization, human embryos, euthanasia,
and eugenics are the activities which can generate complicated legal issues with ethical,
moral and religious values. Therefore, the European Council opinion to member states to
adopt principles which cover the relationship between genetic engineering and human
rights so that the right to life and dignity can be understood as a rift over genetic
characteristics of the individuals.
Politics of Human Rights
● Human rights are grounded on a liberal discourse. It is seen as a purely western construct.
Developing societies and societies in Global south see the Universality, equality etc. of
Human rights as a western way of ‘cultural imperialism’. Thus, in UNHRC conference
certain politicians of Southeast asian nations held that Human rights are another way of
imposing hegemony of the west and thus they gave the idea of ASIAN VALUES.
● In contrast to the western emphasis on individual and his or her exclusive rights, these
Asian leaders have argued that ‘Asian value’, this term is not homogeneous, within it there
is a lot of difference or [Link] argued that the ‘Asian value’ give priority to
the community lives rather than individuals, social order, respect for authority, general
welfare, loyalty to family, state, and nation. That is the kind of response to the western
focus on individuals and his or her exclusive [Link] rights and democracy are
western [Link] idea of human rights is based on the values very different from
Asian values and not suited to Asian [Link] western values emphasize on
individual,equality and liberty etc. the eastern values are communitarian ,hierarchy and
[Link], they argue that in these societies, historically and culturally, their sense of
welfare and happiness is constituted very differently, on different sets of values which are
not always, understood or appropriately, comprehended by the western theorists or
commentators.
● In many Asian societies, like in China, the Confucius philosophy or in India or in South-East
Asian countries, there is the growing realization of limitedness or selfishness of the
western conception of theory or individuals, or how to govern the collective life as self-
destructive. Therefore, they realize that the ‘Asian values’ are different which not only,
 help in organizing the collective, political or social life, but also, to provide enabling
conditions for individuals and community to live together, to sustain his or her life in the
lives of community. That growing realization of values, we sustain the individual and
collective life in Asia which is regarded as different from the western conception of liberty.
Mahathir Mohamad has listed the six most important societal values of East Asians on the
basis of a survey by David Hitchcock. These are:
○ an orderly society;
○ societal harmony;
○ the accountability of public officials;
○ open- ness to new ideas;
○ freedom of expression;
○ respect for authority.
● The comparable values held by Americans are:
○ freedom of expression;
○ personal freedom;
○ the rights of the individual;
○ open debate;
○ thinking for oneself;
○ the accountability of public officials.
● Spokesmen for ‘Asian values’ commonly portray the West as morally decadent. Lee Kuan
Yew, for example, says that in the USA the individual has acquired the right ‘to behave or
misbehave as he pleases’.
● Joseph Chan has pointed out that declarations of human rights are often general and
vague; and that interpretations of human rights may therefore be properly controversial.
He argues that such interpretations necessarily involve judgements about political
morality, and that this allows Asian states to claim that they have a different understanding
of human rights.
● The philosophical basis of Asian values can be found in theories of ‘Cultural relativism’,
‘communitarianism’ and ‘multiculturalism’.
● Cultural relativism is the ability to understand a culture on its own terms and not to make
judgments using the standards of one’s own culture. The goal of this is to promote
understanding of cultural practices that are not typically part of one’s own culture. Using
the perspective of cultural relativism leads to the view that no one culture is superior than
another culture when compared to systems of morality, law, politics, etc. It is a concept
that cultural norms and values derive their meaning within a specific social context. This is
also based on the idea that there is no absolute standard of good or evil, therefore every
decision and judgment of what is right and wrong is individually decided in each society.
The concept of cultural relativism also means that any opinion on ethics is subject to the
perspective of each person within their particular culture. Overall, there is no right or
 wrong ethical system. In a holistic understanding of the term cultural relativism, it tries to
promote the understanding of cultural practices that are unfamiliar to other cultures such
as eating insects, genocides or genital cutting.
● Cultural relativism emerged as a reaction to the universal rights model. Relativists
challenge the concept that rights are universal, arguing that rights are dependent on
cultural norms and that human rights are not universally valid because they are the
product of Western norms or — in a subtler form of the argument — that human rights
need to be appropriate for, and accepted in, specific local contexts in order to politically
legitimate. The “Asian values” ideology is a main example of cultural relativity. Mahathir
and Lee Kaun Yew viewed universal human rights as an alien imposition from the West,
reflecting specific Western values, and argued for an approach based on “Asian values”
instead.
● Michael Ignatieff argues that opposition to human rights under the pretext of cultural
relativism comes exclusively from those who commit human rights abuses because of their
powerful positions within a particular [Link] sen also criticises Asian values as a
pretext for authoritarianism.
● Donnelly eloquently deconstructs the argument that “all societies cross-culturally and
historically manifest conceptions of human rights” . He concedes that while all major
cultures have had some form of duty system, which governs the social recognition of
human dignity, these systems however, are alternatives to rather than synonymous with
human rights. Furthermore, although culture maintains a critical function in establishing
and implementing universal human rights, according to Donnelly, “culture is not destiny”;
thus, negotiations—through meaningful dialogue—between and amongst cultures can lead
to the realization of the UDHR model.
Dworkin on Rights
● Dworkin’s task is to explain what is involved in taking rights seriously. He maintains that
people who believe there are moral rights “in the strong sense” are committed to believing
that government should tolerate law-breaking in some cases, namely, when laws conflict
with rights.
● Distinctions: Most of the rights that we talk about can be broken down into separate
elements. These include:
○ Claims: someone else has a duty corresponding to the right.
○ Privileges or liberties: the person with the right lacks a duty.
○ Powers: the person with the right has the ability to change rights and duties.
○ Immunities: others lack the ability to change the rights and duties of the person
with the right.
● The familiar rights that we began with combine these elements in various ways.
● Dworkin’s “rights in the strong sense” are claims or claim-rights (the terms are used
interchangeably). His “rights in the weak sense”are liberties or privileges.
Taking rights seriously
● Taking rights seriously, according to Dworkin, means that the normal justification for
government action is not good enough when the action might infringe on rights.
● But how should courts or other government officials resolve cases in which it is not clear
whether a government action would infringe on individual rights? Dworkin argues that it
will not do to balance society’s interests against those of the person whose rights will be
infringed. That would be to use the normal justification for government action.
Society’s rights
● Dworkin argues that a society that takes rights seriously will not try to balance individual
rights against society’s rights. The point was that a society that worked in this way would
always favor the society over the individual and that, Dworkin claimed, would not take
individual rights seriously.
Right to Property
Nature Of Property
● The right to property is derived from the general theory of rights. However, it is a complex
issue. The fundamental issue is—how can the right to property be made to serve the cause
of social justice instead of allowing it to remain a weapon of exploitation and injustice?
● Liberal Perspective: Liberal theory has usually regarded the right to private property as an
essential ingredient of man’s liberty and his right to the pursuit of happiness. Locke held
that man’s right to ‘life, liberty and property’ was a fundamental natural right, and that the
state was created for the protection of this right.
● Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham and other exponents of classical liberalism regarded the
institution of private property as an essential instrument of social progress. The right to
property comprised the very foundation of market economy and the capitalist system.
● Early liberal political theory regarded the possession of property as a proof of an
individual’s stake in the state as also of his political wisdom, so much so that it insisted on
linking the ‘right to vote’ with property qualification. In short, early liberalism sought to
glorify and defend the right to property.
● Modern liberal theory, however, which witnessed the cruel operation of the capitalist
system and the rise of socialist theory, does not recognize any sacred or absolute right to
private property. J.S. Mill, who initially made a strong plea for the security of property, later
argued that the right to property was not absolute or sacrosanct, and went to the extent of
advocating considerable restriction on the rights of inheritance and bequest. He criticized
private property in land which was the original inheritance of all mankind, and pleaded for
the taxation of rent.
● T.H. Green , as an ardent champion of rights, paid due importance to the right to property
as an instrument for exercising moral freedom. But he held that when an unrestrained right
to property right becomes a hindrance to the exercise of freedom in society. Green,
 therefore, pleaded for reasonable restrictions on the right to property.
● In short, modern liberal theory, instead of conceding an absolute right to property,
proceeds to investigate the ethical basis of this right and, in the process, indicates the
proper limits of the right to property.
Natural Rights Theories
● Natural rights theories regard property as a fundamental right independent of institutions,
though some institutions are more likely to be in harmony with natural law than others.
Locke conceives of natural rights differently. It is a right which derives its support from
inward morality, conscience or the rational faculty of man. Locke argues that the state has
no authority to tamper with this right because it is duty-bound to protect this right.
● Among the liberal thinkers, Locke is the chief exponent of the theory of property as the
fruit of labour. Locke argued that every man by nature has a property in his own person:
the labour of his body and the work of his hands are properly his.
○ Whatsoever then he removes out of nature and mixes with his labour becomes his
property, ‘at least where there is enough and as good left in common for others’.
(The Second Treatise of Civil Government, 1690).
● C.B. Macpherson (The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism) has termed Locke’s
view regarding the right to property as a typical expression of the idea of ‘possessive
individualism’.
○ According to this view, man—the individual—is the absolute natural proprietor of his
own capacities, owing nothing to society for them. He is, therefore, free to use his
capacities in search of satisfactions, provided he does not harm others.
Theories of Contribution to the Public Good
● Theories of contribution to the public good seek to make the right to property subservient
to social justice rather than maintain it as an instrument of personal gratification. This view
finds its fuller expression in social-democratic perspective on property.
Social Democratic Perspective
● Social-democratic perspective allows individual ownership of property under such
regulations that it is largely used to serve social purpose.

Hobhouse and Tawney on the Right to property

● L.T. Hobhouse in his Liberalism has amply demonstrated the social origin of property. He
has argued that it is the organized force of society that maintains the rights of owners by
protecting them against thieves and depredators.
● R.H. Tawney, in his The Acquisitive Society , has deprecated the tyranny of functionless
property and has advocated subordination of property to social service.
Laski’s Views on the Right to Property
 ● The Moral Basis of Property
○ At the outset, Laski deals with the right to property as a part of his theory of rights.
Thus, in his A Grammar of Politics ,Laski very strongly argues for the limitation of
the right of inheritance, on moral grounds. No property can be justified unless it is
the result of the performance of socially useful functions and duties.

Marxist Perspective
● Marxist theory views ‘private property’ like the state, has not existed from eternity, not to
speak of property as a natural right. The origin of private property was attended by the
beginning of exploitation in society. The state was created by the class of property-owners
for the protection of its private property. It is, therefore, an instrument of exploitation of
the dependent class which does not own property.
● Friedrich Engels, in his The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State has held
that ,the origin of private property is, associated with the division of society into
antagonistic classes. This division is sharpest under the capitalist system.
● The proletariat by its very definition, is propertyless and dependent on wage labour.
Marxism, however, advocates the abolition of private property in this sense, not personal
property. Marxist theory holds the system of private property responsible for the erosion
of human values and thus cause alienation. In his other works, particularly Critique of
Hegel’s Philosophy of Right and On the Jewish Question , Marx argues that the
constitution of modern representative states is, in reality, the ‘constitution of private
property’.
● Marx develop later in Capital concept of ‘the fetishism of commodities’. Fetishism of
commodities implies a feature of capitalist society where social relation between different
producers is reduced to relation between the products of their labour. It brings different
types of skills and quantities of labour into equivalence with each other in terms of their
market values. Thus, the social relationship between a tailor and a carpenter appears as a
relationship between a coat and a table in terms of their exchange value in the market
rather than in terms of the labour and skills embodied in these products. In other words,
the commodity becomes an embodiment of value under the capitalist system of private
property, while the human being as worker and real producer of value, is reduced to a
commodity governed by the market forces of demand, supply and competition. The result
is an overall dehumanization of man, his self-estrangement and alienation.
● So if human values are to be restored, human freedom is to be secured, and a rational
system of production and distribution is to be evolved to ensure satisfaction of social
needs, the obvious course is the abolition of private property itself.
● In short, Marxist theory views the system of private property as the foundation of
capitalism which is characterized by the exploitation of man by man. It, therefore,
advocates the abolition of private property in the major means of production to pave the
 way for a humanistic reorganization of production and distribution.
● Marxist theory of property draws a significant distinction between ‘personal property’ and
‘private property’. It favours full protection of ‘personal property’ which is the source of
security of the individual, and abolition of ‘private property’ which is an instrument of
controlling the lives of others.
Mahatma Gandhi on property
● Mahatma Gandhi sought to assess the role of property in the sphere of social as well as
personal morality. His principles of non-possession (renunciation or aparigraha) and
nonstealing (abstention from theft or asteya) deal with personal morality.
● A person should not acquire any material things beyond his immediate requirement
because amassing of wealth is bound to degrade his character. It also amounts to theft
because thereby you deprive others of their due share.
● Gandhi maintained that the earth has enough to satisfy everybody’s need, but it does not
have enough to satisfy anybody’s greed. Then Gandhian principle of ‘bread labour’
requires that everybody should do physical labour, apart from his usual duties, and
contribute to the production of material things in order to compensate for his
consumption. Gandhi also commended ‘bread labour’ as an instrument of self-
purification.

Democracy: Classical and contemporary theories; different models of democracy—

representative, participatory and deliberative

the word democracy is of Greek origin

derived from the word ‘demokratia’. It is a combination of two Greek words,
‘demos’ meaning people and ‘kratos’ meaning power. democracy stands
for rule by the people which gives true legitimacy to the government. It is one of
the most debated issues in the field of Political Science as it is a ‘contested
concept’. Democracy implies that the ultimate authority of government is vested in the ordinary
people so that public policy is made to conform to the will of the people and to serve the
interests of the people.

Procedural vs substantive Democracy

1. Procedural (Minimalist) Democracy

● Focuses on means and procedures—especially free, fair, and regular elections.
● Citizens' role is largely passive, limited to voting.
● Emphasizes electoral competition and universal adult franchise.
 ● Joseph Schumpeter: Democracy is an institutional arrangement for arriving at political
decisions via competitive struggle for votes.
● Samuel Huntington: Core of democracy is selection of leaders through competitive
elections.
● Criticisms:
○ Ignores liberty, freedom, and accountability.
○ Risk of electoral manipulation and authoritarianism under democratic guise.
○ Terry Karl: Warns of "fallacy of electoralism" – reducing democracy to mere
elections.
○ Fareed Zakaria: Calls it "illiberal democracy"—where elected leaders curtail rights
and constitutional checks.
● Examples:
○ Argentina and Brazil (1980s–90s): Democratic in form, elite-driven in function.
○ Central Asian countries: Regular elections but power concentrated in one
individual.

2. Substantive (Maximalist) Democracy

● Focuses on outcomes, not just procedures—especially equality, justice, and
participation.
● Aims for inclusive democracy that upholds basic rights and freedoms.
● Emphasizes active citizen participation, especially by marginalized groups.
● Seeks redistributive justice to correct socio-economic inequalities.
● Concerned with the "common good", not just power struggles.
● Inspired by liberal and egalitarian thinkers:
○ Rousseau: Formal democracy without equality = slavery.
○ Kant, Locke, Mill: Advocated for rights-based, participatory democracy.
● Contrasts with Schumpeter’s view that ambitious equality goals are dangerous.

Theories of democracy

Elitist theory of democracy

This theory was propounded by Vilfredo Pareto, G Mosca, Robert Michels and Joseph
Schumpeter. The theory was originally developed in the field of sociology to explain the
behaviour of men in a social setting. Their implications in the field of politics posed a challenge
to democratic theory, which was in turn revised by several thinkers.
 broadly speaking, the elitist theories hold that every society consists
two categories of men: (a) the elite or the minority within a social
collectivity (such as a society, a state, a religious institution, a political
party) which exercises a preponderant influence within that
collectivity; and (b) the masses or the major- city which is governed by
the elite.
Vilfredo Pareto (The Mind and Society; 1915-19) was the first to use
the term 'elite' and 'masses' to indicate superior and inferior groups in
society, although the idea of such division of society was given earlier
by Gaetano Mosca (The Ruling Class; 1896) and Robert Michels
(Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies
of Modern Democracy; 1911). Mosca postulated that the people are
necessarily divided into two groups: the rulers and the ruled. The
ruling class controls most of the wealth, power and prestige in society
and exercises all power, whatever form of government might be
adopted. The ruled are not competent to replace it.

Michel propounded his famous 'iron law of oligarchy' which implied that every organization—
whatever its original aims—is eventually reduced to an 'oligrachy', that is the rule of the chosen
few, based on their manipulative skills. Majority of human beings are apathetic, indolent and
slavish and they are permanently incapable of self-government. Pareto came to the conclusion
that the 'elite' show highest ability in their field of activity whatever its nature might be, while
masses are characterized by the lack of qualities of leadership and fear from responsibility. They
feel safe in following the direction of the elite.

Classical elitists argued that democracy is a myth,power is always in the hands of a [Link]
modern elitism’s acknowledge democratic structures but emphasise how they fall short of
democratic ideals. An example of this can be found in C. Wright Mills’ influential account of the
power structure in the USA. Democracy in the USA is dominated by a triad of elites:Big
business (especially defense industry)Military establishment and Political elites around the
[Link] groups form a 'power elite', not elected masses, that shape critical decisions—
especially in defense, foreign affairs, and economic [Link]' therefore has concluded that
Liberal democracy is largely a sham—real power lies with unelected elites.

The impact of elite theory lies in its empirical demonstration that true rule "by the people" is
virtually unattainable in practice. Classical elitists convincingly argued that power is always
concentrated in the hands of a few, making genuine mass participation a myth. Democratic
theorists found it difficult to completely reject these claims and thus sought to reconcile elitism
with democratic ideals. This led to the development of democratic elitism or competitive
elitism, which integrates elite theory into the democratic framework.

Elitist democratic theory

Unlike the power elite model—which views the elite as a unified and cohesive ruling class—
democratic elitismemphasizes the existence of multiple, competing elites. It recognizes that
while elites do rule, their rivalry and competition, especially in the context of periodic elections,
ensures a certain level of accountability to the public. In this view, democracy is maintained not
by direct rule of the people, but through the opportunity to choose among competing elites.
Karl Mannheim supported this perspective, arguing that democracy does not require direct
participation by all citizens in policymaking. Instead, a realistic democratic model allows people
to periodically express their preferences through elections and remove or influence leaders
when necessary. As Mannheim succinctly put it, "In a democracy, the governed can always act to
remove their leaders or force them to take decisions in the interests of the many."

Joseph Schumpeter Joseph A. Schumpeter, in his influential work Capitalism, Socialism and
Democracy (1942), proposed a realist or minimalist model of democracy. He defined
democracy as an institutional mechanism through which individuals acquire the power to make
political decisions via a competitive struggle for the people’s votes. According to Schumpeter,
democracy is not a government by the people or a tool to realize the people’s will. Rather, it is a
system in which elites (leaders) make the decisions, and the public merely selects among them
through elections. This implies that political initiative lies with the leadership, and the masses
only respond by voting. The redeeming feature of this model is that it restrains leaders from
wielding absolute power, as they must frame policies that can attract broader public support in
the political marketplace.
Raymond Aron, in his work Social Structure and the Ruling Class (1950), offered another version
of democratic theory that incorporates elements of elitism. He argued that liberal democracy is
marked by a system of checks and balancesand the plurality of elites, distinguishing it from the
unified elite structure found in Soviet-type regimes. In liberal democracies, elites are divided,
creating a pluralistic and competitive environment. This makes governance a matter of
negotiation and compromise. Although the initiative still lies with the elites, their power is
limited by electoral accountability and the presence of opposition forces. The public plays a
passive but essential role—selecting the elites and applying pressure to influence their policies.
Giovanni Sartori, in Democratic Theory (1958), echoed Schumpeter’s procedural understanding
of democracy. He emphasized that democracy fundamentally involves competition among elites
for electoral legitimacy. Sartori rejected the idea of popular self-rule as a myth, asserting that
governance is, by necessity, the responsibility of competent leaders. The people exercise their
sovereignty only during elections, when they choose among rival elites. For Sartori, the
existence of elite rule is not a flaw in democracy but rather its core strength, ensuring that the
system functions effectively through skilled and accountable leadership.

Pluralist theory
Contrary to the elitist theory, pluralists believe that policy making is a decentralized process
where different groups bargain for their views to be accepted. It is result of interaction between
different groups unlike few elites
Pluralist theories of democracy are broadly divided into two main strands. The first is elitist-
democratic pluralism, represented by thinkers like Karl Mannheim and Raymond Aron, who
regard the plurality of elites as the foundation of modern liberal democracy. The second strand
is the group theory of democracy, which interprets democracy as a process of bargaining
among relatively autonomous interest groups. According to this perspective, democracy
derives its pluralistic character from the functioning of these diverse, organized groups that
influence public policy.
In the United States, this view was prominently developed by A.F. Bentley (The Process of
Government, 1908) and David Truman (The Governmental Process, 1951), who described
democracy as a political contest among various groups. Government, in this framework, serves
as a central mediator that responds to public pressures and crafts policies based on the highest
common group demand. Thus, democratic society is seen as differentiated and plural, where
power is decentralized and governance is shared among various interest groups, each using
different sources and methods of influence.
Robert Dahl, in A Preface to Democratic Theory (1956), advanced this idea through his model of
polyarchy, which aligns with the group-based theories of Bentley, Truman, and B. Latham. Here,
pluralism is used not in its philosophical sense (as a normative ideal), but in a sociological
sense, to empirically describe how politics operates in a democracy. According to pluralist
theory, policymaking—even if centralized in form—is in reality a decentralized, negotiated
outcome produced by interactions among competing interest groups.
This theory challenges both classical democratic and elitist models, asserting that public policy
is not crafted solely by the will of a coherent majority or an autonomous elite. Instead, it is the
result of group competition and negotiation, with each group’s influence determined by its
organizational strength and intensity of participation. Moreover, the pluralist theory suggests
that the form of government becomes less important because, in practice, public policy
reflects the influence of the most organized and vocal groups. For example, the interests of
producers often dominate over consumers, as the former are typically better organized, more
vocal, and more influential.

Participatory Democracy
All democracies are participatory in the sense that they are based on popular consent which
ensures their participatory nature. However, there are chances that the role of citizens could be
limited to just voting in a democracy. The gap between elected representatives and the people
widens in complex democracies which have variety of people divided by caste, class, religion,
region etc. In contrast to elitist and pluralist theories, participatory democracy advocates active
citizen participation in policy making to ensure common good is promoted while it also makes the
government more accountable towards the citizens. Jean J. Rousseau, J S Mill and C B
Macpherson supported the idea of participatory democracy. Rousseau argued for popular
sovereignty as the supreme power is vested in hands of the people which is their inalienable right
and the citizens should involve themselves in state affairs. Mill said that a government which
promotes moral, intellectual and active qualities in its citizens is the best government.

C.B Macpherson on democracy

●
● C.B. Macpherson , a contemporary exponent of the radical theory of democracy, has
sought to broaden the scope of democracy and to redefine its essential conditions in view
of our recent experiences. In his earlier monograph, The Real World of Democracy (1966),
Macpherson argued that the liberal societies which grant universal suffrage, a choice
between political parties, and civil liberties, have no exclusive claim to the title of
democracy.
● Democracy is a wider phenomenon. Macpherson identifies three variants of democracy
which are equally valid if they fulfil certain conditions.
○ The first variant is, of course, liberal democracy which needs a more humane touch.
○ Secondly, Communist countries might qualify as democracies if they granted full
intra-party democracy and opened up their closed bureaucratic systems.
○ Finally, Third World countries, which have no experience of Western individualism,
 ○
could also conform to the ideals of some historical theories of democracy as far as
their governments are legitimized by mass enthusiasm.
● Thus, in Macpherson’s view different types of systems which undertake to fulfil the
aspirations of the masses, enjoy support of the masses and provide for an opportunity for
the amelioration of the condition of the masses, qualify as democracies irrespective of the
structures and procedures adopted by them for serving these purposes.
● Macpherson has attacked the elitist-pluralist theory of democracy as espoused by Joseph
Schumpeter and Robert Dahl as well as the utilitarian theory expounded by Jeremy
Bentham He has pointed out that the traditional or classical theory of democracy was
erected on a moral foundation. It saw democracy as a developmental process, as a matter
of emancipation of humanity. The elitist-pluralist theory, or the empirical theory, on the
other hand, treats democracy as a mechanism whose essential function is to maintain
equilibrium. Under this theory “democracy is reduced from a humanist aspiration to a
market equilibrium system.
● In contrast, Macpherson has developed a new theory of democracy based on a humanist
vision; it will emancipate human beings from the constraints of the prevailing competitive
social order of the capitalist world and usher in a new society which will promote ‘creative
freedom’. In order to explicate this theory Macpherson draws a distinction between two
types of power:
○ developmental power, and
○ extractive power.
● Developmental power signifies man’s ability to use his own capacities creatively, for the
fulfilment of his self-appointed goals. Extractive power, on the other hand, stands for
power over others—man’s ability to use other men’s capacities to extract benefits for
himself.
● Macpherson concedes that the existing liberal democracies have conserved civil and
political liberties more effectively than the existing socialist regimes. However, he
advocates to combine a system of socialist ownership with the institutions of liberal
democracy in order to prevent the use of extractive power and to promote developmental
powers of all human beings. He recommends the expansion of welfare-state functions to
facilitate allocation of goods and services to the people on grounds of need rather than
desert determined by the rules of the capitalist economy. Thus he seeks to evolve a
system in which the advantages of capitalist and socialist societies shall be combined—a
difficult proposition indeed! As Norman Barry has observed: “The difficulty with
Macpherson’s argument is that he evaluates existing liberal democracy by reference to
some ‘ideal version’ of democracy, rather than by comparing it directly to existing
alternatives.”
Whether liberalism has monopoly over democracy
Views of MacIver
 ● Democracy is an old concept; liberalism is a recent one. Today, liberalism is generally
thought to be inseparable from democracy so much so that the term ‘democracy’ is
applied to denote ‘liberal democracy’ unless otherwise specified. However as
[Link] in his Democratic Theory—Essays in Retrieval has observed: “Until the
nineteenth century liberal theory, like the liberal state, was not at all democratic, much of it
was specifically antidemocratic.”
● Classical liberalism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries insisted on property
qualification for the right to vote. This was contrary to the democratic principle which
implies equal entitlement of each individual not only in the matter of choosing a
government but also to the other advantages accruing from organized social life.
● But a combination of the two antithetical principles—liberalism and democracy became
inevitable in a later phase because of historical reasons. Liberal state was forced to
accommodate democratic principles in order to save its own existence. The outcome of
this emerged in the form of liberal democracy. It represents a combination of free market
economy with universal adult franchise. It is an attempt to resolve the conflicting claims of
the capitalists and the masses by making gradual concessions under the garb of a welfare
state.
● Broadly speaking, principles of liberal democracy include:
. Government by consent;
. Public accountability;
. Majority rule;
. Recognition of minority rights; and
. Constitutional Government.
Models of democracy
Deliberative Democracy
● The idea behind deliberative democracy is that laws and policies are legitimate to the
extent that they are publicly justified to the citizens of the community.
● The whole point of deliberation, political or otherwise, is usually to make our decision
processes more ‘reflective’: to help us choose a course of action, after due consideration,
rather than merely picking some course of action after hardly a moment’s thought, with
scant regard to evidence or argument.
● According to Rawls, deliberative democracy requires citizens actually, not just
hypothetically, to exchange views and debate their supporting reasons concerning public
political questions. They suppose that their political opinions may be revised by discussion
with other citizens; and therefore these opinions are not simply a fixed outcome of their
existing private or political interests. It is at this point that public reason is crucial. It insists
upon political institutions that guarantee participation in all deliberative and decisional
processes in a way that provides each person with equal chances to exercise the
communicative freedom to take a position on critical validity. Both Habermas and later
 Rawls, and a group of deliberative democrats with them, regard it as democratically crucial
for citizens to engage in actual rather than merely hypothetical discourse.
● The argument for the deliberative concept of democracy, thus, emerges from a claim
about the political equality of citizens as grounded on their equal moral status as
autonomous individuals capable of giving and exchanging reasons. On the basis of these
arguments, ‘an idealized procedure of political deliberation, constructed to capture the
notions of free, equal and reason that figure in the deliberative ideal’ can be constructed.
This ideal procedure has been summarized as follows (Joshua Cohen):
○ All citizens acknowledge the freedom of each citizen to participate.
○ Citizens are formally equal, in that each has the same rights to propose issues and
solutions, to offer reasons for or against proposals, and to have an equal voice in
deciding the outcome.
○ Citizens are substantially equal, in that each has an equal opportunity to exercise
their rights of participation.
○ Citizens are reasonable ‘in that they aim to defend and criticize institutions and
programs in terms of considerations that others, as free and equal, have reason to
accept, given the fact of reasonable pluralism and on the assumption that those
others are themselves concerned to provide suitable justifications.’
● Besides these this model also invokes the standard of reasonableness, namely, that
citizens acknowledge the fact of reasonable pluralism and seek to offer reasons that other
reasonable citizens could not reasonably reject. As such deliberative model is more
demanding than the interest-aggregation model since it requires that citizens exercise a
form of democratic self restraint, namely, that they reflect as citizens and not in terms of
their private interest.
Habermas on Deliberative Democracy:
● Jurgen Habermas, while writing about deliberative democracy in Three Normative Models
of Democracy, situates it between liberal and communitarian models of democracy
Habermas takes the proceduralism from liberalism. Habermas also calls for ‘an ideal
speech situation’, that is, a situation where free and equal participants are able to
communicate with each other without discrepancies of power and constraints of particular
circumstances. There is an inherent danger of preferring certain dominant forms of
communication and knowledge as more authoritative. Moreover, deliberative democrats
hope for a consensus which is difficult if not impossible to achieve in diverse and complex
societies.
● This hence creates procedural-deliberative model of democracy. Practical reason, he
claims, resides neither in the individual, nor in a community but in rules inherent in the ‘the
very structure of communicative actions.’ According to Habermas, popular sovereignty
resides neither in a majority, nor in collective citizenry, but in ‘the subject less forms of
communication that regulate the law of deliberations.’ This model, thus, presents a
 threetier configuration stated as follows:
○ Firstly, the base of deliberative democracy is based on pluralistic civil society.
○ Second tier is public sphere which Habermas describes as a linguistically
constituted public space of informal opinion formation.
○ Third tier refers to the formal, governmental, decision-making institution.
● Thomas Christiano believes that the basic principle behind most conceptions of
deliberative democracy seems to be the principle of reasonableness, according to which
reasonable persons will only offer principles for the regulation of their society that other
reasonable persons can reasonably accept.
● It has been found that deliberative democracy tends to produce outcomes which are
superior to those in other forms of democracy. Deliberative democracy produces less
partisanship and more sympathy with opposing views; more respect for evidence-based
reasoning rather than opinion; a greater commitment to the decisions taken by those
involved; and a greater chance for widely shared consensus to emerge, thus, promoting
social cohesion between people from different backgrounds.
Representative Democracy
● Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected
individuals representing the people, as opposed to autocracy and direct democracy. It is a
system of government based on the election of decision-makers by the people.
● Representative democracy came into particular general favour in post-industrial
revolution nation states where large numbers of subjects or (latterly) citizens evinced
interest in politics, but where technology and population figures remained unsuited to
direct democracy.
● In representative democracy people, thus, selects their representatives to form
government and this is generally conducted by the system of election held at a regular
interval (of fixed period or sometimes before completion of that period) which is, usually,
conducted on the basis of universal adult franchise. The provision of election in a
representative democracy is intended to ensure that the government will exercise its
powers with the consent of the governed.
● But what kind of power these representatives are entitled to is a matter of debate. Various
theories has been formulated in this regard some of which are as follows:
○ Conservative theory of representation: Peoples here, rely on the good virtue of the
politicians, who, if fails to fulfil the requirement of the people, can be replaced by
another person from same elite group in next election. The chief exponents of this
view are Edmund Burke and James Madison.
○ Liberal theory of representation: This theory is based on the principle of equality
of all people. The supporters of this theory grant supreme power to the people and
treat representatives only as their agents or messenger. The chief exponents of this
theory are John Locke and Thomas Jefferson.
 ○ Radical theory of representation: This theory believes in the wisdom of the people
in highest esteem and exalts direct democracy as the only truly democratic form of
government. The chief exponents of this theory are Rousseau and The New Left.
John Locke on Representative Democracy
● John Locke can be said as the most influential theorist on democracy .Though Locke
believed in majority rule, he thought that it best that they do not rule themselves directly.
● He saw members of Parliament as representatives of their constituents, and he believed
that they should vote as their constituents wanted.
Partcipatory Democracy
● Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents
in the direction and operation of political systems. It strives to create opportunities for all
members of a political group to make meaningful contributions to decision-making and
seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. It requires
more involved participation by citizen.
● Increasing population and complexities of governance leaves no chance to think about
direct democracy. But in Athenian city-state of ancient Greece, direct participatory
democracy was practised while performing all tasks of governance, that is, in enacting,
implementing and adjusting laws. The best part of this system was high level of political
accountability and political activity of the citizen.
● Participation in the collective affairs of the community was considered important for the
rational self-development of the citizens; it was the highest form of good life they could
hope to achieve, fulfil themselves, and live honourably. However, the successful operation
of the Athenian democracy depended on a system of exclusivity and inequality where only
citizens—of which women, women, slaves and resident aliens were not part—enjoyed these
rights.
● In the eighteenth century, its influence can be seen in the writings of Rousseau. He
criticized the emerging electoral and representative democracy in European states. For
him, democracy was the way by which citizens could achieve freedom. For Rousseau,
participation was essential for the self-development of the individual and democracy was a
means of individual development, but not the pursuit of selfish interests. Rousseau
asserted that sovereignty not only originates in the people, it is also retained by the people
in spite of their transition from the state of nature to civil society. Sovereignty cannot be
represented, because it cannot be alienated. The people’s deputies are not, and could not
be, their representatives.
● Elitist theory of democracy implies that citizen participation is not a necessary condition of
democracy. Thus for Schumpeter, running of government and framing of public policies is
the task of professional politicians; the role of ordinary citizens is confined to vote for the
politicians, the political parties and the programmes of their choice at the time of periodic
elections. In other words, modern democracy is primarily the rule of politicians in which
 ordinary citizens play a very limited role, at regular intervals. Robert Dahl’s pluralist theory
of democracy also reconciles with a low level of citizen participation. C.B. Macpherson
(Democratic Theory— Essays in Retrieval) has observed that Schumpeter-Dahl axis treats
democracy as a mechanism designed to maintain an equilibrium. It conceives of
democracy as a competition between two or more elite groups for the power to govern the
whole society, requiring only a low level of citizen participation. In Macpherson’s view, it is
a distorted view where democracy is reduced from a humanist aspiration to a market
equilibrium system.
● In modern large-scale states, the objectives of participatory democracy are sought to be
achieved through:
○ Decentralization of administration in which many decisions are left to local
communities, as in the case of expansion of panchayati raj in India; and
○ Extensive use of referendum, as in Switzerland . Under this procedure, people’s vote
is sought on any new law, constitution or constitutional amendment. In Australia,
referendum is compulsory on any constitutional amendment. It is a method of
combining some features of direct democracy with representative democracy.
● In contemporary political theory, citizen participation is sought to be justified mainly on
three grounds:
○ Instrumental view asserts that citizen participation is aimed at promoting or
defending the interests of the participant. Before entering in participation, persons
calculate the anticipated benefits and costs, and the prospects of attaining their
objectives;
○ Developmental or educational view of participation holds that it enhances the
participants’ general moral, social and political awareness; and finally,
○ Communitarian view of participation justifies it on the ground that it contributes to
the common good.
● In modern period, the idea of participatory democracy is manifest in the works of
Poulantzas, Pateman and Macpherson. Poulantzas recommended ‘socialist pluralism’ by
which he meant democratizing the state, that is making parliament, state bureaucracies
and political parties more accountable and simultaneously incorporating new forms of
struggle at the local level—the women’s groups, ecological groups and factory-based
politics. He prescribed these in view of the mammoth state both in size and power and
also by way of realizing that self-management or institutions of direct democracy cannot
replace the state.
● Pateman observes that idea of free and equal individual that the liberal democratic theory
espouses hardly exists. For it was hindered by the inequalities of class, sex and race.
According to her, the inconsistency between universal formal rights and class inequality in
participation can be resolved only through institutions that encourage self-management.
● Macpherson, Macpherson argues that a truly democratic society promotes powers of
 ●
social cooperation and creativity rather than maximize aggregate satisfactions. He argues
for transformation based upon a system combining competitive parties and institutions of
direct democracy. The necessary condition is to create equality in society but here it
means political equality, that is, equal say in decision-making process.
● The theory of how participation, no doubt, promotes popular control and is self-promoting,
still then characteristic of theories of participatory democracy is vulnerable to several
weaknesses. This theory fail to transcend a number of fundamental problems about
representation and leadership, the basis of participation, and the types of ends sought.
The supporters of this theory like Rousseau argues that direct democracy is possible and
desirable in modern societies, despite the dense web of complex organizations that
comprise them. As a result, his model fails to address the powerful arguments of elite
theorists such as Robert Michels, who argues that sociological, psychological and
technical imperatives of organization make oligarchy inevitable. Although they
acknowledge the reality of social pluralism and organizational hierarchy, they simply fail to
answer satisfactorily critical questions about how complex organization could be made to
conform to his form of direct democracy. By avoiding this, they fail to distinguish individual
participation from organizational processes.
Comparing Participative and deliberative democracy
● “Democracy is the way to give people the greatest illusion of power , while allowing them
the smallest amount in reality”- Bagehot
● The concept of deliberative democracy is based on the active participation of people in
the formulation of laws. The point is that decision making process has to be more
reflective to choose the best course of action . The prominent theorists of deliberative
democracy include Seyla Benhabib , John Dryzek, James Fishkin and Jurgen Habermas.
● According to Benhabib, deliberative democracy is a necessary condition for attaining
legitimacy and rationality with respect to collective decision making process. According to
Dryzek , deliberative democracy is a shift away from aggregative , vote centric model,
giving pride of place to reason and engagements. According to Joshua Cohen, deliberative
democracy is based on the concept of political equality and equal moral status of citizens .
Habermas , in his work “Normative Models of Democracy”, talks about ideal speech
situation , where free and equal persons communicating with each other , without
discrepancies of power . Fishkin believes that deliberative democracy tends to produce
outcomes better than any other model .
● Participatory democracy emphasise on the broad participation of the constituents in the
operation of political system by creating opportunities to broaden the range of people
having access to the system . Participative democracy ensures high level of political
accountability , scope for rational development of the citizens and thus good life . Hannah
● Arendt supports political participation as the human condition . Carole Pateman believes
that at present the liberal democracies do not give equal opportunity to all in
 ●

participation . Macpherson argues that truly democratic society promotes participation

and equal rights to self development.
● Often , the two terms participatory and deliberative democracy are used interchangeably
and create confusions. It is true that there is a huge overlap but there are significant
differences too. According to Pateman, participatory democracy has a long history in the
west , specifically since 1960s when civil rights , women movements led people to go the
streets demanding greater participation in decision making . Some recent examples
include Arab Spring and the Yellow Vest movement in France . According to Joshua
Cohen, deliberative democracy also has a long history , but gained traction since 1980s to
protect democracy from becoming tyranny of majority . The main similarity is , both offer a
critique of representative democracy and encourage citizen’s participation .
● Advocates of participatory democracy focus on the quantity i.e. the number of
participants, ideally everyone. But deliberative democracy focus on the depth of
participation , they prefer deep deliberation and hence want to involve relatively smaller
number. Participatory democrats want participation in all aspects of all those who are
going to be affected .Scholars of deliberative democracy want informed participation.
Participatory democracy is about public opinion , whereas deliberative democracy is about
public judgments .
● According to Carson , we should be seeking a combination of the two with the focus on
mini – public deliberation , where deliberative bodies consider the results of participatory
process and mitigate the worst excesses of it . Though , there are many challenges in
combining them .
Relationship between democracy and development
● The democracy and development debate emerged in context of the model of development
to be adopted by the developing countries. It is often claimed that nondemocratic systems
are better at bringing about economic development . This belief is known as Lee
Hypothesis due to its chief advocate Lee Kuan Yew, the leader and the former president of
Singapore. According to him , the ultimate test of the political system is whether it
improves the standard of living for majority of people or not .
● According to him disciplinarian states like South Korea, Singapore and China had faster
rates of economic growth than many democratic states . According to Lee Kuan Yew ,
democracy leads into populist policies , lack of discipline and anarchy. In Context of India ,
he held that Indian bureaucracy does not have the right attitude .
● However, Amartya Sen , in his essay “Democracy As A Universal Value” published in
Journal of Democracy , 1999, believe that the Lee Hypothesis is based in sporadic
empiricism , based on very selected and limited information rather than any general
statistical testing over wide ranging data .
● A general relation of this sort cannot be established on the basis of selective data. We
cannot really take the high economic growth of Singapore of China as a definitive proof
 ●

that authoritarianism does better in economic growth , just like we cannot draw the
opposite conclusion from the fact that Botswana , with finest records of economic growth
in the world is an oasis of democracy . We need more systematic empirical studies to sort
out the claims and counter claims .
● Systematic empirical studies done by Robert Barro and Adam Przeworski give no real
support to a claim that there is a general conflict between civil political rights and
economic performance . Suppression of civil political rights lead to really beneficial
economic development does not have any convincing evidence . There is no clear
relationship between economic growth and democracy . The economic growth in East Asia
is due to openness to competition , state’s intervention to promote investment , high level
of literacy and successful land reforms .
● None of these of policies are inconsistencies with greater democracies, Faster economic
growth requires friendlier economic climate rather than harsher political system . We must
go beyond the confines of economic growth , focus on demands of economic
development . Political and civil rights give opportunity to the people to draw
government’s attention to the general needs and demands appropriate public action .
● Government’s responses often depends upon public pressure . There has been no
substantial famine in democratic country with relatively free press. There is no exception
to this rule , no where , no matter where we look. Any democratic government facing
election cannot ignore the criticism from opposition parties . There is a positive role of
democracy in prevention of disasters . This is called as the instrumental role of democracy.
The protective power of democracy should not be ignored. Democracy is not just a
majority rule , it is a demanding system and not just a mechanical condition. There are
three ways in which democracy enrich the life of citizens:
. Intrinsic value – Exercise of rights, give a sense of well being
. Instrumental Value – Compelling government to pay attention
. Educative Value – Citizens learn from one another and determine the priorities .
● Thus , political rights are pivotal in inducing social responses, central to the
conceptualization of economic needs.

Power hegemony, ideology, and legitimacy.

Power is one of the most contested concept of political science. It is said that the concept of
power holds the same status in the realm of political science as held by the concept of money in
the realm of economics

Bertrand Russell (Power: A New Social Analysis; 1938) has defined power as 'the production of
intended effects'. In other words, power denotes the ability of a person to fulfil his desires or to
achieve his objectives.

Robert Dahl (Modern Political Analysis; 1991) defines power as a kind of influence. According to
Dahl, “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not
otherwise do.” Dahl gave as an example a professor threatening a student with a failing grade if
he did not read a certain book during the holidays. In this case, the amount of power held by the
professor can be conceived as the difference between the probability that the student would
read the book before receiving the threat and the probability that he would read it after receiving
the threat

● Mao Zedong thought of power as “flowing from the barrel of the gun”.

Gandhi, an apostle of peace, regarded it as the power of love and truth. Power is ascribed to
different things on different grounds.

Different forms of power

Social analysis of power extends beyond mere political dimensions and must include economic
and ideological aspects as they significantly underpin political authority.

Political power, as defined by Alan Ball, concerns the resolution of conflict within a political
community and involves both formal institutions—legislature, executive, and judiciary—and
informal structures such as political parties, pressure groups, and public opinion. While formal
organs use enforceable sanctions to maintain order, informal ones channel societal inputs into
the system, influencing policies in democracies, colonies, and international relations alike.
Economic power stems from control over material resources and means of production. In liberal
democracies, wealthy individuals and business houses use this power to shape public policy and
political outcomes—often through strong lobbying, media ownership, and clandestine financial
support to political parties. This influence prioritizes elite interests, frequently at the cost of the
general populace.
Ideological power is the most subtle yet powerful form, involving the legitimization of political
authority through dominant ideas and belief systems. Ideology presents certain political systems
or policies as natural or superior, reducing the need for coercion. As Marx and Engels asserted,
the ruling class controls both material and mental production. Gramsci’s concept of hegemony
further explains how consent is manufactured through institutions like education, religion, and
media, allowing the dominant class to rule without overt force. He stressed that without a cultural
revolution, economic change alone cannot dismantle capitalist dominance.
While the power approach is valuable for revealing hidden forces behind political dynamics and
is applicable both domestically and internationally, it suffers from imprecision and
overgeneralization. As Vernon Van Dyke notes, power is too broadly defined and doesn’t account
for the multiple motivations of political actors or distinguish political from non-political struggles
for power. Hence, a focused understanding of power as it relates specifically to public decision-
making remains essential.

The Power Theories: Conventional View

State as symbol of power
● The power theory where state is a symbol of power, had its first brilliant expression in the
‘Leviathan’ of Thomas Hobbes. After Hobbes, Hegel absolutized sovereign power of the
state to the extent of discarding all ethics of international morality..
● The State power theory found its concrete manifestation, when the Italian Dictator Benito
Mussolini declared ‘nothing against the state, nothing above it’ giving birth to the
ideology of Fascism.
Different Perspectives On Power:
Class Perspective On Power
● Class perspective on power was developed by Marx and Engels during the mid of the
nineteenth century. According to this theory political power is the product of economic
power.
Elitist Perspective On Power
● Elite theory of power was advanced in early twentieth century by three famous
sociologists: Pareto, Mosca and Michels.
● Like class theory, elite theory accepts a broad division of society into dominant and
dependent groups. But unlike class theory, elite theory treats this division as somewhat
natural. It regards competence and aptitude (and not the emergence of private property)
to be responsible for this division. Again, while class theory held that the division of
society into dominant and dependent classes could be set aside through a socialist
revolution, elite theory sees little prospects of a thoroughgoing change in this position.
● Within the elite Pareto distinguished between ‘governing elite’ and ‘nongoverning elite’.
○ ‘Governing elite’ is one that wields power for the time being while ‘non-governing
elite’ constantly endeavours to replace it by showing greater ability and excellence.
○ In short, behaviour of elite is characterized by a constant competition between
governing and nongoverning elites.
○ This results in what is called ‘circulation of elites’. In any case, masses have no
chance of entering the ranks of elites.
 ● Apart from intelligence and talent, Pareto also recognizes courage and cunning as the
qualities of elite. He observes that ‘the lions’ (who are distinguished by their courage) are
more suited to the maintenance of status quo under stable conditions, while ‘the foxes’
(who are distinguished by their cunning) are adaptive and innovative and cope better
during periods of change.
● While Pareto regards intelligence and talent as the outstanding qualities of elite, Mosca’s
ruling class was distinguished by its capacity of organization.
○ Of the two Italian elitists, Mosca is more democratic. He believed that leadership
could emerge at all levels including grass-root level.
○ Each stratum of society has the potential of producing good organizers for itself.
They need not look for outsiders for their guidance and control.
● A significant contribution to elite theory was made by Robert Michels , a German
sociologist. In his famous work Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical
Tendencies of Modern Democracy Michel propounded his ‘Iron Law of Oligarchy’. He
proceeded to demonstrate that every organization—whatever its original aims—is
eventually reduced to ‘oligarchy’, that is the rule of the chosen few.
● C. Wright Mills , an American sociologist, presented a new version of elite theory in his
famous work, The Power Elite . He preferred the term ‘power elite’ to ‘ruling class’. While
Marxian concept of ‘ruling class’ implied that an economic class would exercise all political
power in society, Mills’ concept of ‘power elite’ implied a combination of several groups
who exercised all power by virtue of their high status in all important spheres of social
life. It signified an inner circle of power holders in modern American society.
Group Perspective on Power
● Group perspective on power corresponds to pluralist theory, whereas class perspective,
elite perspective and gender perspective on power maintain that the exercise of power
divides the society into two broad categories dominant and dependent groups, pluralist
theory of power does not subscribe to this view. According to this theory, power in society
is not concentrated in a single group, but it is dispersed amongst a wide variety of
social groups.
● These groups are largely autonomous and almost independent centres of decision. ex-
Organizations of workers, peasants, traders, industrialists, consumers, etc. could be
cited as examples of such groups in the contemporary society. These groups cannot be
classified into dominant and dependent groups. They have their share of power in their
respective spheres of operation.
○ Pluralist society is that society in which power and authority are not concentrated
in a particular group but they are spread to various centres of decision-making.
Dahl’s model of democracy, described as ‘polyarchy’, postulated that society is
controlled by a set of competing interest groups, with the government as little more
than an honest broker in the middle.
The Foucauldian Concept of Power
● Michel Foucault, one of the most important figures in critical theory has been the centre
of attraction on the concepts of power, knowledge and discourse. His influence is
perceptible in post-structuralist, post-modernist, post-feminist, post-Marxist and post-
colonial theories.
● The thought provoking nature of Foucault’s theoretical works has been the reason for very
productive debates from the nineteen sixties to the present.
● During Foucault’s collegiate period Marxism and phenomenology were the predominant
theories in French intellectual life. Foucault became familiar with Marxism and
phenomenology because they were the most influential bodies of theory during the
postwar years. According to phenomenology, meaning has to be found in a person’s
perception of the universal essence of an object. Foucault is influenced by the historicising
work of Martin Heidegger and Georges Canguilhem.
● Canguilhem was interested in the way in which scientific rationality and reason is always
changing. Although Heidegger was a phenomenologist, he emphasized the centrality of
the social and cultural contexts in which truth and meaning were produced. For Heidegger,
people’s ideas and activities were largely determined by the background in which they
lived. But people tend to think that they are acting freely and independently on their
context.
○ According to structuralists/post-structuralists meaning is relational. Events, ideas
and activities do not mean anything in themselves but they only make sense when
they are related to other events, ideas and activities.
○ Structuralism celebrates the death of the subject. Structuralism extends
Heidegger’s insight that people are not really free to think and act. Their ideas and
activities are produced by the structures (social, political, cultural) in which they
live.
○ According to this perspective, people do not think or create meanings. On the
contrary, structures think and speak through people.
● Psychoanalytical theory, especially as developed through the works of Sigmund Freud and,
later, Jacques Lacan, continued this critique of the free subject. According to Freud and
Lacan, the subject is a kind of myth which emanates from one’s repressed desires and the
subject’s existence is based on ignorance.
● The most important influence on Foucault’s work, particularly from The Order of Things
onward, was the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s ideas on the
relationship between truth, knowledge and power influenced him very much. Nietzsche
rejected the notion that history unfolds in a rational way with the gradual development of
higher forms of reason. Any form of knowledge or truth that emerges in a culture not
because it is valuable or eternal, but it is because one group manages to impose their will
on others.
● Foucault addresses the question of power in his seminal writings. In The History of
Sexuality Volume one Foucault defines power as “the multiplicity of force relations
immanent in the sphere in which they operate and which constitute their own
organisation”.
● Foucault argues, in medieval society power had been consolidated largely through the
existence of a sovereign authority who exercised absolute control over the subjects
through the open display of violence.
● In the modern era, power is exercised in a different way. In the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries there was an invention of a new mechanism of power possessed of highly
specific procedural techniques. This new mechanism of power is more dependent upon
bodies.
● By means of surveillance power is constantly exercised. The common conception is that
power is attributable to and exercised by agents and is exercised on agents. Foucauldian
power is impersonal, purely relational and blind. Power is impersonal because it is neither
possessed nor exerted by individuals, groups, or institutions. Foucault termed power as a
complex set of relations. Power is the sum total of influences that actions have on
other actions.
● Foucauldian power is blind and purposeless. It emerges from a strategic situation or web
of relations. Power is impersonal; it is not anyone’s power, because it is a web of relations
among actions rather than among agents.
● Power is pervasive. No one can escape from power relations. To act in defiance is to act
within power, not against it. In order to escape from power one would have to be utterly
alone and free of all the enculturation that makes social beings. One cannot escape power
without achieving complete solitude or total enslavement. Power is not something that
individuals can or cannot escape. It is the intricate web of constraining interrelationships
that exists, the moment there is more than one agent. The point is that there cannot be
interaction among individuals outside power. Power is not something that is acquired,
seized, or shared, because it is ever-present in the environment of which human beings
are subjects and agents.
● Foucauldian power is not domination. It is the complex network acts of domination,
submission and resistance. The aim of this technology of power is not mere control, which
is achievable through imposition or restrictions and prohibitions, but pervasive
management.
● What is new in Foucault’s consideration of pervasive management is description of how it
is achieved not just through restrictions, but through enabling conceptions, definitions,
and descriptions that generate and support behaviour governing norms.
● Power is not just the ruthless domination of the weaker by the strong. The most significant
feature of Foucault’s thesis is his stress on the modern exercise of the productive nature
of power. His main aim is to replace the negative concept and attribute the productive
 nature to power. It produces reality and truth.
● Foucault suggests that power is intelligible in terms of the techniques through which it is
exercised. Many different forms of power exist in society such as legal, administrative,
economic, military, and so forth. What they have in common is a shared reliance on certain
techniques or methods of application, and all draw some authority by referring to scientific
truths. Power must be analysed as something which circulates, or rather as something
which only functions in the form of a chain. It is never localised here or there, never in
anybody’s hands, never appropriated as a commodity or piece of wealth. Power is
employed and exercised through a net-like organisation. Individuals not only circulate
between its threads but they are always in the position of undergoing and exercising this
power.
● The most important feature of Foucault’s theories on power reveals that power is not a
thing or a capacity which can be owned either by State, social class or particular
individuals. Instead, it is a relation between different individuals and groups and only exists
when it is being exercised. A king is a king only if he has subjects. Thus, the term power
refers to sets of relations that exist between individuals, or that are strategically deployed
by groups of individuals.
● Institutions and governments are simply the ossification of highly complex sets of
power relations which exist at every level of the social body.
● Foucault distinguishes his ideas on power by criticising power models which see power as
being purely located in the State or the administrative and executive bodies which govern
the nation State. The very existence of the State in fact depends on the operation of
thousands of complex micro-relations of power at every level of the social body. Foucault
offers the example of military service which can only be enforced if every individual is tied
in to a whole network of relations which include family, employers, teachers and other
agents of social education. The grand strategies of State rely on the cooperation of a
whole network of local and individualised tactics of power in which everybody is involved.
The State is merely a configuration of multiple power relations.
● Foucault criticises traditional power models; power is not about simply saying no and
oppressing individuals, social classes or natural instincts, instead power is productive. It
shapes forms of behaviour and events rather than simply curtailing freedom and
constraining individuals. He argues in The History of Sexuality, Volume. One: “if power
was never anything but repressive, if it never did anything but say no, do you really
believe that we should manage to obey it?”.
● There must be something else, apart from repression, which leads people to conform.
Foucault suggests that power is intelligible in terms of the techniques through which it is
exercised. It generates particular types of knowledge and cultural order. He describes in
The History of Sexuality, Volume One the concern that developed in the nineteenth
century about male children’s masturbation, and the way that this led to the publication of
 numerous advice manuals on how to prevent or discourage such practices which, in turn,
led to a full-scale surveillance of boys.
● Power produces different types of behaviour pattern and discipline in human lives. Thus, in
Discipline and Punish Foucault states: We must cease once and for all to describe the
effects of power in negative terms: it excludes, it represses, it censors, it abstracts, it
masks, it conceals. In fact, power produces reality, it produces domains of objects and
rituals of truth.
● In Foucault’s view power and oppression should not be reduced to the same thing for a
number of reasons. To identify power with oppression is to assume that power is exercised
from one source and that it is one thing. By regulating people’s everyday activities,
power produces particular types of behaviours.
● Power is not an institution, a structure, or a certain force with which certain people are
endowed; it is the name given to a complex strategic relation in a given society. Foucault
suggests that one should refrain from questioning the objectives and intentions of those
exercising power. Power is reducible neither to the actions nor the intentions of its putative
agents. Power should be seen as a verb rather than a noun, something that does
something, rather than something which is, or which can be held onto.
● Foucault puts it in the following way in Power/Knowledge: Power must be analysed as
something which circulates, or as something which only functions in the form of a chain.
Power is employed and exercised through a netlike organisation…Individuals are the
vehicles of power, not its points of application. Power is conceptualized as a chain or as a
net that is a system of relations spread throughout the society rather than simply as a set
of relations between the oppressed and the oppressor.
● Individuals should not be seen simply as the recipients of power, but as the place where
power is enacted and the place where it is resisted.
● In The History of Sexuality Volume One, Foucault states that “where there is power there is
resistance” . It allows to consider the relationship between those in struggles over power
as not simply reducible to a master–slave relation, or an oppressor–victim relationship.
Where power is exercised, there has to be someone who resists. Foucault goes as far as to
argue that where there is no resistance it is not, in effect, a power relation. Resistance is
written into the exercise of power.
● In order to analyse a power relation, one must analyse the total relations of power, the
hidden transcripts as well as the public performance. The possibility for resistance is an
elementary condition for every conceivable relation of power. Foucault maintains that
resistance is a necessary precondition for the operation of relations of power. He insists
resistance must be a precondition for power, without such forms of contestation and
struggle there would be only complete domination, subservience and obedience. Power
and the potentiality of resistance are hence thought to be coterminous. Power cannot be
treated as complete control or absolute subservience. It is only through the articulation of
 resistance that power can spread through the social field. Resistance is an internal
property of power. It is a condition of operation that remains inherent to power itself.
Resistance is everywhere and at every level.
● Foucault argues that power can be exercised only over free subjects. By freedom,
Foucault means the possibility of reacting and behaving in different ways. If these
possibilities are closed down through violence or slavery, then it is no longer a question of
a relationship of power. There is no power without potential refusal or revolt.
● Foucault’s works try to evolve a methodology to analyse power and knowledge. Power is
based on knowledge and makes use of knowledge. Power reproduces knowledge by
shaping it in accordance with its anonymous intentions. Power re-creates its own fields of
exercise through knowledge. In Discipline and Punish Foucault points out the relationship
between power and knowledge: Power produces knowledge ,there is no power relation
without the correlation constituting of field of knowledge nor knowledge that does not
presuppose and constituted as the same time power.
● Foucault asserts that knowledge produces power and power produces knowledge by
reciprocating each other. He accepts the popular saying that knowledge is power. Foucault
states that power is the source of sovereignty. Power is used as a repressive means to
control and rule people with individual’s body targeted for punishment by means of
torture. Torture was used to get confessions .
● Foucault introduces panopticon as one of the regulatory modes of power. Panopticon is an
architectural settings designed by Jeremy Bentham in the mid nineteenth century. It was
used to regulate the inmates of prisons, asylums, schools, hospitals, and factories. Violent
methods and dungeons were replaced by surveillance and observation. Panopticon offers
a powerful and sophisticated internalized coercion through the constant observation. The
modern structure would allow guards to continually see inside each cell from their vantage
point in a high central tower, unseen. The constant observation was seen to act as a
control mechanism.
● The knowledge further categorizes people, sets norms for the society and the subjects are
meant to follow the laid down rules. In this way, society is categorized into mental
institutions, military institutions, prisons and hospitals from which a madman, a patient and
a condemned person must be kept and observed through panopticon. The Panopticon is a
metaphor that allows to explore the relationship between systems of social control and
people in a disciplinary situation, and the power-knowledge concept. Power and
knowledge derive from observing others. It marks the transition to a disciplinary power.
● Surveillance enables every movement supervised and all events recorded. The result of
surveillance is acceptance of regulations. Panoptic surveillance aims at transforming
individuals such that it shapes their behaviour in prescribed directions and dimensions.
● Suitable behaviour is achieved not through total surveillance, but by panoptic discipline
and inducing a population to internalize that surveillance. Power becomes more efficient
●

and active through the mechanisms of surveillance. The major goal of panopticon is “to
induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the
automatic functioning of power” . Panoptic surveillance is fundamentally concerned with
monitoring and controlling the people.
● To Foucault knowledge is a form of power and knowledge can be gained from power.
Through observation knowledge is produced. Human sciences (psychology, sociology,
economics, linguistics, even medicine) seek to define human being simultaneously as they
describe them. Human sciences work together with such institutions as mental hospitals,
prisons, factories, schools, and law courts to have specific and serious effects on people.
The human sciences carefully define the difference between normal and abnormal, and
then use these definitions always to regulate behaviour. The study of abnormality is one of
the main ways in which power relations are established in the society. When an
abnormality and its corresponding norm are defined, it is always the normal person who
has power over the abnormal.
● The psychologist tells about madmen, the physician about the patients, the criminologist
talks about the criminals, but people never expect to hear the latter talk about the former.
In this way, certain people get the rest of them to accept their idea of who they are. The
people who decide what knowledge is in the first place can easily claim to be the most
knowledgeable.
● Foucault’s point is that regimes of truth, such as those of the human sciences, are infused
with relations of power. For him, power exists everywhere and comes from everywhere. It
acts as a complex form of strategy with the ability to secretly shape another’s behaviour.
○ However, Foucault sees the effects of power as a producer of reality. It produces
domains of truth.. Truth is not outside power. Truth is produced only by virtue of
multiple forms of constraints. Foucault argues that knowledge is power over others,
the power to define others. In his view, knowledge ceases to be liberation and
becomes a mode of surveillance, regulation and discipline.
● Foucault’s concepts of history are derived from Nietzsche. He expressed his indebtedness
to Nietzsche for having outlined a conception of history called genealogy. It leads to the
idea of will to power. Nietzsche believes that power is the motive that works behind the
production of knowledge. It is the will to power that motivates all actions of human beings.
● Knowledge of things are not something the human intellect perceives or intellectually
grasps words or merely conforms to use the accepted conventions. Power is implicated in
the manner in which certain knowledge is applied. Truth is not outside power; truth is a
thing of this world. Each society has its regime of truth. Foucault’s argument is that social
power is ultimately created through individuals who internalize discipline and this
internalization is through knowledge. This practical inseparability results in new modes of
control in which the growth of human science knowledge, the innovation of intricate
disciplinary technologies and the production of the psychological subject come to be
 linked.
● The mechanisms of power produce different types of knowledge. Foucault describes truth
as historical because it is relative to discourse and it is the product of power. Truth is
relative to social and learned discourses because truth is produced by power relations. If
each society has its own regime of truth, then truths must somehow be produced, in a way
that makes them specific to their respective regimes. Knowledge and truth cannot exist
outside the circulation of power. There can be no possible exercise of power without a
certain economy of discourses of truth. People cannot exercise power except through the
production of truth.
● Power does not produce truth in any systematic way. Power produces truth blindly and
nonsubjectively. The idea of a single meaning is a philosophical myth. There is no meaning
but countless meanings. It is produced in discourse and it has nothing to do with how
things really are. Truth is not outside power, truth is a thing of this world. It is produced
only by virtue of multiple forms of constraint. It induces regular effects of power. Each
society has its regime of truth. The world or brute reality does not contain truth or facts.
Truth works without necessarily referring to how things are. He argues that there are strict
historically and culturally specific rules about how truth is both accessed and
disseminated. One cannot make any claims about truth except from within quite specific
cultural and historical settings. Any system of rules is also a finite system of constraints
and limitations.
● Foucault is interested in the way that power operates through different forms of regime at
particular historical periods. In Discipline and Punish he describes the way that power has
been exercised in different eras in Europe, the application of power moved from the public
spectacle of the tortured body of the individual to the surveillance. In Discipline and
Punish, he examines how discipline which is a form of self-regulation is encouraged by
institutions. He analyses the way that regimes exercise power within a society through the
use of a range of different mechanisms and techniques. He analyses a range of different
institutions such as the hospital, the clinic, the prison and the universal practice of
disciplinary techniques. Discipline consists of a concern with control which is internalized
by each individual. It consists of a concern with time-keeping, selfcontrol over one’s
posture and bodily functions, concentration, sublimation of immediate desires and
emotions. All of these elements are the effects of disciplinary pressure. In Foucault’s
account, disciplinary power first began to develop at the end of the eighteenth century. It
replaced and worked in tandem with an older form of power which Foucault designates as
sovereign power.
● Sovereign power is operated in feudal societies. There were highly individualised authority
figures such as the king, the priest and the father who were designated as the holders of
power and to whom allegiance was owed. It operates via divine right, public ceremony and
by making examples of those who transgress authority. Foucault argues that forms of
 sovereign power began to become less and less efficient as a way of regulating the
behaviour of populations in Europe towards the end of the eighteenth century leading to
the development of new techniques of social control. Discipline is a technology aimed at
keeping someone under surveillance. There are ways to control one’s conduct, behaviour
and aptitude. It also deals on how to improve one’s performance, multiply one’s capacities
and how to put someone where he/she is most useful. Disciplinary techniques were first
developed in the army and the school, and then were very quickly applied to hospitals,
factories and prisons. One of the effective techniques in the exercise of disciplinary power
is the examination associated within the institutions such as school, hospitals and
asylums. The examination is able to combine both surveillance and normalisation and turn
people simultaneously into objects of knowledge and power. Through the examination,
individuals are required to reproduce certain types of knowledge and behaviour. Their
performance can be measured, and entered into a data bank which compares them with
others.
● Sexuality by contrast, is an individual matter which involves personal desires, fantasies,
and pleasures. Has a matter of discourse and governmentality. It is here that norms and
standards are established and policed. People come to understand the relationship
between our sexuality and our society’s rules. Sex and sexuality together comprise a set of
practices,behaviours, rules and knowledges by which people produce their selves.
Sexuality enabled establishment of the normal and the abnormal. Suddenly individuals
became vulnerable to classification based on conformity with or deviation from norms
generated by a supposedly objective sexual nature. However, conformity with or deviation
from norms is not just a matter of what individuals do or do not do. Classification as
normal or abnormal is not mere cataloguing of normal or 35 abnormal actions. The History
of Sexuality shows how members of a society are made to perceive themselves as having
certain sexual natures by application of theories that define the nature of normality and
abnormality.
● There is imposition of a new self-perception, and here too individuals are made
complicities in their own control. The other side of the coin is that some members of
society are empowered by special knowledge to exercise control over sexuality to prevent
and correct deviationism. In The History of Sexuality, Madness and Civilization, and The
Birth of the Clinic, Foucault describes how human nature became an object of detailed
scientific study that enables and supports regulative disciplinary techniques. Post
structuralism has emphasized that the subject is not a free consciousness or a stable
human essence but rather a construction of language, politics, and culture.
● Foucault argues that the policies developed by disciplinary sites establish discursive
norms. Foucault argues that bio-power is a technology which appeared in the late
eighteenth century for managing populations. It incorporates certain aspects of
disciplinary power. If disciplinary power is about training the actions of bodies, bio-power
 is about managing the births, deaths, reproduction and illnesses of a population. Bio-
power emerges at the end of the seventeenth century from a disciplinary focus on
individual bodies. It is typically localized to the institutional confines of schools, hospitals
and so on. Medicine and health interventions have a crucial role to play. Meticulous
attention was paid to individual bodies, to a concern with the body of the population.
Singular and collective life came under the influence of power in the respective forms of
bodily technologies of discipline and biopolitical technologies of regularization. Bio-
politics can be understood as that type of biopower that targets collectivise, constituting
its subjects as people, a nation and a race.
● Bio-power begins with the body and its potentials. Bio-politics is always necessarily a form
of government. Bio-power deals with the strategies of the government that acts under the
guise of improving the welfare of the individual. Bio-politics is to be understood as the
calculated life-management of human population. The state has a crucial role in regulating
vital biological processes such as birth, mortality, disease and life-expectancy.
● These biological processes come under the domain of bio-politics. He also uses the term
governmentality to describe a particular way of administering the population. He later
expands the definition to encompass the techniques and procedures which are designed
to govern the conduct of individuals. By government, Foucault means the techniques and
procedures which govern and guide people’s conduct.
● In short, governmentality is the rationalisation and systematisation of a particular way of
exercising political sovereignty through the government of people’s conduct. The idea of
governing a population, rather than simply ruling over a territory is something that only
started to appear in Europe in the sixteenth century, adapting aspects of the pastoral
forms of governance aimed at saving people’s souls which already existed in the Church.
Conclusion
● Foucault, moves away from the sovereignty-centric (Hobbesian) conception of power
toward what he calls “disciplinary power” or the micro mechanisms of power– –the
techniques and tactics of domination–– that, as a closely linked grid of disciplinary
coercions, keeps the social body in a steady state (a society of normalization).So, the new
power operates through disciplinary norms rather than through command and obedience
relationship.
● The state in this situation, becomes a superstructural meta power, rooted in a whole series
of multiple and indefinite power relations, and as Foucault argues, “The state consists in
the codification of a whole number of power relations which render its functioning
possible…”. Foucault’s analysis has opened up new ways of looking at power in society,
not so much as a juridical concept as a socially networked relations of domination and
subjugation.
● According to Foucault, in common parlance, power has been viewed in reductionist term. It
is the top-down vision that has always looked at power as a striking force and a visible . In
 ●

Foucault’s analysis, to ascribe all phenomena of power to the prevailing power

apparatuses is a form of unrealistic reductionism. Power, in this view, is not what and
where people think it is. In reality, it is the expression of hundreds of micro-processes
defining various currents coming from a multitude of different sources. The reductionist
view ignores that “the state, for all the omnipotence of its apparatuses, is far from
being able to occupy the whole field of actual power relations, and further… the state
can only operate, on the basis of other, already existing power relations.”
● Thus, attention should be paid to domination and the infinite ways in which power
operates. Foucault calls this power ‘non-sovereign power, lying outside the form of
sovereignty. It is disciplinary power taking the shape of a closely linked grid of disciplinary
coercions intended to assure the cohesion of the social body.
Gender Perspective on power
● Gender perspective on power is represented by feminist theory. It recognizes the division
of society into two broad groups on the basis of gender: men and women who were
biologically fit to perform different functions.
● The age-old and universal dominance of man over woman is manifested in the concept of
patriarchy.
● Steven Lukes’ Three-dimensional Approach to the Study of Power:
○ Luke’s principal argument is that we need to think about power broadly and pay
attention to those aspects of power that are least accessible to observation. Lukes
maintains that power is one of those concepts which is unavoidably value-
dependent, that is, both its definition and any given use of it, once defined, are
inextricably tied to a given set of (probably unacknowledged) value assumptions
which predetermine the range of its empirical application.
● Lukes sketches three conceptual maps which reveal the distinguishing features of three
views of power:
○ The pluralist view (which he calls the one dimensional view);
○ The view of critics of pluralism (which he calls the two-dimensional view); and
○ A third view of power (which he calls the three-dimensional view).
● The distinctive features of these three views of power are summarized as follows:
○ One-dimensional View of Power: Here the focus is on Decision-making
○ Two-dimensional View of Power: Here focus is on agenda setting
○ Three-dimensional View of Power: Here focus is on thought control process.
● Lukes argues that the first two views of power are inadequate, claiming that the
threedimensional view is a better means for the investigation of power relations.
Authority
● Legitimate plus power is authority.
● Authority is the right to do a thing.
● Power is often used to mean authority when we speak of giving someone legal powers. A
 ●
person with power holds a special office (e.g. a minister or a President); this means that he
has authority and is able by virtue of that position to get others to do what he tells them to
do; his power is the exercise of authority. That is why the word power can be used to mean
authority.
Classification of Authority
● The German sociologist Max Weber suggested a three fold classification of the sources of
authority in a modern state. They are rational-legal, traditional and charismatic authority.
○ Rational-legal authority is explicit and has the right to give orders and to have them
obeyed by virtue of an office held within a system of deliberately framed rules which
set out rights and duties. Bureaucracy is the best example of rational-legal
authority. When a citizen accepts the authority of a bureaucrat, he does so not
because of anything else but due to the powers allocated to the official by a legal
system. The office, the individual holds, is important and not the individual himself
or herself.
○ Traditional authority exists where a person, such as a king or a tribal chief, holds a
superior position of command in accordance with long tradition and is obeyed,
because everyone accepts the sanctity of the tradition. Religious authority is of this
kind.
○ Charismatic authority rests on the possession of exceptional personal qualities that
cause a person to be accepted as a leader. There may be qualities of saintly virtue
giving their possessor religious authority or qualities of outstanding heroism,
intellect, oratory that bring a following of loyal devotion in politics, in wars and other
kinds of enterprise. The charismatic leader has the gift of divine grace and
extraordinary qualities. Lenin or Mahatma Gandhi got their position on account of
their charisma and qualities.A charismatic authority tends to be institutionalised.
This is what Weber calls ‘routinization of charisma’.
Legitimacy
● The ideas of authority and legitimacy are integral to the understanding of state, politics
and civil society.. Authority and legitimacy refer to how and why these rules are
acknowledged by members of the community as being worthy of obedience and having a
binding character.
● Both authority and legitimacy refer to the nature of public and political authority. While
obedience to rules can be elicited by governments through fear and coercion, forcible
extraction of compliance is not regarded as legitimate. Authority is Legitimate Power.
● While power denotes the capacity or the ability to affect and change one’s environment,
authority refers to both the capacity to change as well as the right to change. Authority
may, therefore, be seen as a modified form of power, where power is acknowledged as
rightful. This means that authority does not depend on any form of coercion or
manipulation, and invokes instead, a duty of obedience and compliance. In order to elicit
 voluntary or willing obedience, essential to effect changes, authority has to lay claims to
being right.
● Legitimacy provides to authority, the quality of correctness and justness, invoking
thereby, obedience and compliance as a matter of duty rather than as an outcome of
coercion and force. Thus, authority when associated with legitimacy, may be thought of as
“legitimate power”.
● While Liberals would see legitimacy as having a positive connotation, Marxists would be
less inclined to see legitimacy as providing any valid moral claims or ‘right to rule’. The
justification for authority is centred around the argument that it is essential for the
maintenance of order.
● The idea of legitimacy remained marginal to the understanding of political authority, until
the advent of the modern age. Before the seventeenth century, it was widely assumed that
political authority was divinely ordained and natural, and therefore, reasonable. Those who
upheld this view believed in the unquestioned domination of one set of people over the
other. This domination was sustained by the belief that the rulers represented divine will
and authority, and they alone knew what was good for the people, and the appropriate
ways to pursue, this good. From the seventeenth century, however, legitimacy, which had
so for remained submerged in the notion of divine authority, started taking shape and
developing the characteristics and became people centric.
Social Contract Theories: Hobbes and Locke
● The legitimate power of the government to rule, is demonstrated by the consent of the
governed, which is expressed and renewed periodically.
Montesquieu’s Alternative Views on Legitimacy:
● Rejecting the individualist framework of legitimation espoused by the contractualists,
Montesquieu , in his work The Spirit of the Laws , counterpoised alternative forms of
legitimacy.
● Montesquieu included in his framework a socially responsible role for the state by
including elements of social reform, constitutionalism, and the safeguard of basic civil
liberties. All of these were seen as contributing towards or constituting the essence of
legitimate authority.
Rousseau: Going beyond Montesquieu:
● In Rousseau’s scheme, the legitimacy of government, and of the exercise of power, hinged
on the active participation of citizens.
Karl Marx’s Views:
● He did not share Rousseau’s optimism about the relationship between active participatory
citizenship and political authority.
● Marx felt that in the framework of general will, one was distracted from the real issues i.e.,
the evils of society and the inegalitarian structures of capitalism, which produced them.
Max Weber
 ● Max Weber’s formulation may be seen as a counter-perspective. Starting from the
opposite end, Weber concerned himself with analysing the nature of authority and the
problems of securing obedience.
Weber and the Belief in Legitimacy:
● Weber considered legitimacy as fundamental to a systematic study of power relations. In
order to sustain a given system of domination, there was normally a further element i.e.
‘the belief in legitimacy’. In other words, where there is a general recognition of the
legitimacy of authority, its commands were bound to be followed. There would,
consequently, be no widespread use of coercion, or the constant fear of subversion or
disobedience .
● Weber’s study of the systems of domination led him to the conclusion that there are
different ideas or principles of legitimacy.
● Accordingly, Weber constructed three ‘ideal types’ or ‘conceptual models’, which he hoped
would help make sense of the highly complex nature of political rule, viz., traditional
authority, charismatic, and legal-rational authority. Each of these models represented a
distinct source of political legitimacy and corresponding to these, the different reasons
why people obeyed a particular regime.
Hebermas and The Legitimation Crisis
● Jurgen Habermas has developed an alternative to the Weberian approach to legitimacy.
Habermas admitted that modern capitalist societies or liberal democracies do have a
system of drawing out consent and support of the people. He, therefore, focused not
merely on the inequalities, which prevailed in capitalist societies, but concentrated also on
the machinery through which legitimacy was maintained viz., the democratic system, the
party system, social and welfare reforms etc. At the same time, however, Habermas
pointed out the difficulties of legitimation, which would invariably be faced in a political
process that produced and sustained unequal class power.
● In his work, Legitimation Crisis Habermas identified these difficulties as ‘crisis
tendencies’ within capitalist societies. These crisis tendencies emerged as a result of a
fundamental contradiction between the logic of capitalist accumulation and popular
pressures unleashed by democratic politics.
● Anthony King described this problem as one of government ‘overload’. Government was
overloaded quite simply because in attempting to meet the demands made of them,
democratic politicians came to pursue policies which threatened the health and long-term
survival of the capitalist economic order. For instance, growing public spending created a
fiscal crisis in which high taxes became a disincentive to enterprise, and ever-rising
government borrowing led to permanently high inflation.
● Habermas’s analysis suggests that liberal democracies cannot permanently satisfy both
popular demands for social security and welfare rights, and the requirements of a market
economy based on private profit. Forced either to resist democratic pressures or to risk
 economic collapse, capitalist democracies will, in his view, find it increasingly difficult to
maintain legitimacy.
● Capitalist societies, based on the pursuit of profit and producing class inequalities, have to
sustain political stability by invoking a normal claim to rule. In such a system, legitimacy is
secured by democratic processes, which lead to further demands for social welfare
provisions, increased popular participation and social equality. This in turn puts pressure
on the state to expand its social responsibilities, and raises demands for state intervention
for removing inequalities, forcing it to increase expenditure on welfare (non-profit)
measures. These pressures lead to increase in taxation and public spending, and constrain
capitalist accumulation by restricting profit levels and discouraging enterprise. Forced
either to resist popular pressures or risk economic collapse, such societies find it
increasingly difficult and eventually impossible, to maintain legitimacy.
● Thus, a capitalist society is constantly in the grip of crisis tendencies, which test its ability
to sustain itself through the legitimacy that it can elicit through various democratic
institutions. According to Habermas, capitalist democracies cannot permanently satisfy
both popular demands for social equality and welfare rights and requirements of a market
economy based on private profit. The implication of such ‘crises’ involves a disturbance of
integration or cohesion of society and the regulatory structures of the capitalist system.
● In such scenarios of legitimation crisis, the modern state, according to Habermas, takes
recourse simultaneously to ‘system steering’ and ideological measures to legitimize and
stabilize the existing structures. This involves an ‘uncoupling’ or dissociation of the
economic (wage labour and capital relations) and the political spheres (institutions of
governance). The political sphere in turn becomes less participatory and more
impersonal, bureaucratised, and distanced from the ruled. Such a system would,
however, be held together ideologically by legitimizing ‘universalist’ discourses of rights,
justice and citizenship which give the rulers the moral claim to rule.
Revolution
● The idea of revolution covers not only the political, but also the economic, the social and
the cultural dimensions of human life. A precise definition of the term involves different
ramifications ranging on the implications of change, whether peaceful or violent, total or
partial, minor or major. In political theory its core meaning, is that it constitutes a challenge
to the established political and the eventual establishment of a new order radically
different from the preceding one.
● Revolution is not merely concerned with the overthrow of the established order. It is
equally concerned with the establishment of a new one. Thus, it is not merely an event,
but a series of events.
Different Theories Of Revolution
● Liberal Theory:
○ The Liberal theory of revolution emphasises preserving the status quo in the
 ○
process of change. They look at revolution as a peaceful constitutional change.
● Marxian Theory:
○ The Marxian theory basically emphasised that a social revolution takes place when
the existing relations of production begin to act as a fetter on the future
development of forces of production. Thus revolution is a holistic change.
● Idealistic-Liberal Theory:
○ This idealistic-cum liberal interpretation of the idea of revolution is traceable in the
political philosophy of M.N. Roy, who said that revolution means awakening the urge
of freedom in man.
Theorising Revolution in Recent Social Literature
● Comparative Approach:
○ The most influential exercise in comparative approach as applied to social
revolutions is the work of Theda Skocpol in her book States and Social Revolutions,
which was based on a comparative analysis of French, Russian and Chinese
Revolutions. By following this approach, she tried to find out the ‘generalizable logic’
behind the revolutions she studied.
○ She concluded that social revolutions are simply the unplanned product of
competing forces. Different groups enter the fray and the outcome is determined
by which of them ultimately wins. Neither individuals, nor groups, nor even classes
act throughout revolutions with the logic and consistency which traditional views
would demand.
● Psychological Approach:
○ Modern psychological theories of revolution under the influence of Freud focused
attention on the psychological aspects.
○ The impulse towards the use of violence is found by Gurr ( Why Men Rebel)in a
socialpsychological concept called ‘relative deprivation’, which is used to denote the
tension that develops from a discrepancy between the “ought” and the “is” of
collective value satisfaction.
● Philosophical Approach
○ Modern philosophical explanations of revolution are dominated by Hannah Arendt’s
On Revolution . For Arendt, revolution is one of the most recent of political
phenomena. Revolution is the search for freedom and revolutionaries are those
who fight for freedom in the face of tyranny. Freedom, according to Arendt, is a
distinctive quality; a good in itself which is the highest achievement of human
society to attain. The problem of revolution is that its spirit has failed to find
appropriate institutions in which to express itself. She, therefore, concludes with the
practical consequences for trying to realise this objective: not party government
which she believes to be a government by an elite chosen by the people, but self-
government by deputies of elementary republics.
Grounds and Limits of Political Obligation
● The problem of political obligation is one of the most prominent issues of political
philosophy. It is primarily concerned with the question: how far, when and why an
individual is obliged to obey the law and commands of political authority.
● There are theories of unlimited obligation versus limited [Link] is another school
of thought which prescribes no obligation at all.
Theories of Unlimited Obligation
The Doctrine of Force Majuere
● Force Majuere means superior strength, an irresistible compulsion or coercion. The
doctrine of force majuere, therefore, regards the superior strength of the state as the
source of political obligation. According to this view, the state is so powerful that the
individual has no option but to obey its laws and commands, whether he likes them or not.
In this sense, political obligation is based on the fear of punishment or other unpleasant
consequences which would follow from disobedience of law.
● The difficulty with this theory is that it is not based on any moral ground. It simply invokes
the dubious rule of ‘might is right’.
Divine Right Theory
● Since God’s will is binding on all mortals, this theory upholds an unlimited political
obligation. It establishes political obligation on religious rather than moral ground.
● The theory of divine right of Kings holds that the authority of the sovereign is derived from
God; hence obedience to the state is as imperative as obedience to God. The early hints of
this theory are found in the ancient Indian political thought. In Europe this theory was
developed during the ascendancy of monarchy. Its chief exponent was Robert Filmer
(1588- 1653). In the recent times, this theory was upheld in pre-communist Tibet and
some tribal kingdoms. It is seldom invoked in the modem state.
Conservative View
● Conservative thinkers uphold obedience to the state or political authority for practical
reasons. David Hume argued that the advantages of obedience to any type of political
authority outweigh the disadvantages of having no government at all. He, therefore,
upheld unconditional political obligation in view of practical utility of a government.
Edmund Burke similarly argued that politics was a matter of ‘prudence and practicability’.
● In a nutshell, the conservative view of political obligation is based on legitimacy rather
than on consent or morality.
Principle of Consent
● According to this view, ‘man is born free’; he can be expected to obey a ruler only with his
consent. In other words, a government can exercise its power only with an explicit or
implicit consent of its citizens. The theory of the ‘social contract’ represents the best
formulation of this viewpoint. Social contract represents the method of arriving at
agreement for setting up the state; it marks a transition from the state of nature to civil
 society. The terms of the contract define the ground and limits of political obligation.
● The chief exponents of the theory of the social contract are: Thomas Hobbes , John
Locke and Jean Jaques Rousseau .
Idealist View
● The idealist school of thought originally created an unconditional and unlimited obligation,
but later it was modified to admit a note of caution. G.W.F. Hegel , famous exponent of
idealism, eulogized the state as ‘the incarnation of divine reason’ and the ‘march of God
on earth’. He argued that when individual obeys the state, he essentially follows divine
reason and thereby exercises his freedom. Hegel, therefore, postulated an unlimited
political obligation.
● It was T.H. Green in the idealist tradition who declared that government cannot claim an
unconditional obedience of its citizens. . Green’s concept of political obligation is based on
his concept of the ‘common good’. He pointed out that it is society, not the state, which is
the pivot of the common good. Green argued that the state itself is obliged to promote
the common good as conceived by its citizens, and that individual is obliged to obey only
those laws which will promote the common good. If individuals think that they will serve
the cause of the common good by defying any command of the state, their political
obligation does not prevent them from such defiance. Thus Green’s view of political
obligation banks on the moral nature and capacity of human beings. It reduces the state
to an instrument of securing the common good as conceived and defined by its citizens.
By recognizing the organized power of the community rather than the state as the object
of political obligation, Green rules out the claim of any government to demand
unconditional obedience from its citizens
● Likewise, Harold J. Laski argued that if a government claims allegiance of human beings,
it will have to compete with other human associations in securing their highest welfare.
Theories against Political Obligation
Marxist View
● According to the Marxist view, the state is by no means the organized power of the
community. It is indeed the organized power of the dominant class— particularly the class
owning the major means of production. Its purpose is not general welfare, but helping the
strong competitors to increase their wealth and power by exploiting the weak competitors
as well as the dependent class. In a class-divided society, individual can have no political
obligation toward the state. At best, an individual can have any obligation toward society,
provided it is a classless and stateless society
Anarchist View
● The anarchist view advocates the abolition of all organized authority as well as the state
mechanism in order to build a society wherein all human beings shall freely and
spontaneously adjust with each other without requiring an external force to regulate their
relations. It, therefore, upholds negative political obligation. Anarchists like P.J. Proudhon
 and Peter Kropotkin argued that all governmental authority is illegitimate because the
state is indeed a coercive institution, which is suited only to a corrupt and unjust society.
The individual is only obliged to uphold justice. So he is obliged to resist the state and
devote himself to building a new system where all members of society will spontaneously
cooperate with each other.
● The Marxist and Gandhian views, as upholders of stateless society, come closer to the
anarchist view of political obligation.
Gandhian Perspective
● Mahatma Gandhi recognized severe limits of political obligation, as his principle of’civil
disobedience’ indicates. Civil disobedience implies deliberately disobeying an unjust
authority and breaking an unjust law. The duty of civil disobedience to an unjust law is the
counterpart of the duty of civil obedience to a just law. Civil disobedience may be resorted
to as a protest against an unjust policy of government or in order to draw attention of the
government to a demand for political reform.
● It is again important that the true object of civil obedience is ‘change of heart’ of the
authorities concerned. This should be resorted to only against a tyrannical regime, foreign
rule or unjust government. If a government generally maintains the citizens’ rights and can
be influenced through democratic means, resort to civil disobedience will not be
necessary. Finally, civil disobedience should not be resorted to for pressing the demands
of any particular section against the general or public interest.
Conclusion
● Political obligation is a complex issue. Its grounds and limits have to be considered very
carefully before conceding it. At the outset, it is necessary to realize that the individual
owes political obligation to political authority. Philosophically, we may owe political
obligation to any ideal object, but in actual life such obligation is always demanded by a
band of government officials which must be considered with utmost caution.
● It is essential to see that the resistance should not be taken too far. As Burke had warned,
resistance is the medicine of the constitution, not its daily bread. Reform should be
undertaken to achieve a definite objective, and the situation should be reviewed and a
further programme chalked out after fulfilment of that objective. If major issues are
resolved, minor issues could be left to take care of themselves.

Pyqs analysis

1) “Equality of estates caused equality of power, and equality of power is liberty.”

The statement highlights the close relationship between economic equality, political equality,
and liberty. It reflects a republican conception of freedom, where liberty is not merely the
absence of interference (negative liberty), but the absence of domination by others, which
becomes possible only when power — economic and political — is equally distributed. The
assertion implies that economic equality (equality of estates) leads to equality of power, which
is essential for ensuring true liberty in a democratic society

1. Equality of Estates → Equality of Power

● "Estates" refers to wealth or property; economic resources are the basis of influence.
● In societies with vast disparities of wealth:
○ The rich can dominate political processes, media, policymaking.
○ The poor are often dependent and politically voiceless.
● Economic equality reduces undue influence and levels the playing field.
● Example: In participatory democracies, citizens with similar economic standing can more
equally participate in political discourse.
2. Equality of Power → Liberty
● When no individual or class has disproportionate power over others, freedom from
domination is possible.
● Liberty, especially in its republican conception, is realized when all have an equal say in
public affairs.
● Without equality of power, liberty becomes a formal right, not a substantive experience.
● True liberty requires:
○ Equal participation in governance
○ Equal access to resources and opportunities
3. Theoretical Foundations
● Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Private property leads to inequality, which erodes liberty.
● Thomas Jefferson: Supported agrarian equality to protect republican freedom.
● John Rawls: Justice requires removing social and economic inequalities that undermine
fair equality of opportunity.
● Amartya Sen: Freedom is tied to capability, which is influenced by economic status.
4. Contrasting Views
● Robert Nozick (Libertarianism):
○ Believes in strong property rights even if it leads to inequality.
○ Liberty is about non-interference, not equal outcomes.
● Classical Liberals:
○ Stress negative liberty — freedom from state control, not equality.
○ Fear that enforcing economic equality may lead to loss of individual freedom.
5. Contemporary Relevance
● Rising economic inequality globally threatens democratic institutions.
● Examples:
 ○ Lobbying and campaign financing in capitalist democracies undermines political
equality.
○ Oligarchic tendencies in developing countries concentrate power in a few hands.
● Welfare policies, progressive taxation, and universal basic services help bridge the estate-
power gap.

Conclusion
The statement rightly captures a critical democratic insight — that liberty is hollow without
equality of power, and equality of power is impossible without equality of estates. In an age
where economic inequality threatens political pluralism and democratic participation, the idea
serves as a powerful reminder that economic justice is essential for genuine liberty. Hence, a
society that seeks to be truly free must strive not only for legal rights, but also for substantive
socio-economic equality.

Since liberty is a fruit that does not grow in all climates, it cannot be enjoyed by all people
alike.” – Rousseau (1992)

Introduction
This statement by Jean-Jacques Rousseau reflects his realist and contextual understanding of
liberty. He suggests that liberty is not a universal or uniform condition—it depends on social,
political, economic, and cultural climates. It is not equally available or viable in all societies due
to differences in history, institutions, and collective will. The statement challenges universalist
and abstract notions of liberty.

Body
1. Rousseau’s Conception of Liberty
● Liberty as self-rule: True liberty for Rousseau meant obedience to a law one has
prescribed for oneself—i.e., participation in the general will.
● He rejected the idea of liberty as merely absence of restraint (negative liberty).
● Liberty requires virtue, equality, and collective participation, which are not present in all
societies.
2. “Liberty does not grow in all climates” — Contextual Factors
● Rousseau uses "climates" metaphorically to refer to:
○ Cultural traditions
○ Historical development
○ Political systems
 ○ Social conditions
● For example:
○ Liberty may flourish in small republics with civic virtue (e.g., Geneva), but not in
empires or despotic regimes.
○ Liberty is difficult in highly stratified or unequal societies, or those without public
education and civic culture.
3. Liberty and Inequality
● Rousseau in The Social Contract and Discourse on Inequality:
○ Argued that private property led to inequality and loss of liberty.
○ True liberty requires economic and moral equality—not present everywhere.
4. Unequal Enjoyment of Liberty
● Even where liberty exists formally (e.g., legal rights), it may not be substantively enjoyed
by all:
○ Marginalized groups may lack the capacity or power to exercise liberty.
○ Liberty can become a privilege of the elite in capitalist democracies.
5. Contemporary Relevance
● Many post-colonial and authoritarian states struggle to implement liberal-democratic
values.
● Liberty is constrained by poverty, illiteracy, religious orthodoxy, or state surveillance.
● Universal rights frameworks must be adapted to local realities.
6. Critics of Rousseau’s View
● Liberals (e.g., John Stuart Mill) argue that liberty is a natural right, not contingent on
conditions.
● Human rights theorists advocate for universality of liberty as part of dignity.
● However, even they acknowledge differential access and pragmatic limitations.

Conclusion
Rousseau’s statement underlines the context-dependent nature of liberty. It cannot be
transplanted into societies that lack the conditions necessary for its sustenance, such as
equality, virtue, and participatory institutions. Thus, liberty must be nurtured, not assumed—it
must grow out of the specific soil of each society, shaped by its unique historical and cultural
climate. Rousseau reminds us that freedom is not a gift, but a collective achievement.

“The existence of liberty depends upon our willingness to build the foundations of society
upon the basis of rational justice and to adjust them to changing conditions in terms of
reasoned discussion and not violence.” – Harold J. Laski

Introduction
Harold J. Laski, a noted political theorist and democratic socialist, emphasizes the
interdependence between liberty, justice, and rational dialogue. According to him, liberty
cannot thrive in a vacuum—it must be supported by just social structures and a culture of
reasoned discourse, not violence or coercion. This quote reflects his belief in democratic
pluralism, peaceful reform, and the moral foundations of a free society.

Body
1. Liberty and Rational Justice
● Laski defines liberty not merely as absence of restraint, but as the presence of enabling
conditions—education, economic security, and political participation.
● Rational justice implies fair, equitable laws based on reason rather than prejudice or brute
force.
● A just society ensures that liberty is shared equally and not monopolized by a privileged
few.
2. Liberty Requires Constructive Foundation
● Laski insists that liberty must be built, not assumed—it arises from deliberate institutional
choices.
● These include:
○ Constitutional government.
○ Rule of law.
○ Independent judiciary.
○ Civil rights and civil society.
3. Adjusting to Changing Conditions: The Role of Dialogue
● Societies evolve—economically, socially, and politically.
● Therefore, liberty survives only if institutions evolve through reasoned discussion (e.g.,
deliberative democracy).
● Laski rejects violence or authoritarianism as tools of change; instead, he promotes
negotiation, reform, and consensus-building.
4. Violence as Antithesis of Liberty
● Violence suppresses freedom of expression, dissent, and minority rights.
● Authoritarian regimes may promise order but destroy liberty by silencing dialogue and
dissent (e.g., Fascism, Stalinism).
● In contrast, reasoned discussion promotes participation, public accountability, and
peaceful coexistence.
5. Relevance in Contemporary Context
● In polarized democracies today, the rise of majoritarianism and populism threatens
liberty.
● The increasing use of violence—physical, ideological, or digital— undermines democratic
 ●
norms.
● Laski’s words remind us that sustaining liberty requires a robust culture of justice,
dialogue, and democratic patience.

Conclusion
Harold Laski's vision of liberty is not static but dynamic, grounded in rational justice and
peaceful reform. His thought stresses that freedom cannot survive in an unjust or violent
society. Instead, it flourishes when rational debate replaces brute force, and when institutions
adapt to change through deliberation and fairness. In an era of rising authoritarian tendencies,
Laski’s message holds enduring value: liberty is a collective achievement, not a gift.