BPSC-131: INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL THEORY

Guess Paper-I

Q. What is state? Discuss various forms of stage.

Ans. A state is a polity that is typically established as a centralized organization. There is no undisputed
definition of a state. Max Weber's definition of a state as a polity that maintains a monopoly on the use of
violence is widely used, as are many others.
Some states are sovereign, while other states are subject to external sovereignty or hegemony, where supreme
authority lies in another state. The term "state" also applies to federated states that are members of a
federation, in which sovereignty is shared between member states and a federal body.
In modern politics, a state is an association which has control over a geographic area or territory. States are
seen as having three main pieces:
• A territory
• A people
• Some institutions (which have the power to make rules).
Types of state can be separated into two categories: democracy and dictatorship. However, just because a
group of states are all democratic does not mean that they follow the same rules. Iran, Pakistan, France,
Germany and the United States of America are all states. Each of them sees itself as a democracy. Each of
them however has a different idea of what democracy really means.
Different states of the same 'category' can also function differently. For example, two democratic states may be
quite different if one has a well-trained police or army while the other does not. Therefore, the word 'state'
only tells us what type of government that state follows (democratic or dictatorship) and does not tell us
about the country itself.
Modern state is identified as the nation state. The state has come to acquire its present character through a
historical process that extends to thousands of years. It is interplay of various factors like religion, kinship,
war, property, political consciousness and technological advances. In the process of historical evolution of
state, there have been following forms – Tribal State, Oriental Empire, Greek City State, Roman World
Empire, Feudal State and the Modern Nation State. The Modern Nation state arose after the Treaty of
Westphalia was signed in 1648. It led to emergence of territorial state consolidating political authority within
a particular territory excluding domestic from external. The separation of territory into distinct states each
with their own national spirit paved the way for establishment of Modern Nation State along with rise of
international law, legal equality of states and modern theory of sovereignty. American and French revolutions
further contributed to emergence of nation states. The modern concept of state is dominated by Liberal and
Marxist perspectives. The liberal perspective is dynamic as it has changed with time depending on interests
and needs of individuals and the society. The early liberal view of state was negative as it favored non-

1
interference in individual matters. However, 20th century liberalism is associated with welfare state which
tries to reconcile individual liberty with social good. The Marxist notion rejects liberal idea of state, calling the
state as an instrument of class and seeks to establish a classless and stateless society through the proletarian
revolution.

Q. What do you mean by liberty?

Ans. More or less every modern politician talks about “freedom” or “liberty.” Actually, they don’t talk about
it as much as they use it as a magic incantation. They go on at length about “our free country,” but if you
could get them to define freedom, that definition would be something along the lines of “what we have.”
liberty means freedom from, or absence of restraints. A person may be considered free or at liberty to do
something when his or her actions and choices are not hindered or constrained by those of another. It is
important to understand that constraints refer to impediments imposed by political and other authorities.
Thus, imprisonment, bondage or slavery, subjection to laws, etc., may be seen as referring to conditions of
unfreedom or absence of liberty. While states of unfreedom like imprisonment or subjection to laws may
appear as constraints on liberty, we know that modern democratic social and political organisations are
founded on legal and institutional structures, which aim at ensuring equal consideration of each individual’s
liberty. No society will, therefore, have an unlimited ‘right to liberty’. Each society will have a set of
restrictions on liberty, which are justified by the fact that people accept these restrictions as the best possible
conditions in which liberty could be maximised.
The negative nature of liberty appears in two different senses:
a) In the first, law is seen as the main obstacle to freedom. Hobbes, for instance, described freedom as the
‘silence of the laws’. Such a view sees freedom as limited only by what others deliberately prevent individuals
from doing. This understanding would, therefore, appear to imply a definite limit upon both law and
government. Philosophers like John Locke have, however, pointed out that a commitment to liberty does not
mean that the law should be abolished. Rather, it means that law should be restricted to the protection of
one’s liberty from encroachment by others.
b) The second view sees liberty as ‘freedom of choice’. Milton Friedman, for example, in his work, Capitalism
and Freedom (1962) proposes that ‘economic freedom’ consists of freedom of choice in the marketplace – the
freedom of consumer to choose what to buy, the freedom of the worker to choose his job or profession and the
freedom of the producer to choose what to produce and whom to employ. ‘To choose’ implies that the
individual can make unhindered and voluntary selection from a range of different options.
The negative conception of liberty is a characteristic of a strand of English political thought represented by
Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, Henry Sidgwick, Herbert Spencer and the classical and neo-
classical economists who supported the claims of individuals to break free from unnecessary restraints of
arbitrary government. The main political axiom of negative liberty was that ‘everyone knows his own interest
best’ and that the state should not decide the individual’s ends and purposes. Essential to the doctrine was the

2
sanctity of the contract. Implicit in this assumption of sanctity was the understanding that the act of entering
into a contract, even if the terms of the contract were restrictive of individual freedom, was an expression of
liberty, of the exercise of individual choice. Thus, to this strand of thinkers, a person’s liberty was a function
of that area in which he was left alone and not related to the quality of action. The concept of negative liberty
is best understood as a doctrine about the meaning of liberty. Although negative liberty is often condemned
as the ‘freedom to starve’, this understanding is somewhat misleading. It does not necessarily put a
prohibition on state intervention, but merely holds that this cannot be justified on the ground that it increases
freedom, although arguments from the arena of inequality may be called into force for justification. However,
the historical connection between negative liberty and the lasseiz-faire economics cannot be denied, and most
of its advocates favoured a minimal state. The concept is neutral in the sense that it is compatible with a wide
range of politics, and describes a condition of liberty without indicating whether it is good or not. Criticisms
of the negative notion of liberty have come from modern liberals, social democrats and socialists. The liberals
in the nineteenth century, primarily T. H. Green and to some extent J. S. Mill, developed some of the earliest
critiques of negative freedom. They felt that capitalism had done away with feudal hierarchies and legal
restrictions (especially of economic pursuits), but it had also subjected large masses of people to poverty,
unemployment and disease. Such circumstances were seen as hindering liberty as much as legal restraints
and social controls. One of the first liberals to embrace the positive notion of liberty was T. H. Green (1836-82),
who defined freedom as the ability of people ‘to make the most and best of themselves’. This freedom
consisting not merely of being left alone, but in having the power to act, shifting attention thereby to the
opportunities available to each individual. The concept of positive liberty has been at the basis of the Welfare
State. The idea has acted as the moving force behind social welfare provisions taken up by states, combining
thereby freedom with equality.

Q. What do you mean by social justice?

Ans. Social justice may be regarded as an important factor of social transformation. Social justice implies the
absence of discrimination on the basis of caste, color, religion etc. It also prohibits forces creating artificial
social barriers like those of untouchability. Social justice demands equality along with liberty. Besides these,
protection and improvement of the weaker and downtrodden sections of the people, equitable distribution of
the necessities of life etc. constitute social justice. Social justice in a wider sense, demands harmony and co-
operation between labour and capital, a substantial minimum wage according to the capacity of each industry
and other incidental benefits that improve the standard of living of the general people of the country.
1. Predominance of the Interest of the Community: With the decline of the laissez-faire doctrine, a new
awareness has developed that the rights of an individual should be reasonably restricted in the interests of the
community because the ends of social justice require the reconciliation of individual rights with that of
community interest. It also presumes that in the event of a conflict between the two, the community interest
must prevail over individual concerns. Social justice is, thus, closely linked with the idea of what constitutes

3
public good or community interest. Today with the penetration of democracy into the social and economic
spheres, community interest has come to encompass not only the political (fair treatment in political matters)
but also the social (non- discrimination in social areas) and economic (fair distribution of income and wealth)
spheres. Thus, social justice ranges from the protection of minority political rights to the abolition of
untouchability and the eradication of poverty. As such, in the backward countries of the world, the idea of
social justice enjoins upon the state to make concerted efforts for the improvement of the downtrodden and
weaker sections of the community.
2. Reforms or Social Change: Social justice is used to denote organization of society on the basis of ideas of
fairness and equality current at the time. It seeks a revision of social order so as to have a more equitable
society. Men through the ages have sought changes in social order, just as much as they have also sought to
preserve a given social order. Social justice stands for reformative justice, for revision of the social order and a
redistribution of rights to suit current ideas of fairness. When Aristotle spoke of ‘distributive justice’ he had
reformative or what Raphael calls “prosthetic” justice in mind, because their aim was to modify the status
quo. A hundred years ago, justice did not require governments to take care of the unemployed. Charity was
supposed to do that. Due to the operation of notions of “reformative” or “prosthetic” justice, today, it is
considered the state’s duty to take care of the unemployed and provide them employment.
3. Pound’s Illustration of Social Justice: The affirmation of the idea of social justice is very well contained in
the interpretation of Dean Roscoe Pound who presents a six-fold illustration of social interest and lays down
eight jural postulates to ensure social justice. Thus, the idea of social justice promotes the welfare of the people
by securing a just social order.
4. Criticism of Social Justice: Theories of social justice are criticized on three grounds. Firstly, demands for
social justice, by implication, enlarge the activities of the state. The state, then, will have to decide, “Who gets,
what, when and how.” Where the officers of the state develop vested interests, such subjective determination
is not likely to serve the ends of social justice. Secondly, policies of social justice and their implementation
require curtailment of liberty. How much of liberty should be sacrificed for how great/small social justice
becomes a problem difficult to solve. Lastly, it is difficult to assess which are the basic needs that have to be
satisfied to fulfill the criteria of social justice and which justify departure from equality.
However, when the Indian Constitution announces reservation of seats in legislature, educational institutions
and public employment, it strictly speaking, entails departure from equality. Various justifications are offered
for these policies in terms of justice. Firstly, that such treatment compensates for hundred years of
deprivations. Secondly, that these measures are necessary for realizing ultimate equality to bring the
traditionally disadvanted on an equal footing with society and thirdly, that justice can be done only if the
state comes forward with preferential policies to help them gain social respect, economic viability and
political status.

4
Q. Highlight the types of right.
Ans. Types of right include:
1. Natural Rights: Faith in natural rights is strongly expressed by several scholars. They hold that people
inherit several rights from nature. Before they came to live in society and state, they used to live in a state of
nature. In it, they enjoyed certain natural rights, like the right to life, right to liberty and right to property.
Natural rights are parts of human nature and reason.
However, several other scholars regard the concept of natural rights as imaginary. Rights are the products of
social living. These can be used only in a society. Rights have behind them the recognition of society as
common claims for development, and that is why the state protects these rights.
2. Moral Rights: Moral Rights are those rights which are based on human consciousness. They are backed by
moral force of human mind. These are based on human sense of goodness and justice. These are not backed
by the force of law. Sense of goodness and public opinion are the sanctions behind moral rights.
If any person violates any moral right, no legal action can be taken against him. The state does not enforce
these rights. Its courts do not recognize these rights. Moral Rights include rules of good conduct, courtesy and
of moral behaviour. These stand for moral perfection of the people Legal Rights.
Legal rights are those rights which are recognized and enforced by the state. Any violation of any legal right
is punished by law. Law courts of the state enforce legal rights. These rights can be enforced against
individuals and also against the government. In this way, legal rights are different from moral rights. Legal
rights are equally available to all the citizens. All citizens enjoy legal rights without any discrimination. They
can go to the courts for getting their legal rights enforced.
Legal Rights are of three types:
1. Civil Rights: Civil rights are those rights which provide opportunity to each person to lead a civilized
social life. These fulfill basic needs of human life in society. Right to life, liberty and equality are civil rights.
Civil rights are protected by the state.
2. Political Rights: Political rights are those rights by virtue of which citizens get a share in the political
process. These enable them to take an active part in the political process. These rights include right to vote,
right to get elected, right to hold public office and right to criticise and oppose the government. Political rights
are really available to the people in a democratic state.
3. Economic Rights: Economic rights are those rights which provide economic security to the people. These
enable all citizens to make proper use of their civil and political rights. The basic needs of every person are
related to his food, clothing, shelter, medical treatment etc. Without the fulfillment of these no person can
really enjoy his civil and political rights. It is therefore essential, that every person must get the right to work,
right to adequate wages, right to leisure and rest, and right to social security in case of illness, physical
disability and old age.

5
Q. What is the meaning of democracy?
Ans. Democracy is a system of government that bases its legitimacy on the participation of the people. While
democratic governments come in many varieties, they are uniformly characterized by (1) competitive
elections, (2) the principle of political and legal equality, and (3) a high degree of individual freedom, or civil
liberties. Due to reliance on elections, democracies have as their default principle the concept of majority rule.
However, one of the dominant tensions running through democratic societies is the balance struck between
the will of the majority and minority rights. The compromise between these two principles differs in different
democratic states.
There are a number of reasons why democracy is seen as a better form of government compared to others. In
his 1861 book, Considerations on Representative Government, J S Mill has given three advantages of a
democracy over non-democratic systems. First, democracy compels the decision makers to take into account
public interest and opinion which would not be the case in an authoritarian or aristocratic form of
government. Second, democracy brings in multiple views in the process of decision making which allows
decision makers to pick up the best ideas. Third, democracy also helps in character building of citizens as it
inculcates qualities like rationality, autonomy and independent thinking. This creates pressure of public
opinion on political leaders who cannot ignore people’s views if they wish to remain in power. Nobel laureate
Amartya Sen has given the relationship between democracy and famines, arguing that there has been no
famines in a functioning democracy as the leaders are accountable to the people and cannot ignore their basic
welfare. Modern democracy came up in Britain and France and later spread to other countries. A number of
reasons contributed to the spread of democracy – corruption and incompetence, misuse of power, absence of
accountability and unjustifiable rule of monarchs based on the concept of divine rights.
In a broader sense, democracy is not only a form of government and state, but also a condition of society. A
democratic society is one in which there is socioeconomic equality while a democratic state is one where
citizens get a chance to participate in an open and fair political process. Some frequent meanings attributed to
the term democracy are as follows:
• Rule by the poor and the disadvantaged
• Society based on equal opportunity and individual merit instead of hierarchy and privilege
• Welfare and redistribution to reduce social inequality
• Decision making based on majority rule
• Protection of minority rights by placing checks on majority rule
• Fulfilling public offices through competition for popular vote.
Democracy can be classified as direct and representative depending on how the people rule. Direct
democracy is based on direct and unmediated citizen participation in government rule. All adult citizens take
part in decision making to ensure that all the viewpoints are discussed and best possible decisions are taken.
Direct democracy wipes out the distinction between the government and the governed and the state and civil
society. The ancient Greek city state model was an example of direct democracy. In contemporary times,

6
direct democracy can be found in Swiss cantons. Direct democracy ensures greater legitimacy as people are
more likely to follow decisions which are taken by them only. It also creates a highly informed citizenry
which participate in decision making. However, there is vast difference in size (geography, population)
between a city-state and a nation-state. That is why; practicing direct democracy is difficult in big modern
nation states. This issue was solved with the development of representative democracy, which first appeared
in northern Europe in the 18th century. Representative democracy is limited and indirect form of democracy.
It is limited because popular participation in policy making is very less pertaining to voting in a few years
while it is indirect as people do not exercise power directly but through their elected representatives.
Presidential and parliamentary democracies are two main types of representative democracies around the
world. There are more parliamentary democracies around the world than the presidential democracies.
Parliamentary democracies are more representative than the presidential but at the same time, they are
relatively less stable.
Q. How Gender and Politics are related to each other?
Ans. Several definitions are necessary in order to grasp the scope and content of gender politics as a concept
and a field of study. At the most basic level, it is crucial to distinguish between sex, gender, and sexuality. In
their most common usages, sex denotes biological differences between men and women as male and female,
gender describes the social meanings given to sexual differences through notions of masculine and feminine,
and sexuality refers to sexual relations and questions of sexual orientation. However, definitions of all three of
these terms, as well as the connections between them, are subject to a great deal of confusion and debate.
In most modern democracies, equality between men and women has become the dominant ideal within the
mainstream political discourse. Men and women should naturally have the same rights, and no one should be
excluded from political life. Nevertheless, there are substantial differences both between countries and
between different political spheres as to how much and what kind of equality exists. There are several reasons
why some countries or some policy areas are more gender equal than others, and everything from regime and
institutional features to elements of culture have been used to explain why politics is generally still dominated
by male politicians. The literature on gender in politics is broad. Gender inequality in political acts are
diverse, as voting, campaigning and leading, as well as gender differences in political knowledge,
socialization, attitudes and women’s place in political theory. There are diversity of approaches with regard to
range of themes concerning gender and politics.

• First, women are seen in the categories and analyses of political science— thereby gendering the classic
“units of analysis” such as citizens, voters, legislators, parties, legislatures, states, and nations.

• A second strand on women has examined political activities in arenas traditionally seen as outside
political science.

• A third strand has looked at gender as a structure of social organization.

• Finally, struggles within the broader feminist movement, women of color (women of marginalized races
and ethnicities), women in the developing world, post-colonial feminists, and LGBTQ scholars who

7
 pressed for a place in the study of gender politics, sometimes finding a degree of accommodation and
sometimes, frustrated with resistance.
The institutional manifestations of politics located in government have been resistant to the incorporation of
women, their interests or perspectives. Women have, by and large, been excluded from traditional political
activity and discouraged from defining their activities as political. In this sense, issues of gender have long
been constitutive of the definition and operation of politics. On the other hand, issues of gender are largely
assumed to be irrelevant to the political. If gender is understood, as synonymous with women, then women’s
absence from the political sphere can be taken to imply that gender issues are simply not relevant to politics.

8
 BPSC-131: INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL THEORY
Guess Paper-II

Q. State the theories of citizenship.

Ans. Theories of citizenship are as follows:
1. Liberal Theory: Classical liberal theory is one of the constitutive elements of modern society. Liberal
political ideas emerged against the background of the collapse of the feudal social order and the emergence of
a society based on market relations. Liberalism simultaneously promoted the ideals of freedom and equality,
and strict separation between a public and a private realm. However, classical liberalism's assertion that
principles of equality and freedom should be limited to the public realm has led many later thinkers to see the
transformation of power in private family households as the last remaining objective of an incomplete
revolution.T. H. Marshalldivided citizenship in three elements – civil, political and social. Rights necessary for
freedom come under civil, political covers the right to take part in politics while social rights cover the right to
economic welfare and security. Marshall believed that social rights are the basis of civil and political rights.
Their development has been in different time frames – civil (18th century), political (19th) and social rights
developed in the 20th century. He argued that civil rights give ‘equal moral worth’ to individuals, but they
will be meaningless if not supported by social rights which stand for ‘equal social worth’. For ex, right to
freedom of speech has little value if one has nothing reasonable to say due to lack of education. Citizenship
stands for equality while capitalism breeds class inequalities. That is why, Marshall entrusted the state with
welfare functions to take care of the needy ones by ensuring minimum standard of living (social security).
Like the true liberal tradition, Marshall did not try to eliminate inequality but sought to reduce it. John Rawls
too made a contribution to liberal theory of citizenship by arguing for redistribution of goods and services to
benefit the least advantaged sections of society. In practice, however, substantive equality still eludes liberal
citizenship although it guarantees formal legal equality irrespective of differences in terms of caste, class, race,
gender etc.
2. Republican Theory: The Republican tradition focuses on civic self-rule through participation of citizens.
Rousseau argued in Social Contract that co-authoring of laws through general will makes citizens free and
laws legitimate. That is why, active participation in deliberation and policy making is advocated by
republicans as it ensures individuals are not subjects, but citizens. Unlike liberals who see citizenship as being
protected by law, republicans want participation in formulation of law. Liberals want representative
democracy while republicans promote deliberative democracy. Republicans further argue that citizenship
should be seen as common civic identity shaped by a common public culture. As civic identity, citizenship
can unite citizens as long as this identity is stronger than their other identities like religion, ethnicity etc.
Republicans criticize communitarians as well as they are apprehensive of local identities being placed above

9
the civic goals. However, given the scale and complexity of modern nation states, ensuring citizen
participation is a tough task.
3. Libertarian Theory: Libertarian citizenship can be traced to British Conservative government under
Margaret Thatcher in 1979 who gave more importance to market rights over social rights. It was believed that
the social rights (welfare policies) were becoming unaffordable for the state. They argue that people seek to
pursue their values and preferences through private activity rather than public redistribution. Libertarians
say citizenship is the product of free choice and contract among individuals. It considers market society as its
basis and a suitable model of civic life. Robert Nozick is the chief exponent of this theory. He observes that
individuals resort to private activity, market exchange and association to realize their values, beliefs and
preferences. Libertarians prioritize market rights which are seen as ‘entrepreneurial freedom’. They want
freedom to earn and own property as well as its protection. Accordingly, for the protection of right to
property, protective institutions are needed and state proves to be the most efficient of all. Critiques point out
that free market based individualism does not provide for adequate foundation of social solidarity.
4. Communitarian Theory: Communitarians argue that an individual does not exist prior to the community.
They criticize the liberals for ignoring social nature of individuals by focusing too much on the individual.
Further, communitarians also argue that liberals have not given any importance to duties and responsibilities
towards community as their focus is on rights of an individual. Skinner said that individual liberty is
maximized through public service and prioritization of common good over pursuit of individual interests.
Here, the citizen is conceived as someone who plays an active role in shaping the future direction of society
through political debate and decision-making. The main tenet of this theory is that a citizen should identify
himself with the community, of which he is a member, and take part in its political life and contribute to the
realization of civic virtues which include respect for others and importance of public service. Hence, unlike
the liberals who focus on individual, communitarian citizenship give more importance to group rights.
However, critiques argue that this model would be suitable only to a small, homogenous society with
common traditions.
5. Marxist Theory: According to the Marxist theory, rights associated with citizenship are a byproduct of class
conflict. Existence of economically weaker sections is a challenge for ensuring equality before law. These
sections are not in a position to exercise their citizenship rights due to dominance of economically powerful
sections. Marxists believe that since the state will wither away after the revolution, the concept of citizenship
itself is temporary. Since there are no political institutions in a communist state, there will be no need for
citizenship. However, in practice, there have been differences. Lenin abolished the terms ‘state’ and ‘citizen’
in the Soviet constitution, but Stalin restored them in 1936. This constitution listed a number of rights and
duties for the individuals.
6. Pluralist Theory: This theory treats the development of citizenship as a multi-dimensional and complex
process and attributes the evolution of the concept of citizenship to a diverse set of factors. It holds that
citizenship means a reciprocal relationship between individual and community as argued by David Held.

10
According to this theory, individual is entitled to certain rights against the community and he also owes
certain duties to the community and hence, essence of citizenship lies in the life of the community. Pluralist
theory insists on inquiring into all types of discrimination against people, whether on grounds of gender, race,
religion, property, education, occupation or age. In the contemporary world so many social movements have
been launched against different types of social discrimination.
7. Feminist Perspective: Feminists have argued that women are second class citizens’ world over due to
dominance of men in civil, political, cultural, economic and social spheres of life. It is evident from the general
trend in which women have less level of political participation in any country while they also have less
political representation compared to men. They have also questioned the distinction between public (political
participation) and private (domestic) spheres which is a tool to perpetuate male dominance at the cost of
women’s rights. That is why, in the 1970s, the main slogan of women’s movement was ‘The Personal is
Political’. J S Mill had famously said, “An egalitarian family is a much more fertile ground for equal citizens
than one organized like a school for despotism”. To bring about equality between men and women, liberals
believe there should be constitutional reforms by which men will contribute to household work. This is called
civic feminism. Socialist feminists want expansion in areas like free birth control, abortion, health facilities for
women and state recognition of domestic labor.
8. Gandhi’s Views: Gandhi’s views on citizenship focused on ideas of common good and active citizenship.
According to Gandhi, all states have coercive power often used to oppress citizens. That is why; he believed
that a state should not have centralized power. Dharma (moral law and duty), ahimsa (non-violence in
thought and deed) and satya (truth and sincerity) were three central pillars of Gandhi’s conception of
citizenship. He further did not trust the state due to its coercive power and entrusted the individual to resist
the state’s coercion. He believed that the state represented compulsion, uniformity and violence in a
concentrated form which is why his ideal was a non-violent state that would be self-governing and self-
sufficient in which the majority rule would prevail with due respect for minority rights.

Q. What is Amartya Sen’s concept of development as freedom?

Ans. Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has argued that democracy is a pre-condition for economic growth. He
believes that the “Lee hypothesis,” is based on sporadic empiricism, drawing on very selective and limited
information, rather than on any general statistical testing over the wide-ranging data that are available. “A
general relation of this kind cannot be established on the basis of very selective evidence. For example, we
cannot really take the high economic growth of Singapore or China as “definitive proof” that authoritarianism
does better in promoting economic growth, any more than we can draw the opposite conclusion from the fact
that Botswana, the country with the best record of economic growth in Africa, indeed with one of the finest
records of economic growth in the whole world, has been an oasis of democracy in that continent over the
decades. We need more systematic empirical studies to sort out the claims and counterclaims.” Sen further
states, “The economic policies and circumstances that led to the economic success of countries in East Asia are

11
by now reasonably well understood. While different empirical studies have varied in emphasis, there is by
now a broad consensus on a list of “helpful policies” that includes openness to competition, the use of
international markets, public provision of incentives for investment and export, a high level of literacy and
schooling, successful land reforms, and other social opportunities that widen participation in the process of
economic expansion. There is no reason at all to assume that any of these policies is inconsistent with greater
democracy and have to be forcibly sustained by the elements of authoritarianism that happened to be present
in South Korea or Singapore or China. Indeed, there is overwhelming evidence to show that what is needed
for generating faster economic growth is a friendlier economic climate rather than a harsher political system.”
Sen has further argued that in the terrible history of famines in the world, no substantial famine has ever
occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press. “China, although it was in
many ways doing much better economically than India, still managed (unlike India) to have a famine, indeed
the largest recorded famine in world history: Nearly 30 million people died in the famine of 1958-61, while
faulty governmental policies remained uncorrected for three full years. The policies went uncriticized because
there were no opposition parties in parliament, no free press, and no multiparty elections.”
In his book, Development as Freedom, Sen. has argued that real development cannot be reduced to simply
increasing basic incomes, or to rising average per capita incomes. Rather, it requires a package of overlapping
mechanisms that progressively enable the exercise of a growing range of freedoms. Authoritarian systems do
not give freedoms to citizens and hence, have a limited view of the broad concept of development and
economic growth. The real meaning of economic growth can be achieved in a democratic set up as its space of
political and civil freedoms which help in formation of values and needs of people. It also gives rise to
multiple institutions like legal mechanisms, market structures, education, health, accountability etc which
help in safeguarding human freedoms and capabilities.

Q. Discuss J S Mill’s views on liberty.

Ans. J. S. Mill’s essay ‘On Liberty’ (1859) is regarded as a landmark publication in the discussions of political
freedom. To Mill, the development of the individual is impossible without liberty and goes on to argue that it
is necessary for the happiness of the society as well. He believes that restraint is an evil and the individual
should be “left to oneself”. Mill’s argument on liberty can be classified into two categories i.e. freedom of
thought and expression and freedom of action. Mill believes in absolute liberty in case of freedom of thought
and expression and argues “if all mankind, minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of
contrary opinion, mankind would no more be justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the
power, would be justified in silencing mankind”. He further explains why suppressing even one individual’s
voice can be dangerous for society and questions what if that person’s opinion is true? In that case, humanity
is deprived of the truth and the opportunity of development is taken away. Secondly, he accepts that there is
a possibility that the opinion to be suppressed is false, but in this case as well, expression is valuable as it will
reaffirm the existing truth. Lastly, he also discusses the third option and agrees to the idea that the truth is

12
often ‘eclectic’ and may be partly true and partly false. He argues that the decisions made by individuals are
often based on beliefs which they assume are infallible and discard all options of discussion around it. But for
Mill, progress in knowledge and understanding comes through open discussion as conflicting opinions will
result in an advanced truth, an end to the pursuit of truth for mankind. Mill believed that clash of views
facilitated by the freedom of expression provides the intellectual impetus for thought, discussion and
progress. He was convinced that without such freedom, society will be dominated by dogma. Beliefs held by
such a society degenerate into prejudices and opinions lack a rational foundation. It is the individuality which
enables a human being to choose rather than blindly follow accepted modes of behavior, customs and
practices. There is no pre-decided concept of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way of life and the content of ‘right’ choices
depends on the kind of person one is.
Mill proposed that individuals should enjoy the greatest possible realm of freedom, but also recognized that
unrestrained liberty may create probability of oppression and result in tyrannical behavior. Thus, he divides
all human actions into two categories namely ‘self-regarding actions’ and ‘other-regarding actions’. Self-
regarding actions are those which concern only the individual performing them and there should be no
intervention in this realm and interference with the individual’s liberty of action is justified only to prevent
him from ‘harming’ others i.e. in the case of other-regarding actions. In effect, the ‘harm principle’ ensures
individual’s duty towards the society. Thus, it can be understood that although Mill provides absolute liberty
in case of freedom of speech and expression, at the same time he is also supporting certain limitations on the
‘actions’ taken by the individual to maintain order in society. Here comes the concept of censorship as these
limitations further take the shape of various kinds of censorship to maintain law and order in society.

Q. Highlight feminist perspective on family and state relationship in political theory.

Ans. Feminists have sought to analyse the impact of family life on women. Despite the numerous differences
in their approach and main concern, different feminists tend to agree that women occupy a subordinate
position in the family and are exploited in various ways. The Marxist feminists consider capitalism as the
main exploiter. This exploitation is seen in terms of the unpaid work they carry out at home. Like the Marxist,
they believe that the family also serves capitalism by reproducing the future labour force, but they also assert
that it is not the family as such that suffers more, but the women. It is women that bear the children and
assume the main responsibility for their care. Women are also exploited in that they are expected to provide
outlets for all the frustration and anger that their husband experience at work and therefore prevent them
from rebelling against their employers. Radical feminists agree with other feminists about the disadvantage
that women suffer in families. Yet, they do not consider capitalism as the main source of exploitation. Their
focus is on men and the patriarchal nature of society. They argue that inequalities between partners at home
are a result of the fact that most of the heads of households are men. This implies that men have more
decision-making power, consume more of whatever the family has and retain control over finances. J S Mill
had famously said, “An egalitarian family is a much more fertile ground for equal citizens than one organized

13
like a school for despotism”. To bring about equality between men and women, liberals believe there should
be constitutional reforms by which men will contribute to household work. This is called civic feminism.
Socialist feminists want expansion in areas like free birth control, abortion, health facilities for women and
state recognition of domestic labour. Radical feminists want women’s entry into public sphere for making
them active citizens and state intervention in family matters to make it gender just. Thorne and Yalom argue
that feminism has contributed a number of broad themes to the understanding of family.
• First, feminists have challenged the ideology of “the monolithic family,”which has elevated the
nuclear family with a breadwinner husband and afull-time wife and mother as the only legitimate
form.
• Feminists have recognized that structures of gender, generation, race and class result in widely
different experiences of family life, which are obscured by the glorification of the nuclear family,
motherhood, and the family as aloving refuge.
• Feminism has challenged traditional dichotomies between private and public, raising questions about
family boundaries and showing that family isolation is in part illusory, given the close connections
between the internal life of families, and the organization of paid work, state organized welfare and
legal systems, schools, childcare and other institutions. That is why, in 1970s, the main slogan of
women’s movement was ‘The Personal is Political’.

Q4. Discuss Marxist view on family and state relationship in political theory.
Ans. Marxism offers aconflict perspective in terms of social conflict and inequality when explaining the family
state relationship. Marxist theories of the family focus on how the capitalist system, which maintains an
exploitative relationship between capitalists and workers, shapes other social institutions such as the family,
which in turn help consolidate the capitalist system. Family is seen as aiding capitalism by serving as a
consumption unit. Marxists also believe that the nuclear family is a tool of the ruling class, an institution used
to teach its members to submit to ruling class authority. Friedrich Engels argued that the three institutions of
private property, the family, and the state are connected, and that family relations develop in response to
property relations. His work, “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”, published in 1884
traces the origin of the family and to link its evolution to the changes in the mode of production and the
emergence of private property and capitalism. Engels believed that during the early stages of human
evolution, property was collectively owned and that the family as such did not exist. The community itself
formed the family and there was no limitation to sexual access. However, with the emergence of private
ownership of property and the idea of having heirs who were to inherit the property, the question of
paternity grew in importance and the rules of monogamous marriage were created to control women’s
sexuality and assure the legitimacy of heirs. Marx and Engels also criticized the superficial distinction
between the public and private sphere, by liberals. Marx said that the state does not stay away from the
private sphere (family) and it reproduces the contradictions in the family.

14
Q. Discuss Hegel’s views on civil society.
Ans. Hegel explained the relationship between state and civil society. For him, ‘The creation of civil society is
the achievement of the modern world which has for the first time given all determinations of the Idea their
due.’ Civil society, for Hegel, reflected a “system of needs” where an individual pursued his own interests
according to his inclinations and abilities. For him, civil society contained three different but inter-related
things: i) the system of need; ii) the administration of justice (security of person and property); and iii) need
for police and cooperation. Individual pursuits are linked through a web of mutual dependence that is
governed by a system of formal rules described by Hegel as ‘external state’ or state based on need and
abstract reasoning. For Hegel, what defines civil society as civil, as opposed to a political society, is its
division into various classes and estates that have their own distinctive outlook, interest and way of life. These
estates – the peasantry, the business, and the universal class of the state functionaries – provide the crucial
links or mediations between the natural society of the family and the more abstract rationality of the state.
Hegel regards the state as the highest and the final form of social institution. Calling state as a synthesis, of
the thesis of family and the anti-thesis of civil society, he describes civil society as ‘an expression for the
individualist and atomistic atmosphere of middle class commercial society in which relationships are
external, governed by the unseen hand of the economic laws rather by the subconscious will of the person’. In
Hegel’s concept, civil society passes over into state - the highest level of the development of the Spirit. And
though civil society precedes the state in the logical order, it is ultimately dependent upon the state for its
very existence and preservation.

15
 BPSC-131: INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL THEORY
Guess Paper-III

Q. Discuss the relationship between state and civil society.

Ans. The state’s relationship with civil society is the key issue in political sociology. This article explores how
the three most important theoretical positions of political sociology have analyzed this relationship. Marxism,
elite theory and pluralism have developed through a dialogue with liberalism, so this article therefore begins
with a brief overview of the liberal perspective on the state-civil society relationship.
For liberals, the state is a necessary evil that serves civil society, and which is accountable to citizens through
political representation. The state’s functions are primarily to maintain internal social order and to protect
civil society from external threats to its security. The state is often portrayed by liberals as a neutral arbiter
between conflicting interests. It is not dominated by any section of society, but instead pursues policies that
maximize individual liberty.
Although some liberals allow for a more developed state role in such areas as welfare provision, all liberals
prioritize a clear separation between state and civil society. This is contrasted with totalitarian regimes, such
as Nazi Germany or the USSR, where the division between state and civil society is dissolved and the state,
representing a sectional interest, suppresses alternative sites of power.
In liberal societies, it is argued, the state is a site of formal equality between all citizens. Civil society, in
contrast, is characterized by free­dom, social diversity and competition in the market place, which results in
material inequalities. Such competition, it is contended, promotes general prosperity through the
encouragement of individual innovation.
This benefits the whole of society by improving the general performance of the economy. Within civil society
individuals are free to pursue their own desires, as long as this does not encroach upon the liberty of others.
Liberals argue for equality of opportunity and mer­itocracy, and liberalism is an agency-based theory in that
levels of economic success are seen as proportionate to the level of an indivi­dual’s effort.

Q. What is meant by global citizenship?

Ans. Global citizenship is the idea that all people have rights and civic responsibilities that come with being a
member of the world, with whole-world philosophy and sensibilities, rather than as a citizen of a particular
nation or place. The idea is that one’s identity transcends geography or political borders and that
responsibilities or rights are derived from membership in a broader class: "humanity". This does not mean
that such a person denounces or waives their nationality or other, more local identities, but such identities are
given "second place" to their membership in a global community. Extended, the idea leads to questions about
the state of global society in the age of globalization. The supporters of idea of global citizenship believe that
all people have certain rights and responsibilities by virtue of being a citizen of this world. Under

16
globalization, the territorially limited idea of citizenship is being challenged by activities like migration,
transnational economic, social and cultural exchange. According to Hannah Arendt, global citizenship means
‘an ethic of care for the world’. According to Oxfam, an international non-governmental organization, “A
global citizen is someone who is aware of and understands the wider world— and their place in it. They take
an active role in their community, and work with others to make our planet more equal, fair and sustainable.”
Immanuel Kant’s conceptions of world citizenship give importance to personal responsibility for conduct
which may have damaging consequences for the environment, and they defend compassion for peoples
elsewhere. They emphasise the virtue of actions which benefit the wider community and they concede that
international society provides limited opportunities for participation in joint rule as the idea of world
government still remains elusive.
The idea of global citizenship can be criticized as it largely focuses upon duties towards others, and on
loyalties to communities which are wider than the nation-state, rather than on active citizenship. Traditional
approaches argue that appeals to cosmopolitan citizenship amount to little more than an exercise in moral
exhortation while the nation-state is the dominant form of political community. However, the idea of global
citizenship cannot be totally wished away in the times of non-traditional security threats like climate change,
food-water-energy security, terrorism etc. To tackle such threats, nation states must cooperate with each other
and in the overall framework of this cooperation; every individual has a role to play in dealing with these
issues. This is similar to global citizenship where people think of a better future even for others who are not
part of their country i.e. to make the world a better place to live for all involved.

Q. What is the radical feminist view on the origin of patriarchy?

Ans. Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political
leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also
patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage. In the view of radical feminists,
patriarchy preceded private property. The original and the basic contradiction, they believe, is between sexes
and not between classes. Radical feminists consider all women to be a class and do not believe that patriarchy
is natural. However, they contend that gender inequality can be explained in terms of biological or
psychological differences between men and women. Shulamith Firestone believes that the basis of women’s
oppression does lie in women’s reproductive capacity insofar as this has been controlled by men. According
to some radical feminists, there are two systems of social classes.
1) The economic class system which is based on relations of production
2) The sex class system which is based on relations of reproduction. It is this system based on sex that is
responsible for women’s subordination. The concept of patriarchy refers to this second class of system of
classes, to the rule of women by men, based upon men’s ownership and control of women’s reproductive
capacities. Consequently, women have become physically and psychologically dependent on men. These

17
feminists also say that it is not women’s biology itself, but the value men place on it and the power they
derive from their control over it that are oppressive.

Q. Explain the meaning and nature of rights.

Ans. In simple words, rights are the common claims of people which every civilized society recognizes as
essential claims for their development, and which are therefore enforced by the state.
1. “Rights are those conditions of social life without which no man can seek in general, to be himself at his
best.” -Laski
2. “Rights are powers necessary for the fulfillment of man’s vocation as a moral being.” -T. H. Green
3. “Rights are nothing more nor less than those social conditions which are necessary or favorable to the
development of personality” -Beni Prasad
As such, Rights are common and recognized claims of the people which are essential for their development as
human beings.
Features/Nature of Rights:
1. Rights exist only in society. These are the products of social living.
2. Rights are claims of the individuals for their development in society.
3. Rights are recognized by the society as common claims of all the people.
4. Rights are rational and moral claims that the people make on their society.
5. Since rights in here only in society, these cannot be exercised against the society.
6. Rights are to be exercised by the people for their development which really means their development in
society by the promotion of social good. Rights can never be exercised against social good.
7. Rights are equally available to all the people.
8. The contents of rights keep on changing with the passage of time.
9. Rights are not absolute. These always bear limitations deemed essential for maintaining public health,
security, order and morality.
10. Rights are inseparably related with duties. There is a close relationship between them “No Duties Ho
Rights. No Rights No Duties.” “If I have rights it is my duty to respect the rights others in society”.
11. Rights need enforcement and only then these can be really used by the people. These are protected and
enforced by the laws of the state. It is the duty of a state to protect the rights of the people

Q. Discuss the second principle of John Rawls’s theory of justice.

Ans. Rawls's second principle of justice has two parts.
The first part, fair equality of opportunity, requires that citizens with the same talents and willingness to use
them have the same educational and economic opportunities regardless of whether they were born rich or
poor. “In all parts of society there are to be roughly the same prospects of culture and achievement for those
similarly motivated and endowed”

18
So, for example, if we assume that natural endowments and the willingness to use them are evenly
distributed across children born into different social classes, then within any type of occupation (generally
specified) we should find that roughly one quarter of people in that occupation were born into the top 25% of
the income distribution, one quarter were born into the second-highest 25% of the income distribution, one
quarter were born into the second-lowest 25%, and one-quarter were born into the lowest 25%. Since class of
origin is a morally arbitrary fact about citizens, justice does not allow class of origin to turn into unequal
opportunities for education or meaningful work.
The second part of the second principle is the difference principle, which regulates the distribution of wealth
and income. Allowing inequalities of wealth and income can lead to a larger social product: higher wages can
cover the costs of training and education, for example, and can provide incentives to fill jobs that are more in
demand. The difference principle allows inequalities of wealth and income, so long as these will be to to
everyone's advantage, and specifically to the advantage of those who will be worst off. The difference
principle requires, that is, that any economic inequalities be to the greatest advantage of those who are
advantaged least.
To illustrate, consider four hypothetical economic structures A-D, and the lifetime-average levels of income
that these different economic structures would result in for representative members of three groups:

Economy Least-Advantaged Group Middle Group Most-Advantaged Group

A 10,000 10,000 10,000

B 12,000 30,000 80,000

C 30,000 90,000 150,000

D 20,000 100,000 500,000

Here the difference principle selects Economy C, because it contains the distribution where the least-
advantaged group does best. Inequalities in C are to everyone's advantage relative to a completely equal
distribution (Economy A), and relative to a more equal distribution (Economy B). But the difference principle
does not allow the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor (Economy D). The difference principle
embodies equality-based reciprocity: from an egalitarian baseline, it requires that any inequalities are good for
all, and especially for the worst-off.

Q. How equality and feminism are related to each other?

Ans. Feminism is the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes, even though many
feminist movements and ideologies differ on exactly which claims and strategies are vital and justifiable to
achieve equality.
However, equality, while supported by most feminists, is not universally seen as the required result of the
feminist movement, even by feminists. Some consider it feminist to increase the rights of women from an

19
origin that is less than man's without obtaining full equality. Their premise is that some gain of power is
better than nothing. At the other end of the continuum, a minority of feminists have argued that women
should set up at least one women-led society and some institutions. Feminists try to look at the issue of
equality through the gender lens. An important book in this respect is Susan Okin’s Justice, Gender and the
Family (1980). It has been argued that equal opportunities legislation or redistributive justice through the
extension of equality principles to different areas, in essence, cannot create equality as these rules and
principles operate in an environment which is already contaminated by the inequality between the sexes: an
inequality brought about by social practices. Many of these practices are not directly discriminatory toward
women, but their overall effect is to reinforce inequality and give it a veneer of legitimacy. Thus, although the
law may not formally differentiate between the sexes, it is the case that women tend to get segregated into
particular occupations and married women who have careers are especially disadvantaged in a gender-biased
society.
Feminists point out that the position of women’s substantive inequality – their weak voice in familial decision
making, their duty of child rearing and the subsequent withdrawal from the labour market – has nothing to
do with natural and spontaneous operation of choices, but because roles are socially constructed. However, at
the same time, it would perhaps be resented even by the feminists, if the state is involved, especially in family
life, for eradicating gender differentiation. It is, perhaps, easier, to be aware of gender inequality and to locate
into the social practices and the socially structured roles, but it is difficult to go for a remedial measure. Unless
the women themselves become aware of their inequality, of their subordinate role in family, and come
forward to reorient the social constructions, nothing concrete with respect to gender equality can be achieved.

20