PAPER I- (Marks - 100)

Part-A (50 Marks)

I. Western Political Thought: 

1. Plato
Introduction
Plato was born in Athens in 427 BC when the civilization of ancient Greece was
at the zenith of glory and eminence. He belonged to royal blood of aristocracy,
from his mother’s side he was related to Solan, the law giver. He made efforts
to discover the eternal principles of human conduct i-e justice, temperance and
courage which alone imbibed the happiness to the individual and stability to the
states. In 399 BC, the turning point came in the life of Plato, the defeat of
Athens by Sparta made him to despise democracy. 
He wandered abroad for twelve years in Persia, Egypt, Africa, Italy and Sicily in
the hours of disillusionment, absorbing wisdom from every source and tasting
every creedal dogma. Then he returned to Athens and opened an academy. He
wrote about 36 treaties all in the form of dialogues. His academy became the
best school in Athens.

Work of Plato
“The Republic” is the most important and authentic work of Plato. It was about
political philosophy, ethics, education and metaphysics.
Other works of Plato include: “The Politicus”, “The Apology”, “The Meno”, “The
Protagoras”, “The Gorgias”, and “The Critias”.

The Republic and Plato

“The true romance of the Republic is the romance of free intelligence,
unbound by custom, untrained indeed by human stupidity and self will,
able to direct the forces, even of customs and stupidity themselves
along the road to a national life.” (Prof. Sabine)

The Republic is an excellent product of Plato’s maturity. It is a major

contribution to political philosophy, education, economics, moral aspects of life
and metaphysics.

Plato’s Republic known as “Respublica” in Latin is translated from Greek word

“Politeia or Polity” which means a political constitution in general. It is an
achievement of comprehension, perfection and universality of thought. It
presents a picture not of any existing state in Greek but of an ideal state in
which weakness of the existing states were to be avoided.

Rousseau said, “The Republic is not a mere work upon politics but the

finest treatise on education that ever was written.”

Main feature of the Republic is the virtue of knowledge. Plato was of the view
that different classes and individuals had different capacities for the attainment
of virtues. The labor class showed the least capacity. Philosophers were the best
entitled to rule the state because of their superiority in virtue. Plato considered
justice to be the supreme virtue and his ideal state be dwelt with it. We can say
that the Republic is his master piece. Plato’s Republic is the crowning
achievement of art, science and philosophy.

According to Baker, “The mainspring of the Republic is Plato’s aversion

to contemporary Capitalism and his great desire to substitute a new
scheme of Socialism.”

Criticism
The Republic contains a good deal of criticism on contemporary institutions,
opinions and practices. The Republic represents a strong protest against the
teachings of Sophists and the existing social and political corruption.

Plato stresses that state should not be an assembly of corrupt and selfish
individuals but be a communion of souls united for the pursuit of justice and
truth and also for the welfare of the people.

Plato’s Ideal State

“Until philosophers are kings or the kings and princes of this world
have the spirit and the power of philosophy and political greatness and
wisdom meet in one, cities will never rest from their evils.” (Plato)

The Republic of Plato is interpreted as Utopia to end all Utopias, not because it
is a romance, but because he constructed an ideal state in it. He compares the
construction of an ideal state with an act of an artist who sketches an ideal
picture without concerning himself with the fact whether individual
characteristic features of imaginative picture are to be found anywhere or not?
In the same way, Plato never thought of the possibility of the institutions of his
ideal state, being capable of ever becoming a reality. He never thought of the
impracticability of this idea concerning his ideal state.
Plato built his state on the analogy of an individual organism. He believed that
the virtues of an individual and of the state were identical. He was of the view
that an individual presented almost the same features and qualities on a
smaller scale as society on a bigger scale.

Features of an Ideal State

1.Rule of Philosophy
Plato was of the view that in an ideal state the philosopher-ruler should be
prominent. He should has a broaden vision of unity of knowledge. Philosopher-
kings are immune from the provisions of law and public opinion.

2.No unqualified absolutism

Though, neither, there is any restraint of law nor of public opinion over
philosopher-rulers but that is not an unqualified absolutism. It is not all
despotism, because rule of philosophy is not free from the basic articles of the
constitution.

3.Control over the education system

Philosopher ruler should control the education system in an ideal state.

4.Justice in ideal state

Justice is the main feature of Plato’s Republic and it is also present in his ideal
state. Justice is the bond which binds every member of society together. It
forms a harmonious union of individuals.

5.Censorship of art and literature

In ideal state, there should be a complete censorship of art and literature. It is
necessary so that nothing immoral things might falls into the hands of the
young individuals.
6.System of Communism
Plato was of the view that guardian class should live under the system of
communism of property and family. The rulers and soldiers do not possess any
property of their own.

7.Equality among men and women

According to Plato, equal opportunities should be given to both men and women
for their economic, social, intellectual and political uplift. We can say that Plato
was the first feminist of his time.

8.Principle of Functional Specialization

Plato was of the view that due to multiple wants, an individual could not fulfill
all his desires by himself alone due to lack of capacity. Thus co-operation
among individuals should be necessary to satisfy their mutual desires. Some
people are specialized in performing some certain tasks.

Criticism

1.Plato built his ideal state on the analogy of individual and this identification
leads to confusion. He failed to distinguish ethics from politics. His ideal state is
based not merely on analogy but almost identification between the individual
and the state, which is quite wrong.

2.Plato fails to condemn the institution of slavery and regard it as fundamental

evil.

3.Plato’s system of communism of women and temporary marriage is

detestable and unethical.

4.Plato is a moralist rather than a political idealist. His assumption that the
state should control the entire lives of its citizens is false and contrary to human
liberty.

5.By the system of functional specialization, Plato tends to dwarf the

personality of the individual. There is no possibility of any full development of
human personality in his ideal state.

6.Plato completely ignores the lower class in his ideal state which forms the
great bulk of population. Such negligence may divide the society into two
hostile groups.

Comparison between Plato and Aristotle

Aristotle, the favorite and most brilliant pupil of Plato, is more conscious of his
differences than of the points of agreement with him. The differences which
these giants of philosophy were not the outcome of any grudge or ill-will, but
reflected their own way of solving the existing problems of their state.

Similarities
1.Both upheld slavery and justified its continuation in true spirit of Greek ideals.
Each regarded slaves as an indispensable part of the community for the manual
performance and overall development progress of the state.

2.Both despised foreigners and regarded races other than Greeks fit for
subjection and bondage and as mentally inferior to the Greeks.

3.Both condemned democracy and wanted to replace it with some sort of

constitutional or ideal polity while Plato echoed in condemning democracy,
as “What could have been more ridiculous than this mob-led, passion-
ridden democracy, this government by a debating society, a
mobocracy.” On the other hand Aristotle was of the view that “the people
are not capable of self-government.”

4.Both wanted to impose limitations on citizenship. Both taught that all manual
labor should be done by slaves or non-citizens.

5.Both opposed the views of Sophists that the state came into birth for the sake
of life and continues for the sake of good life. It is this conviction which makes
Aristotle a true Platonist.

6.Aristotle’s “Political” is no less a manual for statesman than the “Republic” of

Plato.

Differences
1.While Plato draws conclusion through the use of allusion and analogy,
Aristotle strikes at the very point with definite and clear-cut dogmas and
doctrine.

2.While Plato believes in the abstract notions of justice, virtue and idea.
Aristotle judges the speculative fundamentals on the basis of exact comparison
and deduces a thought presentable and acceptable even in modern civilization.

3.Where Plato is visionary, imaginative and utopian, Aristotle is logical, realist

and scientific in his approach of propounding theories.

4.If Plato believes in the doctrine that the reality of a material thing lies in its
idea not in its form. Aristotle believes that reality in the concrete manifestation
of a thing, and not in its supposed inherent idea.

5. Plato believed in the phenomenon of unity through uniformity. On the other

hand Aristotle was of the view that unity could be achieved through diversity in
universe and men.

6. Plato inseparably mixed ethics and politics. He subordinated political theories

to ethical considerations. In Aristotle it was quite the reverse. Ethics and politics
were not only separated, but the former was made to sub serve the later.

7. Plato was the propounder of new philosophy; Aristotle was a systemiser of

already existing knowledge, and made freshly streamlining and fascinating by
his powerful influential and charming style for practical adoption for state
functions.

“Plato seeks a superman who will create a state as good as ought to be.
Aristotle seeks a super science will create a state as good as can be.
Thus, all who believe in new worlds for old are disciples of Plato, all
who believe in old worlds made new by the toilsome use of science are
disciples of Aristotle.” (Maxey)

2. ARISTOTLE

“Aristotle was the unimpeachable authority on every science and art

known to his day.” (Maxey)

Aristotle was born in 384 BC. His father was Physician. He studied in Plato’s
Academy for about 17 years. He was attached to Plato’s Academy for two
reasons:

1.It was the cradle of education in Greece for advanced studies.

2.He was so much influenced by Plato’ teaching.

He served as tutor of Alexander the Great in 343 BC and kept his school in the
Lyceum for 12 years. After the death of Alexander the Great, the Athenians
revolted and prosecuted the accused persons of whom Aristotle was one of the
many. He was charged for impiety but he fled to avoid punishment.
During the middle Ages, he was simply considered “the Philosopher”. The
recovery of his manuscripts in the thirteenth century marks a turning point in
the history of philosophy. According to Dunning, “the capital significance of
Aristotle in the history of political theories lies in the fact that he gave
to politics the character of an independent science.”

He is founder of science of logic. His monumental treatise “Politics” is the most

valuable works on Political Science. The “Politics” is a chief work on the
science and art of Government giving full justification for existing of the
institution like the state, slavery and family is calculated to suggest the
remedies for the ill of the body-politic of the city-state. Though it is generally
said that “Politics” is an unfinished treatise and often obscure but the half
understood words of Aristotle have become laws of thoughts to other ages.

Zeller says, “Politics of Aristotle is the richest treasure that has come

down to us from antiquity, it is the greatest contribution to the field of
political science that we possess.”

Aristotle as Father of Political Science

The title of fatherhood of Political Science bestowed upon Aristotle is not
without justification. He was brought up in the order of medicine as his father
was a physician of the king of Macedonia. Since his childhood he got every
opportunity and encouragement to develop a scientific bent of mind. Instead of
turning towards literature like his great master Plato, he built the terminology of
science and philosophy.

In the words of Renan, “Socrates gave philosophy to mankind and

Aristotle gave science to it.”

Aristotle gives us definite and clear-cut dogmas, instead of groping in illusions

and imaginations. He does not believe in abstract notions of justice and virtue,
but has a concrete approach. He discarded utopian philosophy of Plato and
advocated logical and scientific theories based upon realism. Aristotle supported
the principle of unity through diversity. He was of the view that reality lay in the
concrete manifestation of things. He separated ethics from politics.

We can say that Aristotle laid the foundation of a real political science by his
keen and practical political approach and systematic treatment of the subject.
He may be called the “Scientist of Politics” because of his empirical study. He
collected his data with care and minuteness, clarifies and defines it and draws
logical conclusions which deserve nothing but admiration and praise.

Aristotle’s Views on Origin of State

“Man is a political animal, destined by nature for state life.”

“State exists for the sake of good life and not for the sake of life
only.” (Aristotle)

Aristotle was of the view that the origin of the state is present in the inherent
desire of man to satisfy his economic needs and racial instincts. The family is
formed by male and female on the one hand and master and slave on the other
hand. Then they work for achievement of their desires. They live together and
form a such family in household which has its moral and social unity and value. 

Aristotle said, “Family is the association established by nature for the

supply of man’s everyday wants. But when several families are united
and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily
need, then come into existence the village. When several villages are
united in a single community, perfect and large enough to be quite self-
sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs
of life and continuing in existence for the sake of good life.”

Three elements are essential to build the state on perfect lines i.e., fellowship,
practical organization and justice. A man without state is either a beast or a
God. According to Aristotle, “he who by nature and not be mere accident is
without a state is either above humanity or below it, he is tribe-less,
lawless and heartless one.”

The family is natural and inborn instinct, similarly the state is also natural for
individuals. Baker said, “The state is the natural home of the fully grown
and natural man. It is an institution for the moral perfection of man to
which his whole nature moves.”

Aristotle was of the view that state is a “Political Koimonia”, an association

which represents a functional unity of varied and reciprocal parts made by the
pursuit of a common aim in which their nature, their habits and their training
lead them all to join. Maclwain said, “The state is a kind of Koimonia
which is a supreme over all others, and embraces them all.” State is an
association of human being and the highest form of association existing for the
sake of perfect and healthier life.
Functions of the State
1.The state is not merely an association of associations but it is a highest
natural association for pursuits of spiritual class of common life of virtue.
2.The state is based on the element of justice
3.It also aims at the highest good of the community for its proper realization of
demands and needs in it.
4.The state functions to ensure a perfect and self-sufficing life of all its
components members.
5.The state also ensures to fulfill all the natural needs of its members and to
provide opportunities to the individuals for the attainment of moral, intellectual
and physical excellence.
6.According to Aristotle, “Man is essentially good and the function of the state is
to develop his good faculties into a habit of good actions.”

Rule of Law
Aristotle believed in natural laws but not the natural rights. The absence of law
is the negation of good laws and this meant lack of constitutional laws. Law was
superior to the Government because it checked the latter's irregularities. Rule
by law was better than personal rule because law had as impersonal quality
which the rules lacked.

Sabine paid tribute to Aristotle in these words, “the supremacy of law is

accepted by Aristotle as a mark of a good state and not merely as an
unfortunate necessity.”

Justice means that every citizen in the state should abide by the dictates of law
and fulfill its moral obligation towards community members. According to
Aristotle there should be two kind of justice:
1.Distributive Justice
It is mainly concerned with voluntary commercial transaction like sale, hire,
furnishing of security, acquisition of property etc.
2.Corrective Justice
It deals with proper allocation to each person according to his capacity and
worth.

Aristotle emphasis that reward and honors should not be offered to the virtuous
few but to others as who collectively contribute in the welfare of the state and
should be proportionately rewarded.
 Theory of Revolution

Decay and disturbance in political life brought crucial changes in the

Governments of the city-state in Greece, made Aristotle to contemplate deeply
and to stress the causes of the Revolution and its remedies. Aristotle’s theory is
divided into two parts:

1.First part is a practical manual of conduct advising democrats, aristocrats,

monarchs and oligarchs and even tyrants as how to keep themselves in power.

2.Second part is a treatise on the philosophical basis of the good and stable
governments.

What is Revolution?

To Aristotle, if any change occurs in the existing system or constitution of the

state, it means revolution. For example, if in the state the constitution has
changed from monarchy to democracy, it is a revolution. Aristotle was of the
view that if the constitution remains the same, but the ruling party has been
transferred from one man to another, it is also a revolution.

General Causes of Revolution:

1.The main feature of revolution is to be the craving of men for equality.
Equality has two characters-absolute and proportional. The proletariat are
passionate to secure absolute equality for the availability of the same rights
that are possessed by few. The few struggle for proportional equality for
perpetual upgrading superiority in power and privilege.

2.Strong desire for justice becomes another feature of revolution. Aristotle was
of the view that men turn to revolution when they think they have not got their
dues.

Particular Causes of Revolution:

1. Desire for gain and profit.

2. Universal desire for honor and prestige

3. The possession of sovereign power by an individual or group so as to create

fear and apprehension in the minds of the subject
4. Undue priority and prominence of individuals caused great stir in the heart of
the subdued people

5. Disproportionate increase of power and wealth in any part of the state

6. Elections intrigues and moral degradation kept up in the selection of some

people

7. Carelessness shown in granting public offices to disloyal citizens and undue

favoritism shown to the individuals

8. Too much power concentrated in one man or class of men for political gains

9. Dissimilarity of different elements in the state

10. The rivalries of people of different races in the state

11. Dynastic quarrels and conflicts

12. Free immigration of outside races with different notions of justice and law

Revolutions in Particular kind of State:

1.Democracy
In democracies, revolutions are led by the dogmatic policies of demagogues in
attacking the rich.

2.Tyranny or Oligarchy
In oligarchies, revolutions take place due to two reasons:
a)Oppressive or Totalitarian rule
b)Rivalry among the ruling dictators

3.Aristocracy
In aristocracies, revolution held to the policy of narrowing down the circle of the
Government. Aristocracy tends to become oliogarchy, through the undue
encroachment of the richer classes polity to become democracy, through the
undue aspiration of the poorer class. According to Dunning “Stability can be
maintained only by proportionate equality and by giving to each his
own.” Aristotle was of the view that democracy is more secure and stable than
oligarchy.

Remedies for Revolution:

1.Abundant political power should not be concentrated in the hands of one man
or one class of men.

2.The various classes in the state without any discrimination of color and creed
should be treated alike and with proper consideration

3.Honors and rewards should be distributed as fairly as possible only to

deserving ones because inequalities of offices and honors drive men to revolt.

4.Political offices should be within reach of every individual who is able of

performing his functions best.

5.The Government should be so vigilantly organized that the political office-

holders cannot make money out of their offices. Bribes and other kinds of illegal
gratification should be made quite impossible to accept.

6.A Government would gain popularity and political stability if it so arranges

things that the internal details of the administration, particularly the
administration of public finances is open to public scrutiny.

7.Proper education should be imparted to the citizens in the spirit of

constitution.

8.Political stability and internal solidarity can be gained by maintaining

proportionate equality.

9.The habit of obedience and submission to law should be instilled. Lawlessness

and anarchy should not be allowed to creep in even in small and trifling matter.

10.In oligarchy and aristocracy, the inferior class must be well treated and the
principles of democratic equality must be followed among the privileged classes.
In democracy, the poor and the rich should be encouraged to take part in the
state administration which does not affect the sovereign power.

Aristotle also suggested various methods in making oligarchies and tyrannies-

stable which are to be followed by a tyrant.
a)A tyrant must employ spies particularly females to trace out disloyal persons
to gallows the concerned.

b)He should follow an aggressive policy abroad

c)He should always warn people about constant fear of invasion from outside

d)He should keep the people busy and never allow them to remain in vertigo
and lethargy.

e)He must extend enthusiasm in religion

f)He should punish the guilty so that crimes must be ended for the peaceful
order in the state.

g)He should increase the material well-being of the citizens.

h)He should perish the intellectual life of the citizens to perish revolutionary
tendencies.

i) He should adorn his city and must work for its glory

j)He must have respect for the good.

Aristotle put the security of the state above everything else. He even permitted
interference in the privacy of individual’s life when necessary in the interests of
the state. According to Aristotle “A revolution constitutes more a political
than a legal change. It had the effect of reversing ethical, social and
economic standard."

uuu

3. MACHIAVELLI

“Machiavelli had been represented as an utter cynic, an impassioned

patriot, an ardent nationalist, a political Jesuit, a convinced democrat
and an unscrupulous seeker after the favor of depots.” (Sabine)

“In Machiavelli we find the frankest and the most brutal analysis of the
selfishness, audacity, cunning, deception, treachery, malevolence,
cynicism, hatred and lust that were necessary for a prince.” (H.
Thomas)

Machiavelli, the hated beloved prophet of secularism, had one of the enigmas of
modern history, whom Allama Iqbal has characterized as the “Sharp Agent of
Devil” was born in Florence in 1469. Little is known about his early education.
However he was known as a well-read fellow in Italian and Latin classics. The
Florence was ruled by the Medici family in 1494, the Medicis were expelled from
the city and Florence became a republic. In the same year, Machiavelli first
joined public life as a chancery clerk. In 1498, Machiavelli became second
chancellor and secretary of the Council of Ten, a body which had responsibility
for war and interior affairs. He held that post for fourteen years. 

He was strong, vigorous and intelligent man. On many occasions, his services
were required as diplomatic observer in royal courts abroad. He was very much
impressed by Cesare Borgia in Romagna. Cesare Borgia became the model for
“The Prince”, Machiavelli’s best known work. In 1506, Machiavelli persuaded the
counsel to adopt his plan for formation of a citizen army. But he failed in his
plans because Medicis re-established their control over Florence. The Medici
exiled him and forbid his presence in Florence. Soon afterward Machiavelli
having been wrongly accused of implication in the Boscoli conspiracy against
the Medici was imprisoned and tortured. He eventually freed and permitted to
return to his family.

Machiavelli, as a true Florentine was naturally shocked to see the political

upheaval and social decay in his beloved country and he determined to save her
from all intrigues, disorders and petty wars. He denounced all the church
doctrines and held the Popes responsible for the plight state of affairs. He
tirelessly struggled for the attainment of glory and magnificence of Rome by
consolidating all scattered forces. He enunciated the philosophy of art of
Governments for effective discipline and stability in the state. He advocated
strongly for using the harsher methods and oppressive means for the stability
of the state. He firmly believed that “fear is the domineering weapon for a
Prince for complete obedience and is mightier than love.”

Moral Indifference of Machiavelli

The reasons of Machiavelli’s moral indifferences are following:

1.Machiavelli does not believe in any ethical dogmas or in any divine law
because of intentional segregation of politics from religion.
2.In Machiavelli’s philosophy, moral judgments are wholly subordinate to the
existence of political and temporal existence and welfare.

3. Machiavelli calculated that the institution of Papacy brought decline and

destruction to the glory of Rome. He wanted to practice pagan virtues of
cunningness, duplicity and knavery for achieving successful goals.

4.He did not at all deny the excellence of moral virtues, but he refused to
accept them essential to the political stability. He pleads that the religion must
be skillfully exploited as a useful weapon for achieving the annexing designs by
the sovereign.

5.Machiavelli stands courageously for the preservation of his state. He says that
there must be no consideration of what is just or unjust, merciful or cruel,
glorious or shameful; on the contrary, everything must be disregarded.

6.He imparts priority to the state and puts it above morality and religion,
because it is the highest form of social organization and the most essential of all
institutions for the protection and promotion of human welfare.

7.Machiavelli’s advocacy of unreligious and his indifference to morality have

become so much disrupted that even his name has become a by-word for fraud,
force and dishonesty. He wrote primarily for the exaltation of the state.

In modern world, some of the States Heads acted as “Prince of Machiavelli” by

freezing all channels of human progress and liberty and also by reducing the
citizens to that of animals and slaves. The Prince and the Discourses are still
modern theories and are being practiced in many secular countries of modern
age.

Machiavelli and State Diplomacy

Machiavelli wrote his most important work “Prince” and dedicated it to de

Medici, the prince of Florence. “Prince” of Machiavelli is neither an academic
treatise nor a book on political science. It is a memorandum on the art of
Government and of State diplomacy. It gives an awe-inspiring technique for
successful ruler-ship and as such is a guide to the rulers and kings of his time
and of succeeding times, about the best means of maintaining their power.

The whole argument of Prince is based upon the premise directly derived from
Aristotelian philosophy, that the state is the highest form of human association
and that consideration for the state welfare must be given priority and
preference than the well-being of the individuals. These premises led to the
conclusion that it was Caesar and not God to be worshipped. Here Machiavelli
personified Caesar with a state and almost identifies the state with the ruler.
Caesar must make himself worthy of this worship by a cruel, ruthless and
successful seizure of power. A prince must possess the qualities of wisdom,
egoism, selfishness and brutalities for the attainment of his motives. A prince
must consider his friend and neighbors his ardent foes and does not repose any
confidence in them. Machiavelli was of the views that:

“Virtue brings ruin, while vice brings security and prosperity.”

“Cruelty is better than mercy.”

“A wise ruler ought not to keep faith when such observance may be
turned against him.”

The main point of Machiavelli’s state diplomacy are following:

1.Impart priority to your own interests. The strong must impose intimidatory
laws upon the weak to arrest their rebelliousness.

2.Honor to nobody but to yourself. He who aspires to acquire mastery can

afford to have no rivals.

3.Do evil but pretend to do well. Machiavelli was of the view that to be good is
harmful but to pose to be good is useful diabolic attitude. Let mercy be on your
tongue and evil in your heart.

4.The Prince should have no regard for the rights of others, especially
foreigners. He should impose heavy tax upon them to the point of robbing
them.

5.A Prince should not be prodigal with the money of his own people, but he
should be very liberal and generous with the money plundered from other
countries through aggression and other mean resources.

6.A Prince must discard all the canons of leniency and decency.

7.A Prince, in order to crush his competitors, must turn into a murderer and a
looter.

8.The Prince must kill his enemies and if necessary, his friends. He must remain
vigilant and alert from his relations so that he may not be deposed, exiled and
murdered.

9.Use force and duplicity rather than benign ness in dealing with other people.
It is better to be creator of horrors than to be maintainer of love and affection.
When you over-power your enemy, root out the entire roots of his family,
otherwise some of his relatives will become vindictive to take revenge for the
wrong you have inflicted.

10.Concentrate all your efforts on war. In the Machiavellian state, all regular
channels of human activities are barred and all roads lead to war.

4. MONTESQUIEU

“Of all French political philosophers in the eighteenth century (other

than Rousseau) the most important was Montesquieu. Of them all he
had perhaps the clearest conception of the complexities of a social
philosophy, and yet he too was guilty of extreme over
simplification.” (Sabine)

Montesquieu was born in 1689 at Chateau de la Bordeaux in a noble aristocratic

family. His father was an eminent French lawyer. At the age of twenty seven he
became president of Parliament of Bordeaux, the most important of parliaments
in France except that of Paris. For a long period of twelve years he continued as
chief magistrate at Bordeaux, but he was not satisfied with the job because he
was an extensive reader of literature and history and had deep sympathetic ties
with the intellectual movements of his days. At last he left presidency and
moved to Paris. In 1728 he visited Austria, Hungary, Venice, Rome,
Switzerland, Holland and lastly England where he remained for above two
years. During his tour, he came across the leading politicians and political
thinkers in England and he was deeply impressed by the English conception of
liberty and by the English system of Government.

After his return he settled at La Brede and kept himself busy with the task of
writing of political philosophy. At that time France although under absolute
control of King Louis XIV, yet was more fertile for growth of political theory but
Frenchmen were not satisfied with the political situation, as were their fellows
across the channel.
Important works of Montesquieu are:

1.The Persian Letter: He published these letters in 1721. it embodied a

brilliant satire on the existing political, religious and social institutions in France.

2.Reflections and the causes of the Greatness and Decline of the

Romans. This book was published in 1734.

3.The Spirit of Law published in 1748. This book won a great fame and
immortality for Montesquieu because it came out after fourteen year
unremitting labor and he made it a masterpiece for all ages.

Montesquieu’s doctrine of Separation of Powers

Montesquieu expounds his theory of separation of powers to set forth the

governmental organization in order to safeguard the political liberty. He
believed that the separation of powers among the different organs of the
government is the best safeguard against tyranny. He pleads that each power
must be exercised by a separate organ and a system of checks and balances
should thus be established for solidarity and harmony of the state.

The theory of separation of powers among Legislative, Executive and Judicial

branches of government was best realized in the British Constitution. He came
to realize that for maintaining liberty, the separation of powers was absolutely
essential. Montesquieu did not rely upon observation. Locke and Harrington had
taught him what to expect and for the rest he adopted the myth which was
current among the English themselves. Bolingbroke said, “It is by this
mixture of monarchial, aristocratically and democratically power
blended together in one system and by these three estates balancing
one another, that our free constitution of Government has been
preserved so long inviolate.”

According to Montesquieu there are three kinds of power:

1.By virtue of the legislative power, the prince or magistrate exerts temporary
or permanent laws and amends or abrogates those laws, which are contrary to
the will of the subject.

2.By virtue of the executive powers, he makes peace or war, sends or receives
Ambassadors, establish the public security and provide protection against
invasions.

3.By virtue of the judiciary powers, he is vested with the powers to punish
criminals and also to safeguard the life and property of the individuals.

When the executive and legislative are united in the same person, there can be
no liberty because apprehensions may arise. If the judiciary power be not
separated from the legislative and the executive then again there will be no
liberty. When it is combined with the legislative, the existence and liberty of
people would be exposed to arbitrary rule. When it is combined with executive
organ, then there will be violence and oppression in the capacity of a mortal
God.

It is quite obvious from all above cited discussion, that the separation of powers
among the three organs of governments fully ensures liberty and freedom, by
imposing healthy checks on the despotism of the government bureaucrats.
Montesquieu was of the view that liberty is an indispensable fundamental for
human progress and glory. Everyone is born to enjoy it without any distinction
of color, creed and religion.

Criticism:

1.Montesquieu’s study of English constitution is not very correct until this day;
there is no full separation of powers between different governmental agencies.
There the House of Lords is a legislative as well as a judicial body. The Lord
Chancellor partakes of all the three functions of government.

2.If all the branches are made separate and independent of each other, each
branch will endeavor to safeguard its interests and possibly may jeopardize
other’s interest.

3.Perfect separate power in the functions of the government is impossible.

4.Mill was of the view “the separation of powers will result in a clash

between the three different organs of the government because each
one will take interest only in its own powers.”

In spite of all inconsistencies in the theory of separation of powers, it too

wielded a considerable influence in Pakistan, France and America. Montesquieu
is placed in the first rank of those distinguished thinkers who in the eighteenth
century, held high standard of idealism in all that pertains to liberty.
Montesquieu’s views on Forms of Government

The classification of government of Montesquieu is base partly on the number of

those who hold political power and partly on the manner in which that power is
exercised. He gives more importance to the principle on which government is
based than to its nature. He assigned a particular basic principle to every form
of government. The principle of democracy was virtue, of an aristocracy virtue-
cum-moderation, of monarchy honor while that of despotism was fear. He
enunciated the dangers attending each form of government if it lost its basic
principle.

Montesquieu forms the government into three types:

1)Republic: 
Montesquieu was of the view “A republican government is that in which the
body or only a part of the people, is possessed of the supreme power.” To him,
when in a republic, the body of the people is possessed of the supreme power it
is called democracy. Sovereignty rests with the people in democracy. In
Republics, there can be no exercise of sovereignty but by the votes of the
people and these votes express their own will.

2)Monarchies: 
Montesquieu remarks that monarchial government is that in which a single
person governs the state by fixed and established laws. He was of the view that
the most intermediate power is that of nobility. This in some measure seems to
be essential to a monarchy, whose fundamental maxim is no nobility no
monarch, but there may be despotic process.

3)Despotism:
A despotic government is that in which a single person directs all functions of
the government with his own capricious will, without any law and without fixed
rules. His own words become laws of the land and complete subordination to
these laws a expedient.

Each of the form is associated with its peculiar principle:

a) Democracy is based upon political virtue

b) Aristocracy is based upon moderation
c) Monarchy is based upon honor
d) Despotism is based upon fear and oppression

Relation between Forms of Government and religion & Size of

State:

Montesquieu was of the view that certain religions had a definite affinity for
certain types of governments. Islam goes well with Democratic Republican form
of government, wherein fundamentals of religion i-e., equality, fraternity and
freedom are deeply inculcated and practiced for the security of mankind and
glory of the state. Roman Catholicism is closely affiliated with monarchial form
of government with arbitrary rule and Protestantism even in this modern age is
deeply attached with despotism and cruel expansionism.

Republican form of government is possible only in a state of small size;

monarchy suited the moderate-sized state while a big country or an empire
must have despotic government. Real democracy is possible only ion small city-
state. France of Montesquieu’s time was too large for a republic form of
government, Monarchy would suit her best. Montesquieu declared monarchy, a
worst form of government and he unlike Machiavelli discarded the doctrine of
aggrandizement and expansion.

Criticism:

1.It is quite wrong to assume, as Montesquieu does, that democracy and

aristocracy are sub-types of republican form.

2.It is a quite unfair to place despotic government at par with monarchial and
republican forms. Despotic state is not at all state because it is established by
the absence of established law, and hence it is a lawless state, which should not
be included in the plan at all.

3.Montesquieu’s scheme creates distinction between the republican and

monarchic form based upon the number of persons who possess the supreme
power, the distinction between the monarchic and despotic types depends upon
the way in which the power of governments are to be exercised.

Montesquieu as the Aristotle of 18th Century

1.Montesquieu follows the inductive and historical methods of Aristotle and like
him, takes keen interest in the practical political activities.
2.Like Aristotle, Montesquieu too pays his attention on the influence of physical
environment on the life of man and social institutions.

3.Montesquieu steps into the shoes of Aristotle, when he recognizes basic types
of government i-e, republican, monarchial and despotic.

4.Montesquieu closely follows Aristotle when he says that the fundamental

types of political constitutions are fixed once and for all but they are different to
some extent under the impact of the local conditions.

5.Montesquieu’s observation that the law of a society gives to its unique and
particular character, has its parallel in Aristotle’s statement that the constitution
of a state determines the very life and character of its people, if there occurs a
change in the constitution, the state itself becomes altogether a different state.

5. HOBBES

“Hobbes was in fact the first of the great modern philosophers who
attempted to bring political theory into intimate relations with a
thoroughly modern system of thought, and he stroke to make this
system broad enough to account on scientific principles, for all the facts
of nature, including human behavior both in its individual and social
aspects.” (Sabine)

Thomas Hobbes was born near Malmesbury in 1588. He was the victim of
broken home. His father, the Vicar of Westport, deserted his wife and children
when Hobbes was still a boy. Hobbes received his early education in Wiltshire, a
place in Malmesbury. At the age of fifteen years, he joined Oxford. He got the
degree of graduation at the age of nineteen. His soul remained insatiate with
the University education and found it worthless.

On leaving Oxford, he became tutor to the heir of William Cavendish who later
on became Earl of Devonshire. His contact with royal family brought him into
contact with most important personalities of the period. He left England during
the horrors of civil war and was forced to take refuge in France, where he joined
the supporters of royal absolutism. He lived for about twenty years in France
whose autocratic Government appealed him considerably. 

It was this period in which he wrote his master piece of work “The Leviathan”,
published in 1651. He attacked the ancient institution of Papacy and also won
disfavor from royalists. It was an important work of Hobbes which brought him
immortal fame in the history of Western political thought.

Hobbes built up a systematic philosophy of state, taking his stand neither on

tradition nor on theology but on his study of human nature. It was the crucial
period when upholders of constitutional rule were fiercely fighting for the
annihilation of the supporters of Divine Right of Kings. Hobbes saw the
miserable condition of his beloved country and ardently advocated for the
maintenance of authority and order, and he constructed a system of strong and
responsible sovereign Government on the basis of the then very popular
doctrine of social contract. Hobbes was, thus, as much a creature of his times
as Machiavelli was. However he found a link between Renaissance and the
Restoration.

Hobbes’s Conception of State of Nature

Hobbes was of the view, “The only basis of human action is a perpetual

and restless desire of power after power that ends only in death. By
nature man is selfish and egoistical. Every one is striving for the
gratification of his appetites and these appetites are different from
individual to individual because of physical constitution, education and
experience."

Hobbes’s man lived originally in state of nature without the benefits of

Government. All human actions were regulated by two things:

1.The instinct of self-preservation

2.Individual egoism

According to Hobbes, the state of nature was “a state of war of all against
all in which the chief virtue of mankind were force and fraud.” There was
no Government of civil laws to maintain peace and order, but a Government of
fear, danger and coercion.

Hobbes said, “During the time men live without a common power to keep
them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such
a war, as is of every man against every man. In such condition there is
no place for industry because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and
consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation, no use of
commodities that may be imported by seas, no knowledge of the face of
the earth; no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which
is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death.”

Logical Conclusions:
1.Hobbes was of the view that there was no distinction between right and
wrong in the state of nature. Only force, deceitfulness and intimidation were the
order of the day. The only slogan echoed “Kill when you can, usurp what
you can.”
2.There can be no private property in the state of nature for possession of a
thing depends upon the power of upholding it.

According to Hobbes, man undoubtedly wanted peace and tranquility; but his
fear of others, his anxiety to retain what is already had and his never ending
desire for self aggrandizement on the basis of ‘mine and mine’ led him to
perennial conflict and anarchy in the state. Man is the state of nature becomes
the slave and tool of impulses and passions. Later on man realized that peace
had definitely more utility than constant was and fear of violent death brought
man’s passions into line with his reasons.

Man could live in harmony and peace with one another either through fear of
punishment or desire for profit. And this purpose could only be achieved by
establishing a strong and stable Government capable of inspiring awe and fear
by using harsh and arbitrary methods who disobey its laws and of giving
attractive rewards to those who do conform.

Hobbes and Theory of Sovereignty

Hobbes’s sovereign was presented as a Mortal God vested with absolute and
unchallenged power to rule over his subjects arbitrarily. He was the smasher of
the regular channels of democracy, a way of life. Hobbes’s sovereign suffocated
all the social and cultural communication between the people bringing about a
reign of oppression and harshness.

Hobbes said, “By this authority, given him every particularly man in the
wealth, he has the use of so much power and strength conferred upon
him, that the terror thereof, he is enable to form the wills of them all to
peace at home and mutual aid against their enemies abroad. And in him
consists the essence of the Commonwealth which is one person, of
which acts a multitude, by mutual covenants one with another have
made themselves, every one the author, to the end he may use the
strength and means of them all, as he shall thinker expedient, for their
peace and common defense.”

Features of Sovereignty

1.The sovereign is absolute and all powerful. His powers to frame laws of the
land are not restricted by any human agency.

2.He is the singular law-making authority.

3.No condition, explicit or implicit, can be imposed on the sovereign, for his
power is unlimited.

4.Subjects have no authority to call any explanation from the sovereign for his
misdeeds. They have no right to threaten, to punish him, to banish or depose
him.

5.The sovereign is the fountain of justice and honor.

6.The sovereign has full power to declare war against any country or nation
whenever he likes.

7.Sovereignty is indivisible; inalienable and unpunishable.

8.The sovereign formulates laws regarding property and taxation etc, and he
has full rights to allow or disallow freedom of speech to his subject.

9.The sovereign has to protect his people from internal disruption and external
aggression for the preservation of peace and glory of the state.

10.If the sovereign ignores the pact, he can do so, because he is no party to
the contract.

Types of Sovereignty

According to Hobbes the difference of commonwealths consist in the difference

of the sovereign or the person representative of all and every one of the
multitude and it is manifest, there can be put three kinds of commonwealth:

1.If the representative is one man, the commonwealth will be known as

Monarchy.
2.If the representative is composed of an assembly, the state will be called a
democracy.

3.When the representative is an assembly, but only a part of it, then it is called
aristocracy.

Hobbes ardently favors monarchical form of Government. There must be an

important monarch to serve the end for which the state is established. But a
monarch without absolute power will utterly be failed for the attainment of his
ideals. That is why; Hobbes is ranked as one of the great champions of absolute
sovereignty. 

Hobbes gives a perfect and most satisfactory theory of sovereignty which is all
powerful authority within the state. It is absolute, unlimited, non-transferable
and irrevocable. Hobbes excelled Machiavelli’s Prince, an evil genius in exalting
political authority. Machiavelli had made politics independent of religion but
Hobbes set politics above religion and ethics. The powers vested in sovereignty
must be absolute, unlimited and all powerful.

Criticism

The political theory of Thomas Hobbes has been bitterly criticized on different
grounds ever since this day.

1.The whole conception of social contract and an organized society resulting

from it is unhistorical. There are no examples in history when Hobbes’s men
gathered together and signed a contract for the formation of a civil society.

2.Hobbes portrays a dismal picture of the state of nature, which is far from
satisfactory. He paints a darker side and completely ignores a brighter side of
human nature. His picture reflects the evils of his man. He declares man selfish,
solitary and brutish. But human nature has two essential aspects, good and
bad. He always speaks of the badness of human nature.

3.Hobbes was of the view that the state of nature is a state of war, the war of
all against all, in which the cardinal virtues are force and fraud. How could such
a man go against his own nature and suddenly enter a “state not of war, but of
peace, not of force and fraud but of right and justice.”

4.Hobbes says that there were no laws in the state of nature. This is baseless.
5.Hobbes’s sovereign appears to be the representative of the people, who
follows public opinion and looks after public welfare. This is the only one aspect
in which Hobbes has recognized the limitations of his Leviathan.

6.Hobbes did not foresee the distinction between the Government and the
state. While the Government of a state might be replaced with another because
of its corruption or inefficiency, the state as a reality remains intact and does
not sink into lawless condition.

7.Hobbes appears to be a mixture of anarchy and absolutism. The only remedy

to control of good behavior of men was the coercive power of the sovereign.

8.The Hobbesian system condemns the state for purely negative functions. It is
sole function in the preservation of life and maintenance of order.

9.The civil society created by Hobbes is not much of a society. It is like a flock
of cattle driven by the omnipotent Leviathan who sums up in himself the life of
all and who is a universal regulator of thoughts and actions of all.

Hobbes was a materialist and rationalist to the core of his heart. His political
philosophy indicated the absolute sovereignty of whatever Government
happened to be in power. He bade people render unto Caesar and unto God
whatever Caesar commanded. His state absorbed the will of all its members in
matters secular and spiritual and it was wrong to will or act against it.

6. JOHN LOCKE

“Successful revolutions are stimulating to those who believe in them.

Locke is the most fortunate of all philosophers for, he completed his
work in theoretical philosophy just at the moment when the
Government of his country fell into the hands of men who shared his
political opinions. His political doctrine is embedded in the American
Constitution.” (Bertrand Russel)

John Locke was born at Wrington in north Somersetshire in 1632. His father
was an attorney and land-owner of modest means. He got his early education
at home and later on he was admitted to Westminster School. In 1652, he was
sent to Oxford for higher education. At that time he was only twenty-two and
entered Christ Church College (Oxford). His university career was not very
shining because the narrow discipline of the place dulled his enthusiasm for
formal studies. In 1660, he got the degree of Master of Arts. After taking the
M.A. degree, Locke was appointed as a tutor in Greek.

Locke did not like teaching profession and he started medicine. He was greatly
influenced by Descartes and became physician. Later on he became the
confidential Secretary of Lord Shaftsbury, the founder of the Whig Dynasty. He
went over to the Parliamentary side and was later on made a field marshal in
the rebel forces. When Charles II became king, he was made Earl of Shaftsbury
in 1672.

In 1682, Shaftsbury was charged with the crime of conspiracy. He was arrested
and tried for treason. He was, however, acquitted but was compelled to leave
England. Locke also facing his persecution fled with him to Holland and
remained there until the bloodless Revolution. After the glorious revolution of
1688, he came under the liberalizing influences that were beginning to be felt in
England and he devoted his entire intellectual faculties towards literary work
and to numerous controversies arising out of his works.

Sabine attributes John Locke in these words, “his sincerity, his profound

moral convictions, his genuine belief in liberty in human rights, and in
the dignity of human nature united with his moderation and good
sense, made him the ideal spokesman of the middle-class revolution.”

Locke’s father, a renowned attorney of his time exerted a considerable influence

in making him zealous advocate of liberty, equality and democracy. Locke
completely discarded the Hobbes’s conception of man who depicted as utterly
selfish, irrational, solitary and brutish. He portrayed his men in the state of
nature fully possessed a sense of sociability bringing all men in togetherness of
mutual benefit and for the progress of civil society. He advocated for the
elimination of the coerciveness and intimidation over the subject for peaceful
progress of the state. 

Bases of his Philosophy

Sensationalism:
Locke was of the view that all knowledge and beliefs come through our senses
and experiences. There is nothing in mind except what was first in the sense.

Utilitarianism:
He is one of the great pleader of utilitarianism. His conception is quite apparent
from his contention that “happiness and misery are the two great springs of
human action.” He was of the view that morality is pleasure and pleasure is
only conformity to universal law.

Optimistic Conception of Human Nature:

Locke believes in the inherent goodness of human beings. He says that man is a
rational, sensible and social creature. He feels love, sympathy and tenderness
towards his fellow-beings and is capable of being actuated by altruistic motives.
He wants to live in peace and harmony with others.

Rejection of Absolute Monarchy based on Divinity and Heredity:

Locke refuted emphatically the hereditary principle in kingship advocated most
fervently by Filmer in his Patriarcha and upheld by the Anglican Church. Filmer
contended that political power is derived from the authority of father over his
children and that regal authority is subjection of children to parents, and since
the actual monarchs are the heirs of Adam, therefore they can demand from
the citizens unflinching loyalty. Locke points out the injustice of primogeniture
(the principle by which property descends to the eldest son) which is
unavoidable if inheritance is to be the basis of monarchy. Further, Adam can
have only one heir, but no one knows who he is. And if the true heir could be
discovered, would all existing monarchs put their crowns at his feet. Moreover,
in case of this discovery all kings except, at most one, would be usurpers and
would have no right to demand the obedience of their de facto subjects.

Locke’s View on Natural Rights of Man

Locke appears to be a true democrat when he says that the establishment of a

commonwealth stands for the complete security of natural rights of men.
Natural rights of citizens are:

1.Right to life
2.Right to property
3.Right to liberty

“Most distinctive contribution of Locke to political theory is the doctrine

of natural rights.” (Dunning)

Locke was of the view that the right of property is a most important because all
other natural rights are analogous to the right of private property. He further
maintained that the right to private property existed in the state of nature
under the operation of natural law. Locke thought of natural rights as things
which man brings with him from birth. Society exists to protect them; they can
be regulated only to the extent that is necessary to give them effective
protection.

“The life, liberty and estate of one person can be limited only to make
effective the equality valid claims of another person to the same
rights.” (Sabine)

According to Locke, “God, who has given the world to men in common,

has also given reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and
convenience. The earth and all that is therein, is given to men for
support and comfort of their being and all the fruits it naturally
produces and beasts it feeds, belongs to mankind in common, as they
are produced by the spontaneous hand of nature, and nobody has
originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of
them, as they are thus in their natural state. Whatsoever he removes
out of the state that nature has provided and left it in, he ahs mixed his
labor with and joined to it something that is his own and thereby makes
it his own property.”

Locke’s Conception of Popular Sovereignty

Locke is regarded as the champion of people’s rights and a harbinger of their

sacred and fundamental liberties. His social contract did not create the
irresponsible, cruel and absolutist “Leviathan” of Hobbes, but reserved the
sovereign rights to the final judge of all actions, the community. The ultimate
supreme power is not vested in the scepter of king; but it remains in the hands
of the people.

Locke did not advance the idea of legal, absolute and indivisible sovereignty.
The very idea of it was discarded by him because Machiavellian and Hobbesian
conception of sovereignty brings about a reign of terror for the people who
would loudly whisper for freedom and equality. He initiated the conception of
popular sovereignty, which has been firmly accepted, a best way of rule by the
succeeding thinkers and the whole world own him too much, because real and
practical democracy was strongly enunciated.

Locke stood for a Government which should be subject to a number of

limitations. It cannot rule with coercion and intimidation and tax them without
their will. A government which violated its limitations is not worthy of
obedience. The state is created for certain conveniences and it must justify
itself’

by creating those conveniences.

The basic rights of the individual life, liberty and property are to be protected
rather than restricted by the state. The king has neither the divine authority nor
any moral justification to over load the subject. All men are equal in the eye of
Almighty God and their basic rights must not be violated under the civil laws of
the state.

Locke’s Government created by the unanimous consent of the majority should

have freedom of speech, of election and of religious worship and in order that it
may be prevented from becoming too autocratic and arbitrary. This democratic
government should be run by a system of checks and balances. In other words,
the government should be divided into three main organs i-e, legislature,
executive and judiciary. And of these three, the legislature should be supreme,
as is evidently available in the modern constitutions.

7. ROUSSEAU

“Rousseau was the father of the romantic movement, the imitator of

system of thought which infer non-human fact from human emotions
and the inventor of the political philosophy of pseudo-democratic
dictatorship as opposed to traditional absolute monarchs. Hitler was
the outcome of Rousseau.” (Bertrand Russel)

Rousseau was born on June 28, 1712 at Geneva of parents of French Protestant
ancestry, in a middle class family. His father, Isaac, was a skilled watchmaker,
but abandoned this profession to become a dancing master. Rousseau left
school at the age of 12, learnt various crafts but adopted none. He also worked
as an apprentice under a cruel engraver. He filled with a wonder lust that was
never to be satisfied. Restless, impulsive, unstable he embraced the career of a
vagabond as others might enter upon a profession and thereafter for twenty
years he led the life of a vagabond wandering in different places. In 1742, he
gravely mediated to lead a regulated life, went to Paris and tried his luck at
different schemes, the opera, the theatre but his efforts ended in fiasco. Then
he opened a small hotel. 

The year of 1749 was a turning point in his life, chance brought Rousseau fame
and immortality. The Academy of Dijon announced a prize for the best essay on
the subject “Has the progress of sciences and arts contributed to corrupt and
purify morals”. He thought a strong plea that progresses of sciences and arts
had tended to degrade human morality. Rousseau depicted in the essay, an
early state of society in which all men lived under conditions of simplicity and
innocence, and traced the purging evils of society emanated from the
artificialities introduced by civilization. He won the prize. Hearn
Shaw remarked, “it created a great sensation in the artificial society of
the Age of Reason. It was the first ramble of the Revolution.”

The publication of his book “Social Contract” aroused the indignation of the
French Government, which ordered his arrest. He escaped to Geneva, where
the Democratic Council burned his book and threatened his life. He took refuge
in Germany, where an angry mob almost strangulated him. He fled to England
where only one man, Hume, took him into his affection. By this time, however,
Rousseau’s suffering had greatly perturbed his brain and he was tormented by a
prosecution mania. He suspected that Hume was plotting to poison him. He
thought that “Everyone hurts me because of my love for mankind.” Finally
his fear of being murdered drove him to commit suicide. 

Hearn Shaw said, “Rousseau led a life of fugitive for sixteen years and
he drove through a period of deepening gloom, failing health, broken
spirit, haunting terrors, paralyzing illusions and accumulating despair.”

Rousseau’s State of Nature

“Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains. Many a one believes

himself the master of others, and yet he is greater slave than they. How
has this change come about? I do not know. What can render it
legitimate? I believe that I can settle this question.” (Rousseau)

Man is born free only in the sense that freedom is his inborn right; it is the
necessary condition for the development of the various potentialities of human
nature. We can say that he is born for freedom that he ought to be free. The
second part of the first sentence that he is everywhere in chains imply that
customs and conventions of society and state regulations imposer upon him
certain artificial and unnecessary restraints which arrest the development of his
personality.

Rousseau, a philosopher of the heart rather than of the head, presented his
State of Nature to be an earthly paradise though he himself confessed that the
conception of the State of Nature was quite hypothetical.
As Rousseau says, “A state which exists no longer, perhaps never
existed, probably never will exist and of which none the less it is
necessary to have just idea in order to judge well our present state.” He
always maintained that the natural state was also better than the social state.
For, in it, the natural man, or the noble savage, lived a solitary, happy and
carefree life of the brute was independent, contented and self-sufficing.

In short, Rousseau’s man was a non-social being unknown to good or evil or the
coming death. Thus the noble savage was in the state of paradise, everyone
being equal to the other. Man’s life in the state of nature was regulated not by
reason but by the feelings of self-preservation and hatred towards incalculable
massacre and incredible violence. According to Rousseau, “primitive man
was near animal than man; he lived an isolated and solitary life having
no ties and obligations. He was guided by two sentiments self-interest
and pity, and having no oral obligation with other men he could not be
good or bad, virtuous or vicious. He led a solitary life completely devoid
of language and wandered about the primeval forests begetting his
offspring by the way, hunting for his food, and concerned only with the
satisfaction of physical needs. In a word, the natural man was neither
happy nor unhappy.”

But with the appearance of fixed homes, family and property, the knell of
human equality was sounded. But even this primitive society was tolerable. The
least subjects to revolutions, the best for man. Only when the serpent entered
into the society in the form of private property, was the life of man changed
from prosperity to adversity.

Rousseau was of the view “the first man having enclosed a piece of land

he thought himself of saying this is mine and found people simple
enough to believe him the real founder of social inequality and
injustice.” The institution of private property created a sense of jealousy and
struggle, converted usurpation into an acknowledged right and led to the
promotion of society. He became subject to violence, bloodshed, crimes against
property and person and all the evils of society and civilization including
slavery. Thus the life of man became pitiable, miserable and intolerable.
As Rousseau says, “the problem is to find a form of association which
will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and
goods of each associate and in which each while uniting himself with
all, may still obey himself alone and remain as free as before.”

Rousseau’s General Will

“The development of the theory of the general will in the Social
Contract was involved in paradoxes, partly because of cloudiness of
Rousseau’s ideas but partly; it seems, because he had a rhetorician’s
liking for paradox. Manifestly, in view of his criticism of the natural
man, he ought to have avoided the notion of contract altogether as
both meaningless and misleading.” (Sabine)

The will of each individual merged into a General Will, which is the cardinal
pillar in the Rousseau’s philosophy, has aroused keen controversy and has been
subjected to severe criticism. It has been remarked by Bertrand Russell that
the doctrines enshrined in his Social Contract, “though they pay lip service
to democracy, tend to the justification of the totalitarian state.”

Dr. McDoughall defines General Will as “The General Will is conceived as

coming to be when every individual in a group or society has a
conception or idea of the group as a whole and identifies his good with
the good of that whole.”

Rousseau explains that by the free act of those who enter into an agreement,
all their powers and rights vested in the community and their respective wills
are superseded by the General Will. He was of the view that man possesses two
kinds of wills:

1. Actual Will: 
It is related to the will of the individuals. It is irrational will of man. This Will
makes self-confined and self centered.

2. Real Will:
It is rational will of the individual. It always aims at general welfare of the
society. It leads to eternal decision imparting self-satisfaction to the individual.
It is based upon reason and rationality.

Rousseau’s whole arguments depended upon the fact that a community of

citizens is unique with its members, they neither make it nor have rights
against it. 

Rousseau said, “The social order is a sacred right which is the basis of

all other rights. The problem is to find a form of association which will
defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods
of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all,
may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before. Each of us
puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme
direction of the General Will, and in our corporate capacity, we receive
each member as an indivisible part of the whole.”

Rousseau clearly distinguishes the General Will from will of the majority and the
minority. The General Will may or may not coincide with any of these Wills; it
may sometimes be coincident with the Will of an individual.

Characteristics of the General Will:

1. Unity: 
It is not self-contradictory. It is indivisible, because if it were divided it would
not remain General Will but would become Sectional Will.

2. Unlimited: 
It is unlimited. Rousseau assigns absolute powers to his sovereign by following
the Hobbes’s line of action.

3. Inalienable: 
The General Will and sovereignty are inalienable and undetectable.

4. Un-representable:
The General Will cannot be represented. That is why Rousseau laid the
foundation of direct democracy. The General Will can conveniently be realized in
a small city state where the population can assemble and pass laws for their
interest. It does not admit of representative democracy.

W. T. Jones appreciated Rousseau’s theory in these words, “The notion of

the General Will is not only the most central concept of Rousseau’s
theory, it is also the most original, the most interesting, and historically
the most important contribution which he made to political theory.”

Criticism:

1. Rousseau’s theory of General Will is incomplete and vague. 

2. It is in actual practice difficult to distinguish the General Will from the Will of
all. The General Will is not the unanimous Will of the whole people because that
might be the Will of all. General Will has its own merits and demerits.

3. Rousseau’s belief that an individual has his actual and real Wills at the same
time is quite wrong. An individual’s Will is a corporate thing, one complete
whole, incapable of any division.

4. He was of the view that the General Will neglects the force of moral law
which dictates to anyone as to what is just and unjust.

5. There arises a sort of conflict between the common interest and the interest
of the individual. The General Will assigns a very high place to the state and the
individual will have to sacrifices his interest over the interest of the state.

6. Rousseau’s concept of General Will is rather abstract and narrow. In actual

practice, it is nothing if it does not mean the Will of the majority.

7. It pre-supposes common interests, which is difficult to define or determine.

These interests grow out of organic relations between members of a community
and are hardly possible in the multinational states of today with their conflicting
ideals and interests.

8. This theory is not applicable to the bigger state in population and territory,
and does not admit of representative government.

9. It is rarely and for a short time that general will is actually realized. Self-
consciousness can exist only at periods of great crisis in the life of a nation,
when the whole society is in danger.

10. Where we are determined to decide what are the visible manifestation of
this Will, Rousseau leaves us in the realm of darkness. He stresses that General
Will always tends to the public advantage and that is infallible. But it does not
follow that the deliberations of the people are equally correct.

8. Mill

“If the caliber of writers is to be judged by their effect on policy, Mill

must rank high. As logician, economist and political philosopher he was
regarded as a prophet in his own age.” (John Bowle)
Introduction:
John Stuart Mill was born on May 20, 1806 in London. He was the eldest son of
his father James Mill who was the disciple of Bentham. J. S. Mill started the
learning of Greek language at the age of three and then Latin at the age of
eight. As a young boy of twelve, he had studied the philosophy of some of the
great philosophers, such as Plato, Herodotus, Homer, Aristotle and Thucydides.
He also learned French language and acquired a great fluency.

Mill was trained by his father and by John Austin. He was greatly influenced by
Bentham’s utilitarian philosophy and his programmes for reformation. But with
the passage pf time, many of the evils against which the early utilitarian had
been working hard, had ceased to exist and Benthamism began yielding before
other philosophic systems. The biological speculations of Darwin and Spencer
and the sociological researches of Auguste Comte stirred the passionate seekers
of learning and knowledge with the initiation of new currents of thought and Mill
was also influenced by them. He modified Bentham from ethical, sociological,
psychological, economic and political points of views.

The year of 1856 was a year of tribulations and chaos on account of Indian
freedom fighters and formidable aggressions of foreign masters. History of India
was written with Indian blood and in this crucial period of life and death, Mill
served the East India Company as an Examiner of Indian Correspondence. In
1858 he retired. Then he became the radical member of the Parliament and
remained almost in the limbo of oblivion. Mill died on 8th May, 1873 at Avignon.

He wrote following books:

1. A system of Logic
2. Some unsettled questions in Political Economy
3. Essay on Liberty
4. Consideration on Re-tentative Government
5. Utilitarianism
6. Thoughts on Parliamentary reforms
7. Subjection of Women
8. Principles of Political Economy
9. On the improvement of Administration of India during the last 30 Years
(1858)
Importance of J. S. Mill in the History of Political Thought

J. S. Mill sought after vivid ideas with the ardency of a mystic, the patience and
arduous industry of a man of science. He encountered opponents with
magnanimity and generosity. In praise of his immortal ideas which will ever
echo in the corridors of time, it has been said, “No calculus can integrate
the innumerable pulses of knowledge and of thought that he had made
to vibrate in the minds of generation.”

Mill was the great prophet of sane Individualism or Liberalism. He insisted upon
the importance of human progress in its richest variety. He was one of the
stoutest champions of individual liberty. When we turn the pages of antiquity,
Plato distinctively appears to be the first feminist, passionately advocating the
cause of women to take part in the functions of the government. J. S. Mill too
was a great feminist and he practically pleaded their causes in the parliament.
He firmly believed for equality of women for the benefit and uplift of the state.
Mill’s impact of Feminism obviously appeared in the early 20th century when
the Feminist Movement fought for women freedom for participating in the
functions of the state.

Mill was one of the foremost individualists of all times. He ranked with
Rousseau, Jefferson and Milton as an ardent crusader of individual liberty. He
humanized utilitarian philosophy. He was a staunch enemy of despotism and
monocracy and a great supporter of democracy. He combined political liberalism
with economic socialism and approval of a common ownership in the raw
materials of the globe and an equal participation of all in the benefits of the
combined labor. Mill’s political philosophy contains following important facts:

1. His theory of liberty was his most important contribution to the history of
political philosophy.

2. He favored democracy as the best form of government as a result of adult

franchise.

3. He supported universal suffrage granting the right of voting to women also,

with a system of proportional system.

4. He opposed the secret ballot because it led to favoritism and corruption and
vigorously proposed for open ballot system.
5. He recommended a second chamber. He believed that the final legislative
authority should rest with the House of Commons, but at the same time he
assigned the task of drafting bills, before they come to the parliament for
consideration to the House of Lords.

6. Mill’s method was analytic. He believed that study of history combined with a
knowledge of human nature and a careful analysis of political phenomenon
would result in a gauging of tendencies of great value to legislators and
statesmen.

7. Bentham thought of quantitative pleasures. Mill believed in qualitative

pleasures. He drew a distinction between several kinds of pleasures, considering
some as higher while others as lower.

Prof. Sabine said, “Mill’s ethics was important for liberalism because in

effect it abandoned egoism, assumed that social welfare is a matter of
concern to all men of goodwill, and regarded freedom, integrity, self-
respect and personal distinction as intrinsic goods apart from their
contribution to happiness.”

Mill’s Views on Individual Liberty

J. S. Mill is universally regarded as a passionate advocate of liberty. He

vigorously whispered for imparting great importance to individual liberty and
emphasized that governmental interference in individual activity should e
reduced to the minimum. In the middle of the 19th century, due to the
utilitarian reforms, the scope of administrative activities increased. Parliament
became the supreme and unchallenged law-making authority, who enacted
such laws which vividly obstructed individual liberty. With the imposition of
increasing state regulations, human activities were suffocated and he firmly
believed that liberty was a prime factor for the development of the society. At
that time, policy of Laissez fair was being abandoned in favor of greater
regulations by the state. The people became politically conscious and demanded
universal suffrage.

When Mill wrote, utilitarian liberalism was generally accepted in England. The
democratic efforts made by the earlier utilitarian had been largely successful
and political power had been extended to a considerable proportion of the
population. A large number of old evils and inequalities had been removed. In
this process some of the dangers of democracy became visible, and the
tendency toward state centralization led political theory to the scope of state
activities and to the liberty of the individual. The leader in the intellectual life of
the period was J. S. Mill.

Mill’s essay on liberty which equals in eminence to Milton’s Aeropagitica was a

strong advocacy for the freedom of thought and expression with Miltonian favor
against legislative interference as well as against the pressure of the public
opinion. He recognized the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind of
freedom of opinion and freedom of expression of opinion. The limitations of the
power of government over individuals lose none of its importance when the
holders of power are regularly accountable to the community. In political
speculations the tyranny of the majority is now generally included among the
evils against which society requires to be on its guard.

Mill apprehended that the growth of democracy and the increasing legislative
powers of the state tended to reduce individuals to a common type and to
swamp them in the tyranny of collectivism. He believed that social progress
could not be achieved if each and every individual is imparted with fuller
opportunity for free development of his personality. Mill favored freedom of
thought, speech and action. He believed in toleration of opinions and
unhampered freedom of discussion. He had confidence that truth would
definitely survive in the struggle of ideas.

Freedom of the Individual:

Originality in conduct and thought and individuality are essentially basic
features efforting towards social welfare. When individuality is quelled by the
law of a monarch or an aristocrat, the evil of it may be counteracted by the
custom of the masses, but when the masses make the law of repression,
custom unites with legislation to confirm the evil. Individual development
enriches the world by a variety of characters. But he imposes two limitations on
this liberty:

1. The individual was not at liberty to do any harm to his fellow beings.

2. He must share labors and sacrifices to secure the society or individuals

against harm.

Mill pleads for certain freedoms for the individual without which he cannot
develop his personality properly. These are:

a. Freedom of conscience
b. Liberty of thought and of its expression in speech and writing
c. Liberty of pursuits and tastes
d. Liberty of association
e. Liberty to adopt his own profession in life
f. Liberty of religion and morals

Mill laid great stress on liberty of thought and expression. Mill’s theory of liberty
of the individual is based upon three essential elements:

1. A strong plea for the importance of impulse and desire in the individual and
letting the individual follow his own impulses in actions which concern him
alone.

2. Insistence on the view that spontaneity and individuality are essential

elements in individual and social welfare.

3. Revolt against the tyranny of custom, tradition or public opinion which might
hinder the expression and development of individuality.

Important points of Mill’s Individual Liberty:

1. Mill advocated that individual is sovereign over his body and mind. He must
be left free in all actions that concern himself alone. And society has no right to
impose any restraint over the individual because restraints as such in an evil
and retards the progress of the individuals.

2. Mill assumed that the activities of every individual are either self-regarding
or other-regarding. In the sphere of self-regarding activities may be included
matters which affect the agent only, having no concern with others e.g.
gambling, drinking etc.

3. Mill believed in the individualistic or atomistic conception of society. He says

that individual is not responsible to society for his actions in so far as they
concern the interest of himself and do no affect others.

4. Mill vigorously advocated for absolute and unfettered freedom of thought and
expression.

5. The freedom of action and association was to be limited by the condition that
none should jeopardize other’s rights and freedom.
Criticism:
Mill was bitterly criticized because of his certain inconsistencies on the doctrine
of liberty at the hands of Earnest Barker who said, “Mill was the prophet of
an empty liberty and an abstract individual.”

Mill’s theory was criticized on the following ground:

1. Mill assumed that the individual is sovereign over his body and mind. He
should be left free to act as he wished and society cannot impose any limitation
on his freedom. The soundness of this statement may be doubted. The
sovereignty of individual over himself is not a self-evident proposition.
As Mill himself admits, “there can be circumstances under which it may
become legitimate for others to intervene in a purely personal matter,
e.g, when one is about to commit suicide, surely no one will call it an
attack upon one’s liberty.”

2. The bifurcation of human actions into two-self regarding and other regarding
as made by Mill is quite impracticable. No individual is an island in himself.
There is very little that one can do which does not affect other person. It is but
natural and each action of individual will definitely affect the others. Therefore it
is difficult to set apart a sphere of conduct which should be regarded exclusively
the affair of the individual concerned.

9. Bentham
“Bentham was the first among modern philosophers to place women
upon a political equality with men. In Plato’s Republic this equality was
to be fully recognized. But after Plato it was completely forgotten for
over two thousand years.” (H. Thomas)

Introduction:
Jeremy Bentham was the intellectual leader and the real founder of English
utilitarianism; whose deep interest in public affairs covered the period from the
American Revolution to the Reform Bill of 1832. He was born in a rich lawyer’s
family in 1748 in London. From the very childhood, Bentham was scholarly and
pedantic. He learnt Latin when he was only three years old. He also learnt
Greek and French and later on he devoted to the study of Jurisprudence and
legal philosophy. He received the degree of graduation at the age of fifteen
from Queen’s College Oxford. He had an instinctive interest in science and a
distinctive talent for introspective psychology. From his youth he showed a
passionate devotion to social welfare, identifying himself in imagination and
determining to apply to the social sciences the methods that were being worked
out in the natural science.

In 1763 Bentham entered Lincoln’s Inn to begin the study which was to be his
life-long pursuit. In 1772 after having studied law, he entered the bar for
practice. As he grew older, his interests widened and his opinions became more
subversive. His supreme mission was to reconstruct the entire legal system on
healthier lines.

At the time of his death, he was at the zenith of fame and glory because of his
unparalleled contribution in the subject of jurisprudence and legal philosophy.
After his death, Doyle says, “He was venerated by a group of disciples, as
a Patriarch, a spiritual Leader, almost a God with James Mill as his St.
Paul.”

Jeremy Bentham was a prolific writer and he collected works comprised of

twenty-two volumes. His writings cover a wide range of interest including
ethics, theology, psychology, logic, economics, penology etc. he wrote following
most important books:

1. Fragments of Government
2. A Defence of Usury
3. Discourse on Civil and Penal Legislation
4. Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
5. A Treatise on Judicial Evidence
6. A Theory of Punishments and Rewards
7. Essay on Political Tactics

Importance of Bentham in History of Political Thought

Bentham holds a distinctive place in the history of political thought. He was

more a legal reformer and jurist rather than a political philosopher. He had
nothing original in his political doctrine and also he did not create new ideas.
Bentham was the first to establish the utilitarian school of
thought. Maxey said, “Here was a doctrine to rock the foundations of all
accredited political theory. With ruthless logic he brushed aside the
ancient varieties of both radical and conservative thought; had erased
all distinction in principle between free and despotic politics: had put it
down that divine, feudal right, historical right, natural right and
constitutional right equally and like were rubbish and nonsense. There
was no right to rule and no right to be free, there was only the fact of
power and the circumstances which made that power a fact.”

Influence of Utilitarianism:
Utilitarianism, a British gift to political philosophy, represented a British reaction
against the value generalities about mutual rights and social contract and the
mystic idealism of the German political thinkers. It brought political theory back
from the abstractions of the Age of Reform to the level of concrete realities. The
utilitarian philosophers particularly Bentham and Austin rendered valuable
service to political thought. They were the thinkers who viewed society not from
the ivory tower of isolation but from close participation. They were not
idealistic, they were not utopian, they were not visionary and their philosophy
was not transcendental. They built a new theory of government according to
which government was based not on contract but on the habit of obedience of
utility.

Achievements of Bentham:
Bentham was a true practical reformer and a great smasher of political evils in
his age. He took keen interest in the political life of his country. Bentham and
his followers are mainly responsible for the parliamentary reforms in England
during the nineteenth century like the Municipal Reform Act of 1835. The
following reforms are also due to Bentham’s suggestion:

1. Reform of law and legal procedure

2. University education became universal
3. Establishment of trade union

His theory of law established the point of view of analytic jurisprudence, which
was almost the only system of the subject generally known to English and
American lawyers throughout the nineteenth century.

Bentham contributed, sometimes on the request, sometimes as volunteer to the

revision of the legal codes of many countries. In 1811 he made a formal
proposal to President Madison to draw up a scientific code of law for the USA.
Later he made a similar offer to the Czar of Russia and to the Governor of
Pennsylvania, and in 1822 he appealed to “all nations professing opinions.” His
confidence in his ability to create a system of laws guaranteed to promote the
greatest good of greatest number was unbounded.

Bentham’s writings became popular in many countries. His doctrines were very
popular in Spain, Russia, and Iberian Peninsula and in several parts of South
America. His ideas were used by the leaders of the national movements that
defeated the Holy Alliance and created new nations on the ruins of the Spanish
and Turkish Empires. Such was the tremendous influence which Bentham
exercised in the History of Political Thought

Bentham’s Views on Rights and Duties

Bentham discarded natural rights to the individuals. But he did not kill the
concept of natural rights. Bentham totally denied the existence of natural law,
holding that law is the expression of the sovereign will in the shape of a
command. This sovereign was absolute and omnipotent against which
individuals possessed no natural rights nor did they have any legal right to
show resistance against it.

Bentham was a passionate champion for the existence of freedom and equality
but he would not base them natural law. He supported for the existence of an
authority for the purpose to enforce rights by imposing penalties in case of
violation. Neither law of nature or natural rights could impose limitations on the
unlimited absolute powers of sovereign authority. The only conceivable
imposition to the authority could possibly be made by effective resistance by
the determined subjects.

It is queer to note that, though Bentham denied natural rights, yet he could not
disregard the right of private property. He advocated it for its preservation on
the basis of general utility. The happiness of the individual depended upon
security, subsistence, abundance and equality. Security includes liberty, safety
and property of the individual. Thus the legal reformer recognizes the right of
property. He prefers security to liberty.

Kinds of Rights:

1. Legal Rights: 
A vivid and intelligible expression means a faculty of action sanctioned by the
will of a supreme law-maker in a political society.
2. Moral Rights:
It means vivid and intelligible expression than the other. Its sanction is the
opinion or feeling of a group of persons who cannot be precisely identified, but
who nevertheless are able to make their collective or over age will unmistakably
manifest.

3. Natural Rights:
It is a term commonly used without any definite meaning or any form of
usefulness. Nature is a vague and indefinite entity. It may indeed be used as
synonymous with God. In any other sense it denotes something that cannot be
thought as endowed with will, and is incapable of making law. “Natural Rights”
is a phrase that can contribute only confusion in a national system of political
science.

Kinds of Duties:

According to Bentham, duties of following kinds:

1. Political Duty:
It is determined by the penalty which a definitely known person i.e., a political
superior will inflict for the violation of certain rights.

2. Religious Duty:
It is determined by the punishment to be inflicted by a definitely known being i-
e the Creator.

3. Moral Duty:
It depends upon circumstances hardly certain and definite enough to be called
punishment, yet such as to create an unpleasant state of mind in the person
concerned, by putting in disagreeable relations with that infinite body of
individuals known as the community in general.

Bentham denied natural rights and natural law, yet he carried both these things
in his political philosophy. Sabine said, “The liberal elements in Bentham’s
Philosophy resided largely in its tacit premises. When he observed that
one man is worth just the same as another man or that in calculating
the greatest happiness, each person is ‘to count for one and no one
more than one,’ he was obviously borrowing the principle of equality
from natural law.”

Bentham’s Views on Sovereignty and Government

Bentham empowered the sovereign with unlimited powers to legislate all and
everything. The supreme government authority, though not infinite must
unavoidably, be allowed to infinite unless limited by express convention. The
only possible restraint on the sovereign authority is his own anticipation of
popular resistance, based upon popular interests. Bentham firmly believed in
the written constitutions as guarantees of rational governments, but he was
against any bill of rights, limitations upon the powers to amend the constitution
and all other devices for restraining the supreme authority and regarded them
unsound in theory and worthless in practice. He said that rights emanated from
the supreme authority of the state, i-e, the sovereign. The sovereign was not
bound to respect any individual rights. A government was liberal and despotic
according to the arrangement of distribution and application of supreme power.

Rights of Resistance:
Bentham thought that a subject had no legal right to show resistance or revolt
against sovereign. Their legal duty is unconditioned obedience to the sovereign.
But a subject has a moral right and a moral duty to resist his sovereign if the
utility of resistance were greater than the evil of resistance. The exercise of his
unlimited powers by the sovereign would depend on considerations of utility.

Government:
Bentham believed that in the long run a representative democracy was a more
suitable form of government than any other to secure the greatest happiness of
the greatest number. The main thing is that the government should be an
agency of good, i-e, of happiness and not of evil. The extension, duration and
intensity of government power should be properly restricted and de-limited with
a view to secure the maximum of happiness and pleasures.

Bentham seems reluctant to agree with Blackstone’s characterization of the

British constitution as perfect, and suggested some amendments to it. He was
for the promulgation of universal manhood suffrage, annual parliaments and
voting by ballot. He disliked oth the monarchy and the House of Lords in Britain.
A republican government was best because it ensured efficiency, economy and
supremacy of the people and brought about the greatest good of the greatest
number on the basis of the identity of interests between the ruler and the ruled.
Democratic constitution is presented by him.

Theory of Punishment:
Bentham held that punishment should be preventive and corrective rather than
coercive and retaliatory. It should be calculated to prevent the spread of evil
and to secure the extension of good. Punishment must not be inflicted where it
was ineffective, groundless, needless or unprofitable. It should be obviously
justifiable and proportionate to the offence committed but it must be sufficient
to secure its ends. It ought to be able to prevent the offender from repeating
the offence. It should be individualized, qualitatively and quantitatively, to suit
the individual offender. The basic principles of punishment are:

1. Equable
2. Exemplary
3. Frugal of Pain
4. Remissible
5. Compensatory
6. Reformatory
7. Popular
8. Certain and not severe

According to Bentham, the only valid test of the adequacy of a punishment was
its ability to secure public welfare. He believed that the English criminal law was
inhuman. He was in favor of the reform of the criminal and the prisons and
suggested the building of his moral Panopticon, a wheel-shaped building for the
housing and proper observation of the criminals. He had a great faith in
education as he wanted to bring about adult franchise, a responsible executive,
universal education and a representative parliament.

Hegel,

10. MARX

“With Marx, socialism became international or cosmopolitan n scope in

contrast to the association or national industrialism of his
predecessors.” (R. G. Gettell)
Introduction:
Karl Marx born in a prosperous family became a victim of misfortunes, a prey of
perpetual crushing poverty and a painfully sensitive to see the incredible
sufferings of humanity because of economic inequality, social disparity,
incalculable violence and mal-treatment towards laborers at the hands of feudal
lords and industrialists. He was born at Treves in Prussia on 5th May, 1818. His
aristocratic Jewish parents embraced Christianity when Karl Marx was only a
child. At the age of 17, he became a law student at Bonn University. In 1826,
he left for the University of Berlin. In 1843, he married Jenny, a member of
petty nobility who remained a faithful counterpart throughout his life.

In 1841, Karl Marx got his degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of
Jena on the tropic of “The Difference between the Natural Philosophy of
Democratus and Epicurus.” He mixed with the revolutionaries and his radical
thinking made him suspicious which created obstacle in the security of
employment as a university teacher. Then he entered into the field of
journalism. Karl Marx studied Hegel very thoroughly and noted basic fallacies in
his idealistic philosophy.

In early 1845, Karl Marx left Paris for Brussels. But before he left France, he got
an ever-lasting friendship with Friedrich Engel which brought many changes in
his life. Marx-Engel collaboration was one of the history’s most unique
prominent and enduring collaboration. Friedrich Engel became the friend,
disciple and passionate seeker of knowledge and a warm partner. In the
summer of 1845, Friedrich took Karl Marx to England and there he was
introduced to the founders of the “German Workers Educational Union” that had
recently started in London. After remaining for sometime in London, he again
came back to Brussels. Marx had to flee from one country to another on
account of his conspiratorial activities. Then he steeled down in London till his
death.

“England has often been called the mother of Exiles”, but for Karl Marx, it
became the dwelling place of miseries and misfortunes. He experienced great
distress and poverty along with his big family. In spite of lot of misfortunes and
hardships, Karl Marx made endeavors relentlessly to unchain the working
classes from the bondage of capitalism. Karl Marx worked round the clock in the
British Museum for developing the economic theories of capital. Karl Marx wrote
many pamphlets defending himself and severely criticizing his opponents. He
died as a wounded soul on March 14, 1883. He led a life of full of pangs and
despondency and faced the hardships of worldly agency with determination,
courage and perseverance. In a speech over his grave in High ate Cemetery,
Friedrich Engel declared that “his name and works will live on through the
centuries.”

Karl Marx was a great writer and will ever live on the pages of existence. He
wrote the following master works:

1. Communist Manifesto immortalized Karl Marx. He wrote this with the

assistance and help of his faithful friend Friedrich Engel. This is considered the
Bible of the Communism all over the world.
2. Das Kapital is considered as the foundation stone of communism.
3. Poverty of Philosophy
4. A Contribution to the critique of Political Economy
5. The Holy Family
6. Revolution and Counter Revolution

Political Philosophy of Karl Marx

Karl Marx is rightly called the Father of Modern Communism. The theory of
communism owes its birth to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel. According to the
theory of communism, the only practical thing was to acquire mastery over the
governing laws of society. Apart from this, Karl Marx and Engel wanted to know
the causes of economic changes in human society. They also wanted to explore
what further changes are required. They concluded that the changes in human
society were not the least accidental like changes in external nature. They
worked out a scientific theory of society based on the actual experience of men.
Karl Marx applied this theory to the society in which he lived mainly Capitalist
Britain. He was of the opinion that it was quite impossible to separate his
economic theories from historical and social theories. Marx attacked the existing
capitalist institutions. He did not believe in the essential goodness of man. He
conceived of a man more as an economic as a political animal.

Karl Marx borrowed from Hegel the apparatus of Dialectics but substituted
matter of Hegelian idea. He built his concept of dialectic materialism by
interpreting Hegel’s World Spirit as an economic force. Karl Marx held the view
that the meaning of history lay in the interpretation of material world. Karl Marx
is correctly divisible into three portions:
1. A purely philosophical section on dialectics
2. Pure economics
3. Historical materialism

Hegel’s influence over Karl Marx:

Karl Marx remains incomplete without the study of Hegel. It is true that Karl
Marx rejected the substance of Hegel’s political philosophy and it is a stark
reality in history that Karl Marx adopted the dialectical method developed by
Hegel, as the basis for his historical materialism. Hegel was of the view that
history gained its meaning from the interaction of ideas. There was a perennial
struggle of ideas for dominance over one another. Out of this struggle of ideas,
new ideas emerged and these new ideas corresponded more closely to the
ultimate perfection of God himself.

Every idea according to Hegel, is incomplete with inherent contradiction. The

incompleteness or inherent contradictions is every idea led naturally to its
opposite, which may be called anti-thesis. From the struggle between the two,
i.e. ‘thesis’ and ‘anti-thesis’ there emerged the truth embraced by both which
may be called “synthesis”. This ‘synthesis’ becomes a new thesis and again
there came an ‘anti-thesis’ and again emerged a ‘synthesis, and the process
repeated itself in an unending chain. Karl Marx opined that history unfolded
according to a dialectical plan. Here he fully agrees with Hegel. But he was of
the view that ideas were not the controlling factors. Ideas do not control the
reality. These are the outcome of material conditions. 

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel developed communism as an ardent opposing

force to capitalism. Appalling degradation of man in society and crushing poetry
were the real basis for the communist protest. The degradation was
accompanied by uncontrolled industrialization in the middle of the nineteenth
century. The whole Europe was engulfed in moral turpitude, degeneration and
oppression which fully justified the advent of communist’s bitterness and scorn
against the capitalistic structure of society. This caused great frustration among
the masses and consequently they became inquisitive to bring about social
justice.

Karl Marx was a social scientist. As a social scientist, he made efforts to look at
this injustice quite impersonally. But these consequences according to Karl Marx
were essentially involved for the accumulation of capital. Karl Marx viewed that
in each and every society industry, “the wages paid to the workers are not
the equivalent of the full value they produce, but only equal to about
half of this value or even less. The rest of the value produced by the
worker during his working day is taken outright by his employer.”

“The truce and the false together in Karl Marx constitute one of the
most tremendously compelling forces that modern history has seen. For
the power of his message and for his influence upon the future
movement of the communism, Karl Marx can be sure of his place
amongst great masters of political thought.” 

Proletarian Dictatorship

The Proletariat class comprises of the workers, laborers or wage-earners would

naturally be in the vast majority in every society. Karl Marx was of the view
that it is then quite natural that the dictatorship of the proletariat would be a
democracy of the majority. The “Communist Manifesto” also says “The first
step in the working class revolution is the raising of the proletariat to
the position of the ruling class, the victory of democracy. The
proletarian movement is the conscious movement of the immense
majority in the interest of the immense majority.” Karl Marx believed in
the inevitability of this class struggle and the ultimate victory of the proletariat
after a successful bloody revolution, he did not like to leave this development to
the forces of economic evolution. He wanted that this revolution should be
precipitated through organization and energetic sophisticated action on the part
of workers. All the confronted titanic forces should be crushed by the laborers.

The Marxian ideal was to bring about proletarian dictatorship through violent
means and not through peaceful evolution, resulting in the political and
economic domination by the proletarians. The proletarian revolution against the
bourgeoisie class in the state is directed towards the achievement of two ends:

1. Firstly, this proletarian revolution has to destroy the capitalist structure of

society. In destroying the capitalist stat it is very essential for the proletarian
revolution to destroy all the social, political, legal and other such institutions of
the capitalist state.

2. Secondly, the proletarian revolution has to replace all the social, political,
legal and other institutions with new institutions. These new institutions should
be such as it suits the needs of the proletarian class.

Karl Marx said, “Between capitalist and communist society lies the

period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other.
There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the
state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of
proletariat.” Lenin was the true follower of Karl Marx. He was of the view
that Communism is to be achieved in two stages. The first stage of
Communism follows immediately after the seizure of power by the
proletarian. In this stage of communism, society would not be a free
society. This stage of communism contains the blend of vestiges of old
and bourgeoisie order. In the old capitalist state, the capitalist
employer and exploiter used to suppress the minority and in the new
stage of Communism or in the proletariat dictatorship it would be
proletariat class which would suppress the minority or the
capitalist. The Communist state differs from the capitalist state in two ways:

a) In it the majority i.e. the workers will expropriate the majority.

b) The revolutionary proletariat will abolish all classes and then disappear as a
class.

The proletarian dictatorship in the transitional period is not a fluctuating period

of “Super Revolutionary” deeds and decrease. On the contrary, the dictatorship
of the proletariat must be regarded as an entire historical epoch full of external
conflicts and civil wars. In the dictatorship of proletariat there is a constant
organizational work along with economic progress. In the dictatorship of the
proletariat, the proletariat will be given full opportunity to educate itself.

Lenin said, “Under the dictatorship of the proletariat we will have to re-

educate million of peasants and petty proprietors, hundreds of
thousands of office workers and bourgeoisie intellectuals to
subordinate all these to proletarian state and to proletarian leadership,
to overcome their bourgeoisie habits and traditions, to re-educate in a
protracted struggle under the controlling auspices of the dictatorship of
the proletariat, the proletarians themselves, for they will not be able
themselves of own petty bourgeoisie prejudices at the first stroke as if
by magic, or at the behest of the Virgin Mary, or by a slogan, resolution
or decree it can be done only in the course of a long and difficult mass
struggle against the mass of petty bourgeoisie influence.”

The Communist holds that the proletarian dictatorship means the despotic rule
of the Communist minority. It will be a victory of democracy and not a
despotism of a minority. The proletariat class in power will not maintain the
affairs of the state with repression and violence. Laski was of the view that the
dictatorship of the proletariat means, not the anti-thesis of democracy,
but the anti-thesis of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It will be
exercised through elected bodies and subject to public opinion. Lenin also
remarks in this regard, “Revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is
power won and maintained by the violence of the proletariat against
the bourgeoisie power that is unrestrained by any law.”

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not an end, but a means to an end the
creation of society in which the basic principle of life and social organization
would be, “from each according to his capacity, to each according to his
needs.” The dictatorship of the proletariat is transitory in nature. After the
establishment of the society, dictatorship of the proletariat will not remain. The
state will wither away. All functions of the state will administer themselves and
administration will be a matter of technical and scientific knowledge instead of
exercise of political will and authority. There will be an ideal society of the free
and the equal without any internal disruption and mutual dissension.

Karl Marx and Capitalism

Karl Marx devoted a great part of his life to the study of capitalism I order to
describe the capitalist method of production of his own age and for all ages to
come. By studying capitalism, Karl Marx wanted to know the guiding principle of
its change. Karl Marx studied the capitalism with missionary spirit to make a
scientific forecast on its development. The salient feature of the feudal
production was production for local consumption. In the age of feudalism,
persons used to produce for themselves and for their feudal lords. In those
days, production was meant for consumption. Gradually feudal units of
production began to break up. Profit became the only aim of production in the
modern world. Production for profit required two things, capitalists’ means of
production, and the laborers whose only chance of getting a livelihood was to
sell his labor.

In this new system of production, there was a complete change. Now the
laborers produced things not for their personal use. On the contrary the
production was meant for the capitalist to sell for money. In this new system of
production, things were produced not for consumption but for sale in the
market. Laborer received his wages for his capitalist employer for his work and
the capitalist employer received profit. Karl Marx is of the view that profit arises
in the course of production. Sale of products does not produce profit.

According to Karl Marx, the exchange value of product depends upon the

Labor Time spent in its production. A product has a great exchange
value if more human labor has been put into its production. Labor time
spent in producing labor power means the time spent in producing the food,
shelter, clothes and other such things which are essential for the laborer
maintenance. Nowadays a laborer is able to produce in a day more than is
necessary to his survival but he is paid by his employer a wage commensurate
with a subsistence level of existence. The difference is called surplus value. In
the modern capitalist society this surplus value is appreciated by the capitalist
employer.

Karl Marx is of the view that capitalists are permanent profit makers

because they appropriate surplus value. It is very true that there is always
a difference between the exchange value of a product produced by laborer and
the value of labor power. In simple terms this difference may be called surplus
value. Karl Marx opined that under capitalist structure of production in each and
every factory and industry, “the wages paid to the workers are not the
equivalent of the full value they produce, but only equal about half this
value or even less. The rest of the value produced by the worker during
his working days is taken outright by his employer.”

In the capitalist system of production, the capitalist always become greedy and
ambitious to increase the amount of surplus value which means more profit for
him. Lust for profit is the prime factor in the capitalist system of production.
The capitalist make more profit only by exploiting the laborer. According to Karl
Marx exploitation of the laborer is another salient feature of capitalism. This
exploitation results in class struggle. Class struggle is perennial and perpetual in
the capitalism. The worker is fighting for the existence of his life and he wanted
to avoid intimidation and ultimately class struggle starts. The laborer demands
higher wages and shorter hours of work for improving his position. On the other
hand, the capitalist wants to make more profits and hence there is a constant
clash and struggle between the capitalist and the laborer, which can never
come to an end so long as the capitalist system of production lasts.

Karl Marx is of the view that property in any form is not capital, unless it is
used to produce surplus value. The early accumulation of capital was very
largely open robbery. But there was another way also through which capital
came into existence. According to Karl Marx the primitive accumulation is the
real origin of capital. He ridicules the legend of men, moderate in food and drink
who served from their meager living. Karl Marx said, “This primitive
accumulation plays in political economy about the same part as original
sin played in theology. Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell upon
the human race. In times long gone by there were town sorts of people;
one, the diligent, intelligent and above all frugal elite: the other lazy
rascals, spending their substance, and more in riotous living. Thus it
came to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth and the latter
sort had a t last nothing to sell except their own skin. And from this
original sin dates the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its
labor, has up to now nothing to sell but itself and the wealth of the few
that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work.”

With the victory of the proletariat, the class struggle puts an end to this process
by ending capitalist system of production. Apart from class-struggle, there are
other obstructions to the smooth development of capitalism. In other words we
may say that these obstacles as a matter of fact are inherent in the capitalism.
The most important among these obstacles, is the economic crisis. This crisis
creates a great obstacle to the smooth course of capitalist development.
Whenever economic crisis occur, it checks the expansion of capital. Economic
crisis do not check the expansion of capital, but often led to the destruction of
the capital accumulated in past years. Karl Marx said, “In these crisis there
broke out an epidemic that, is all earlier epochs, would have become an
absolutely the epidemic of over-production.”

Theory of State
“The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing
the common affairs of the bourgeoisie as a whole.” (Karl Marx)

State is thought of as parliament or some representative institution. Karl Marx

concluded that the development of the state had nothing to do with any form of
representative institutions. But he was of the view that state is a machine
through which the ruling class imposes its will on the majority. According to Karl
Marx, state is not meant for the promotion of the welfare of its people nor
bestows any right of political obligation and obedience but its coercion and that
a class coercion. The state acts as an agency of class coercion in the hands of
dominant economic class rather than an association of citizens is the pursuits of
a common purpose.

According to the Communist theory, the state is nothing but a tool of the

dominant class in society. Economic is the domineering factor which
becomes the base of all structures of the society. According to Aristotle the
state came into birth for the sake of life and state continues to exist for the
sake of good life. According to classical view, state is an institution meant for
the proper development of the personality of its each and every
citizen. Laski said, “State strives to hold a just balance between the
different elements in society. It strives by its policy to effect such an
adjustment of the relationship between citizens and will enable each of
them to realize, if he so desires, the fullest implications of human
personality.”

Karl Marx vividly differs from the classical views regarding state. He says the
state has never and can never aim at the common good of the community as a
whole. According to Communist Manifesto, the state is the executive committee
of the bourgeoisie. Karl Marx said, “State is nothing more than the form of
organization which the bourgeoisie necessarily adopt both for internal
and external purpose for the mutual guarantee of their property and
interest.”

According to Karl Marx, there was no state in primitive society and as soon as
human society was formed it bifurcated into two classes. It became very
essential for the privileged class to have an armed force for the purpose to
maintain the privileges of the privileged class and secondly to protect the
interests of the privileged class. Friedrich Engel said, “This public force
exists in every state, it consists not merely of armed men, but of
material appendages, prisons and repressive institutions of all
kind.” Naturally, the ruling class having the apparatus of force and absolute
rod of authority will always coerce upon the other classes of society. Fear and
intimidation of the ruling class constrained the people to subdue for complete
obedience and hence the Marxian state aims at crushing the independent will of
its subjects. Communists hold the views from the record of history that the
state exists only to help the capitalist in exploiting and suppressing the
laborers.

Karl Marx viewed state as a product of class antagonism. Lenin said, “Where,

when and to what extent, the state arises depends directly on which
where and to what extent, the class antagonism of a given society
cannot be objectively reconciled. And, conversely the existence of the
state proves that class antagonisms are irreconcilable.” Karl Marx was
of the view that the state will be able to wither away completely when society
has realized the value, “From each according to his ability: to each
according to his needs.” Then there would be no problem of production and
its distribution. There would be no question of mine and thine. Every one will
work voluntarily according to his ability and capacity and will get share
according to his needs and requirements.
Classless Society:
Karl Marx was of the opinion that class struggle is perpetual and constant
between man and man and consequently man always fought for his own
existence. It ends only if the final and ultimate victory of the labor is achieved.
This is a known factor that in the capitalist structure of society, but not over the
means of production and its direction was vested in the hands of the capitalist.
Proletariats in that society are neglected people always living at the sweet
mercy of capitalist. When violent bloody revolution in the name of communism
bring about complete and ultimate victory to the proletarian revolutionaries,
and the complete annihilation of the aristocratic and capitalist class in the
society ushers a new epoch of social equality and economic parity. With the
advent of proletarianism, a new system of legal, economic, political and
production world emerges out. In this new system, all the functions of the
government and the means as well as technique of production were to be
controlled by the society.

Friedrich Engel said, “Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and

more completely transforms the great majority of the population into
proletarians it creates the power which under penalty of its own
destruction is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on
more and more the transformation of the vast means of production
already socialized into state property. It shows itself the way to
accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and
turns the means of production into state property.” All the class
distinction in society would disappear, and with the disappearance of the class
distinctions in society, the class struggle would also come to an end. The
proletariat would use their power to eliminate private ownership of means of
production. As soon as private ownership of means of production is eliminated,
all class distinction would automatically vanish and society would become a
stateless and classless society.

Criticism:

1. Karl Marx’s theory of state stands against the classical theory of state.
According to classical view, the main reason for the existence of the state is the
promotion of the good of the community. On the contrary, Karl Marx’s state is a
machine by which one class exploits and suppresses the other.

2. Karl Marx’s views do no explain the exact nature of the state. It gives a
wrong conception. He says that the ruling class is the representative of an
economic class and the ruling class is always interested in pursuing its own
interests. This is incorrect view of Karl Marx. The example of medieval kings
and emperors stand against the theory of Karl Marx as they were not the
representative of an economic class and consciously pursuing the interests of
their own class. On the contrary, the ancient and medieval kings were the
representatives of the whole society.

3. Karl Marx’s theory of stat is quite applicable to the first half of the nineteenth
century, but for twentieth century it is quite inapplicable. In the first half of the
nineteenth century, Laissez-faire policy was predominant but today its forces
are no longer reliable. Now we live in an era of democratic socialist planning.
Nowadays state is meant for the promotion of the common good. Thus it can be
said that Karl Marx’s theory of state is not at all applicable to the states of
modern times.

4. The conception of Karl Marx that victory of proletariats over the capitalists
would result in the disappearance of class distinction is absolutely incorrect and
untrue for glaring reasons that he had created class distinction i.e. bourgeoisie
and proletariat, two great hostile camps and two prominent classes constantly
indulging in class struggle and warfare which culminated into oppression and
chaos.

Lenin, Mao, Gramsci, Kai Popper, Pierre Bourdieu, John Rawis, Frances
Fukuyama, Foucault, Derrida Kierkegard, Jean Paul Sartre, Rene Descarte 

II. Muslim Political Thought: 

1. Al-Farabi

Introduction:
Abu Nasr Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Tarkhan al-Farabi was born at Wasij,
a village near Farab, a district of Transoxania. He was one of the greatest
philosophers that the Muslim world had ever produced. He mainly studied in
Baghdad and after gaining considerable proficiency in the Arabic language, he
became an ardent pupil of the Christian savant Abu Bishr Matta bin Younus,
quite prominent as translator of a number of works by Aristotle and other Greek
versatile writers.
Being a first Turkish philosopher, he left behind lasting and profound influence
upon the life of succeeding Muslim Philosophers. Being a great expositor of
Aristotle’s logic, he was aptly called al-mu’alim al thani (the second teacher).
According to Ibn-e-Khaldoon, no Muslim thinker ever reached the same position
as al-Farabi in Philosophical knowledge. Al-Farabi is the first Muslim philosopher
to have left political writings, either in the form of commentaries or in treaties
of his own based upon Plato.

Al-Farabi’s works was preserved from ravages of time contain five on politics as
under:
1. A Summary of Plato’s Laws
2. Siyasatu’l-Madaniyah
3. Ara’u ahli’l-Madinatu’l-Fadilah
4. Jawami’u’s-Siyasat
5. Ijtima’atu’l-Madaniyah

Contribution of Al-Farabi to Islamic Political Thought

“In pure philosophy, Farabi became as famous as any philosopher of

Islam, and it is said that a savant of caliber of Avicenna found himself
entirely incapable of understanding the true bearing of Aristotle’s
Metaphysics until one day he casually purchased one of Farabi’s works
and by its help he was able to grasp their purport.” (Sherwani)

Al-Farabi was a renowned philosopher of his age and deeply reverenced in all
ages. Al-Farabi’s insatiated enthusiasm led him to study Philosophy, Logic,
Politics, Mathematics and Physics. He left his indelible impact upon the
succeeding generations through his works, which are still read, learnt and
discussed with great passion and literal zest. His sincerity, profound moral
convictions and his genuine belief in liberty and in the dignity of human being
united with his moderation and humanitarianism made him the ideal spokesman
of his age, which was full of rivalries, corrosions and false vanities.

Sherwani was of the view, “A man with such learning had no place in the
ninth-century Baghdad and as we have pointed out, we find him
regularly attached to Saif-ud-Dowlah’s court. In 946 Saif took
Damascus and Al-Farabi became permanent resident of that delightful
place, spending his time in the gardens of the erstwhile Umayyad
capital discussing philosophical questions with his friends and writing
down his opinions and compositions sometimes in a regular form,
sometimes in an irregular form, sometimes, on merely loose leaves.” Al-
Farabi renunciated from the worldly matters and he never pursued the
pleasures and luxuries like other middle class Abbasids. He led exemplary
simple life with full contentment with what he got to eat and to wear.

It can be very well asserted that al-Farabi was in the truest sense “the parent of
all subsequent Arabic Philosophers”. The great Christian scholars namely Albert
the Great and St. Thomas Aquines acknowledged their indebtedness to al-
Farabi in the development of their own political theories. Al-Farabi laid down
several rules for teachers honestly striving to train the young students in
philosophy. No scholar should start the study of philosophy until he gets very
well acquainted with natural sciences. Human nature rises only gradually from
the sensuous to the abstract, from the imperfect to the perfect. Mathematics in
particular is very important in training the mind of a young philosopher, it helps
him pass from the sensuous to the intelligible and further it informs his mind
with exact demonstrations. Similarly, the study of logic as an instrument to
distinguish the true from the false should precede the study of philosophy
proper.

Al-Farabi voluminously wrote mainly on pure philosophy and there is no doubt

that he had to draw on neo-Platonic ideas current in the Arab world of those
days in his commentaries on Aristotle, Porphyry and Ptolemy. Sherwani says
that we might accept the proposition that he was inspired by Plato, in
this setting up of the Ideal City, but as there is a mass of new material
in his political writings not found in Plato and taken from local sources,
it is a matter of importance that such material should be analyzed and
Farabi be given his rightful place on the scene of political
philosophy. Al-Farabi died at the ripe age of nearly eighty years in 950. His
name and works are everlasting and echoed in the corridors of time.

Al-Farabi’s Ideal Head of State

Every Islamic state is ruled by the ruler, or as later European Political scientists
would call him the Sovereign. Plato after developing the matter of the
government of his ideal city in his Republic had made the omnipotent and
omniscient philosopher sovereign who should have no other interest but that of
the affairs of state. Al-Farabi starts from the nature of the workers of leadership
and impresses his readers that what is wanted for the office is the power of
making proper deductions.

According to Al-Farabi, his Rais should be such superior man, who, by his very
nature and upbringing, does not submit before any power or instructions of
others. He must have the potentialities to convey his sense to others for
complete submission. Rosenthal was of the view, “He is the Imam, the first
ruler over the ideal city-state, over the ideal nation and over the whole
inhabited earth. The philosopher-prophet, in the opinion of Al-Farabi, is alone
qualified to help man, a citizen to reach his true human destiny, where his
moral and intellectual perfection permit him to perceive God, under the
guidance of the divinely revealed Shariat. Those ruled by the first ruler are the
excellent, best and happy citizens.”

Al-Farabi contemplatively points out the virtuous qualities of his ideal Head of
State, who should be competent to control the actions of all in the State and
must be in possession of latest intellect as well as the gained intellect. All such
refined and high qualities including his political and literal caliber make him an
Ideal Sovereign for the overall interest of the society and the nation. He
enumerated tweleve attributes of an ideal Sovereign:

1. He must possess persuasion and imagination to attain perfection as well as a

philosopher skilled in the speculative science.

2. He must be physically sound with meticulous understanding.

3. He must have visualization of all that is said.

4. He must have a retentive and sharp memory.

5. He should discuss the matters with least possible arguments and must have
authority to get the work done.

6. He must have power to convey to others exactly according to his wish and he
has profound love of learning and knowledge.

7. He must have perfect capacity for a comprehensive knowledge and

prescription of the theoretical and practical sciences and art, as well as for the
virtues leading to good deeds.

8. He must shun off playfulness and control over anger and passions.

9. Al-Farabi’s ideal Rais must have love of truth, persuasion of justice and
hatred of hypocrisy, knavery and duplicity.

10. He must vie for utmost happiness to his subjects and he should do away
with all forces of tyranny and oppressions.
11. He must have power to distribute justice without any effort, fearless in
doing things as he thinks best to be done.

12. He must serve the people of his state from all internal and external
dangers. He must be in possession of considerable wealth, so that he should not
prone to greed and lust.

Al-Farabi fully realizes that these fine qualities cannot be found in one single
human being, so he says that one without just five or six of these qualities
would make a fairly good leader. If however, even five or six of them are not
found in a person, he would have one who has been brought up under a leader
with these qualities, and would thus seen to prefer some kind of hereditary
leadership, with the important condition that the heir should follow the
footsteps of his worthy predecessor. In case even such a person is not
available, it is preferable to have a council of two or even five members
possessing an aggregate of these qualities provided at least one of them is a
Hakim, i-e one who is able to know the wants of the people and visualize the
needs of the state as a whole. This Hakim is to Farabi a desideratum of every
kind of government, and if such a one is not procurable then the State is bound
to be shattered to atoms.

Kinds of State

Al-Farabi describes the varieties of the states other than the Ideal States and
the remarkable contribution of this philosopher are very much alive and given
serious considerations even today. Al-Farabi divides states into following
categories:

1. State of Necessity (Daruriya):

Its inhabitants aim, at the necessities of the life, like food, drink, clothing, a
place to live and carnal gratification and they generally help each other in
securing these necessities of life.

2. Vile State (Nadhala):

Its citizens strive for wealth and riches for their own sake. The account in the
Siyasa includes a description of its ruler. Ibn-e-Rushd also succinctly touches
upon this state.

3. Base and Despicable State:

Its inhabitants concentrate on the pleasures of the senses, games and other
pastimes. This state is the one in which men help one another to enjoy sensual
pleasure such as games, jokes and pleasantries and this is the enjoyment of the
pleasures of eating and merry-making. This state is the happy and fortunate
state with the people of ignorance, for this state only aims at attaining pleasure
after obtaining first the necessities of life and then abundant wealth to spend.

4. Timocracy (Madina Karama):

It contains a variety of honours. Since the Arabic source of Al-farabi is lost in
the wealth of legend, we are unable to determine whether this lengthy and
diffuse description goes back to it or represents Al-Farabi’s own amplification.
The latter seems to be more correct. The citizens of these honor-loving states
assist each other in gaining glory, fame and honor. The honors fall into two
groups. The first is a personal relationship between one who is worthy to be
honored because of some virtue in him, and the others who accord him honor
and respect because they recognize him as their superior. The second kind of
honor is accorded to men because of their wealth, or because of they have been
victorious, exercise authority or enjoy other distinctions. This state in the
opinion of Al-Farabi is the best of all the states.

5. Tyranny (Taghallub):
It receives from the aim of its citizens; they co-operate to give victory over
others, but refuse to be vanquished by them. Al-Farabi sets out to distinguish
between despotic states and define tyranny or despotism according to aim,
mastery over others and over their possessions for power’s sake, within or
externally, by force and conquest or by persuasion and achieving enslavement.
His despotic rule is a mixed one and thus often resembles timocracy or
plutocracy. Ibn-e-Rushd avoids this by following Plato’s description of tyranny
and the tyrannical man, and the transition from democracy to tyranny and of
the democratic to the tyrannical man but done to their common source both Al-
Farabi and Ibn-e-Rushd similarly define tyranny as absolute power.

Rosenthal was of the view, “Tyranny has even more variations for Al-

Farabi than timocracy; as many as the tyrant has desires, for this
despotism expresses itself in imposing his will on his subjects and
making them work for his personal ends. Al-Farabi knows of two kinds
of tyranny within which these variations occur, internal and external
tyranny. The first consists in the absolute mastery of the tyrant and his
helpers over the citizens of the state, and the second is the
enslavement of another state or people.”

6. Democracy (Madina Jama’iya):

It is marked by the freedom of its inhabitants to do as they wish. They are all
equal and no body has master over another. Their governors only govern with
the explicit consent of the governed. Democracy contains good and bad
features and it is therefore not impossible that at some time the most excellent
men grow up there, so that philosophers, orators and poets come into being. It
is thus possible to choose from its elements of the ideal state.

Apart from the afore-mentioned classification of the states, which seems to be

idealistic, Al-Farabi has a definite place for the trait of political character over
other nations. He initiates reasons for this mastery and says that it is sought by
a people owing to its desire for protection, ease ort luxury and all that leads to
the satisfactions of these necessities. In this powerful state, they might be able
to get all the desire. There is nothing against human nature for the strong to
over power the weak, so nations which try to get other nations under their
control consider it quite proper to do so, and it is justice both to control the
weak and for the weak to be so controlled, and the subdued nation should do it
for the good of its masters.

There is no doubt that all the lapse of centuries and the international ideology
which is the current coin in politics, the psychology of the nations today is much
the same as described by the Master centuries ago. Al-Farabi said, “But the
more chivalrous among them are such that even when they have to
shed human blood they do so only face to face, not while their
opponent is asleep or showing his back, nor do they take away his
property except after giving him proper warning of their intentions.
Such a community does not rest till it thinks it has become supreme
forever, nor does it give any other nation an opportunity of over
powering it, always regarding all other peoples their opponents and
enemies and keeping itself on Guard.”

Colonies:
Al-Farabi is comprehensively clear about the principles of colonization. He
opines that the inhabitants of a State must scatter hither and thither in different
parts of a State because they have been overpowered by an enemy or by an
epidemic or through economic necessity. There are only alternatives to the
colonists, either to migrate I such a way as to form one single commonwealth
or divide themselves in different political societies. It may come to compass
that a large body of these people are of opinion that it is not necessary to
change the laws which they have brought from their mother country; they
would then simply codify existing laws and begin to live under them. It will thus
be clear to understand that A-Farabi not only contemplates colonization but also
self-Government of a republican kind which is closer to the modern conceptions.

2. Al-Mawardi

Introduction:
Abul Hasan Ali bin Muhammad bin Habib-al-Mawardi is the first writer on
political theory in the history of Islam. Except Ibn-e-Khaldoon, all the jurists,
thrologists and political philosophers who have followed him, down to our own
days, have hardly made any improvement upon his thoughts. He was born in
974 AD and died in 1058 AD. Al-Mawardi was regarded as one of the versatile
and most learned jurists of his age, and his opinions laid emphasis in the world
of law and jurisprudence. He belonged to the orthodox Shafi’te school of
jurisprudence and still we find traces of the pure rationalism. Like other Muslims
he received the traditional education, and he wrote on many topics besides law,
like, a Commentary on the Quran, a treatise on prophecy and several works on
Ethics. As far his legal writings, it is noteworthy that “Government and
administration, at all levels, were his principal concerns.” 

Al-Mawardi started his career as a professor of law and jurisprudence at Basra

and Baghdad, and later on he was appointed as Qazi-ul-Quzat of Baghdad by a-
Qaim, Abbasid Caliph and he was also conferred an honorific title of Aqdal-Quat
or the Supreme Justice. But he declined to accept this offer of appointment
because he said there were far abler people who deserved the title much more
than himself. It is related that he did not publish any of his works in his lifetime.
When a friend asked why he kept his books back he replied that it was because
he felt that his motives in writing them were not as pure as he should have
wished and that he did not know whether Allah the Almighty had accepted
these literary offerings or not.

Al-Mawardi has left a great and valuable treasure of knowledge and philosophy.
His books are the following:

1. Al-Ahkam at-Sultaniyah (Ordinances of Government)

2. Nasihat-ul-Muluk (Advice to Kings)
3. Qawanin-ul-Wazarat (Laws of the Ministry)
4. Tahsilun Nazar fi Tahsil-uz-Zafar (Control of Sight for facilitating
Victory)

Contribution of Al-Mawardi 
to Islamic Political Thought

Al-Mawardi was the founder of the science of politics in the Islamic World. He
was not very original in what he did. His greatness lies in the fact that he
received political opinions and traditions of the past and transformed them into
a logical system. For four hundred years the Muslims were engaged in conquest
and empire building, but they could not evolve any concrete pattern of
government or administration. Al-Mawardi’s achievement is that he gave
definition to what was unshapely and undefined. Moreover, he assembled his
ideas in writing; therefore his book Al-Ahkam at-Sultaniyah became a standard
work of reference on political and administrative practices.

In spite of the untenable position in which al-Mawardi had to work, one cannot
fail to admire his effort to work out a political system essentially based on the
fundamental thought and early political practice of Islam. Al-Mawardi’s
remarkable contribution is that he has given a detailed account of the
administrative machinery of Government. He portrayed not only what exists but
also what ought to exist. This idealistic touch made his work popular with every
regime and every generation that came after him.

Al-Mawardi’s work and his theory of Caliphate saved the Muslim people for a
long to come from the extravagant and illogical claims of the Shiahs, the
Khawarij, the Mutazilah and other extremist sects in Islam. His immediate aim
of emancipating the Sunni Caliphate of the Abbasids from the Buwayhid tyranny
was so providently realized in his own lifetime, that it must be counted as one
of his remarkable achievements. Al-Mawardi knew that the Abbasids could not
fully retrieve the lost ground and could not regain the glory of their early
ancestors. To compensate this irretrievable position he instituted the theory of
absolute governorship which provided a handy instrument of self-protection to
the Abbasid Caliphs against the attempt of possible adventurers who aspired to
overthrow the Caliphate. His most valuable contribution to political theory was
that he based his account on historical practice and facts and liked other Jurists
and the scholars; he did not indulge in empty speculation.

Criticism:
But with all the good points that can be said about Al-Mawardi, he had one
short-coming, he was not a political thinker, and hence could not evolve a
philosophic conception of the state. He does not discuss the scope, jurisdiction,
responsibilities and obligations of the state, gives no conception of sovereignty
and seems to be completely ignorant of the idea of the constitution. Lack of a
constitutional theory has not only very much reduced the value of Al-Mawardi’s
work but has its deadening effect on the later development of Islamic political
thought.

Al-Mawardi seems to have no conception of democracy. His theory of election

dealing only with the appointment of the Caliph is wholly undemocratic.
Moreover, he is very particular about the rights and prerogatives of the Caliph
but pays little attention to the rights and obligations of the people. Lack of the
idea of fundamental rights of men has been one of the principal sores in Muslim
polity for ages, and has been mainly responsible for almost complete absence of
the growth of democratic life in Muslim lands.

Al-Mawardi’s Theory of State

Caliphate:
The institution of Caliphate represents the mission of Hazrat Muhammad
(P.B.U.H) the Prophet and the main duties of the Caliph are the safeguard of
religion from all destructive propaganda and innovations and the proper
organization of general polity. The Holy Quran aims at creating an ideal society
in which good predominantly prevails over evil and in which the laws of God are
generally practiced and obeyed. Further, it promises the inheritance or
possession and governance of the earth to those only who follow in the
footsteps of the Prophet (P.B.U.H) and practice piety and do justice.

When the Muslims built a world empire and actual needs arose, they tackled all
these issues and tried to reach definite conclusions on all of them in the light of
Quran and the Sunnah. The Quran is silent on all these pertinent issues,
because their meaning is ever changing with the historical evolution. Besides,
the Quran does not aim at creating a state but a society. Syed Qutab was of
the view, “Whatever the form and shape of the state, if the Quranic
society is realized in it, it may bear the designation of the Islamic
State.” The Quran says, “Obey God and obey the Prophet (P.B.U.H) and
the Uli-al-Amr from amongst you.” It also commands the Prophet (P.B.U.H)
to take the counsel of the Muslims in matters of state.

The Muslim jurists are of the opinion that the institution of the Caliphate is not
necessitated by a clear injunction in the Quran but by the consensus of opinion,
it is obvious that the matter is left to the discretion and judgment of the Muslim
community. The Quran is very clear and definite about all fundamental
problems for instance, about the articles of faith, the forms of religious worship,
laws of matrimony and inheritance, distribution of booty of war, prohibition of
interest, rights and obligations of husband and wife etc., but omits all details
about the form and constitution of the Caliphate; and this is deliberate, because
the wisdom of God knows better that the social and political constitutions of
men are ever changing and evolving with the march of time.

The second fundamental source of political speculation was the Sunnah. And
because the jurists failed to get sufficient material in the Quran to construct a
detailed political theory, they spent greater pains in exploring the Sunnah and
the archives of early Islamic History to realize their purpose. And not only
traditions of the Prophet (P.B.U.H) but also of the companions and successors
were complied.

The forty years of the Pious Caliphate rightly represented the true spirit of
Islamic polity. Although the structure of the Caliphate was brutally shaken
during the regime of Hazrat Usman (R.A) and finally cracked during the reign of
Hazrat Ali (R.A), its basic principle remained permanent and operative. These
principles are as follows:

1. The aim of Islamic State is to create a society as conceived in the Quran and
Sunnah.

2. The State shall enforce the Shariah as the fundamental laws of the state.

3. The sovereignty rests in the people. The people can set up any form of the
government conforming to the above two principles and with the exigencies of
time and environment.

4. Whatever the form of the government may be, it must be upon the principle
of popular representation, because based sovereignty belongs to the people.

Muslims in early Islam were not beguiled by sophisticated notions of

Caliphs as presented by later theologians and jurists. To them it was
crystal clear the source of all temporal authority were the people and
the people alone. The ideas of absolution of the Caliph and of divine
right were entirely foreign to them. There was no written constitution
as the modern constitutions. The Quran and Sunnah did not specifically
demand the necessity of a state. And at any rate the conception of the
state was never clear. It was on account of this that the Umayyad and
Hashimite race for supremacy of power started immediately after the
device of the Prophet (P.B.U.H). After the fall of the Pious Caliphate,
the idea of democratic caliphate passed into monarchical system
without any ideological conflict. (Ibn-e-Khaldoon)

The Umayyad made strenuous efforts and effected a practical compromise

between monarchy and the original caliphate. They however, took pains to
preserve the original pattern of succession b y nomination and limited election
within the House of Umayyad. This Umayyad innovation received general
approval and became an established principle of Islamic polity for alter times.

Wazarat:
Al-Mawardi says, “the appointment of a Wazir does not mean that the
Imam or Caliph should give up all connections with the administration
of the state, but the real significance of his appointment consists of the
fact that in the province of politics it is better to have a coadjutor
rather than one sole person at the helm of affairs.” And when the Prophet
Moses (A.S) could make his brother Haroon (A.S) his Wazir in order that his
hands should be strengthened, then surely in the administration of the state it
is allowable for the Imam to have a Wazir beside him. Al-Mawardi says that
Wazarat is of two kinds:

1. The Wazarat of Delegation:

The Wazir of Delegation is the person in whom the Imam has the fullest
confidence and to whom the powers of administration of the realm are
delegated. The difference between the Wazir and the Imam himself is that the
Wazir of Delegation is not empowered to appoint anyone as his successor and
the Imam, the highest authority; can dismiss the officers appointed by him.

2. The Wazarat of Execution:

The Wazir of Execution is similar to the Secretary to the Government in modern
times. Al-Mawardi says that the main function of the Wazir is to get the decrees
of the Imam executed and he should be the main official channel of information
for him. Mawardi opines that, seven qualities are required for a person aspiring
to this office and these are honesty, confidence, absence of greed, good
relationship with the people, intelligence and the wisdom of grasping the truth
of things, absence of luxury and amorousness, and lastly, diplomacy and
experience. Al-Mawardi said, “It is not necessary that the holder of the
office should be a follower of Islam and a non-Muslim dhimmi can also
be appointed a Wazir of Execution."

For the efficient functioning of the administration, the government should be

divided into various departments dealing with the business of government such
as revenue, army and other high offices of State. The State administration
as a whole was called Diwan. Al-Mawardi enumerated four chief offices of
Government are under:

1. The Army Board

2. The Board of Provincial Boundaries
3. The Treasury
4. The Board of Appointment and Dismissal of Officers

Views of Central Government:

Al-Mawardi being an orthodox Shafi’ite, gave an account of legal rationalism in
his writings. Very rationally he makes full endeavors to demonstrate the
necessity of the Imamate and he proves it not only by referring the Islamic law
but lays down a general proposition that it is in the nature of man or rather
those among men who are superior to others in intellect that they should hand
over their affairs to one who can keep them from being tyrannized over by
others and should have the power of adjudging between them in case of mutual
quarrels.

Al-Mawardi relies solely upon the Quran without reference to any other source
of law. Thus when he tries to demonstrate that the Imam should not indulge in
luxurious living and he reminds the readers of the order which God gave to the
Prophet David (A.S) when He appointed him His Caliph: “O David, We have
appointed thee Our Caliph on earth; so judge aright between man and
man, and follow not desires that might lead thee away from the path of
thy Lord.”

He at the time of discussing different categories of taxes, argues entirely on the

basis of the Quran, and quotes a verse to prove that the Zakat should be
distributed “among the poor and the needy, and those who collect them
and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives
and the debtors, and for the cause of God and for the wayfarer” (Quran
ix, 60).

Along with the verses of the Quran he argues from the order of the Prophet
(P.B.U.H) as related in the Traditions when he wishes to prove that the Caliph
has the right to appoint his own successor, he argues from the battle of Mutah
and says, “The Prophet (P.B.U.H) appointed his manumitted slave,
Hazrat Zaid bin Harithah, to take his place at the head of the Muslim
army and at the same time ordered that is case of his death he should
be replaced by Hazrat Jafar bin Ali Talib, after him Hazrat Abdullah bin
Rawahah and in case he is also killed, the mantle of command should
fall on the shoulders of whomever the soldiers might choose.”Mawardi
was of the view that “it was possible for the Prophet (P.B.U.H) to make
these nominations; it should be possible in case of khilafat as well.”

As regards the office of Qazi, he quotes the instructions given by the Caliph
Hazrat Umar to Hazrat Abu Musa al Ash’ari when he appointed him to this
office. Sometimes al-Mawardi uses the documents of the Umayyad and the
Abbasid periods his premises, for instance, he quotes the accession address of
Hazrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz to demonstrate the exalted ideals of the office of
the Caliph. Whenever he wants to stress the importance of the Wazarat, he
quotes a proclamation of Mamun where he declares that he wishes to
appoint one of his ministers who should be virtuous, sophisticated and
conservative in his habits, experienced and matured in his profession
and willing to undertake the most difficult missions, should be reliable
and trustworthy, whose silence should signify his great indulgence and
whose conversation should demonstrate his great knowledge. He
should be able to understand the innermost thoughts of others by the
mere gesture of the eyes, and even a second’s conversation should
suffice for him to get at the root of the matter, who should have the
posture of the rich, the foresight of the learned, the humility of the
savant and the acuteness of the jurist, who should be grateful for any
good that might be done to him and should bear his troubles with
patience.

Theory of Rebellion

Introduction:
Even in the ancient and medieval tribal and monarchical systems it was
recognized that if the monarch ruled with tyranny and inequity, the people had
a right to overthrow him and choose a new leader in his place. The act of
rebellion in such an eventuality was not regarded as a crime but as a
vindication of the fundamental rights of people.

After the ascendancy of Islam, it brought about a complete revolution in human

thought and knowledge. Islam combined politics with religion in a remarkable
way that it was susceptible to reason and most conducive to human relations. It
defined the proper dignity and status of men in this universe, his relations and
obligations to God, and His privileges as the Lord of creation. It taught for the
first time the ideas of universal brotherhood and complete equality of men. It
demolished the artificial barriers of color and creed and brought the poor and
the rich at one platform. The great republic of Madina was built on the highest
and purest ideals of democracy. The only sad thing about this was that it was
too short-lived and that it could not get time for proper growth and
consolidation. The consequences of the premature demise of the Republic of
Madina were dire and far-reaching. The fast developing ideals of Islamic
democracy were blasted and superseded by the imperialistic systems of the
Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Fatimids and others. A struggle began between
the State and Society. The society tried to reflect the principles of Islamic life
and polity, while the state tried to emulate the traditions and ways of Byzantine
and Sassanid empires. For one hundred years of Umayyad rule the struggle
between these two forces continued. But when Abbasids came into power, it
signaled the victory of the State polity over religious ideology. The emperor or
Caliph became the spiritual and temporal head of the state, his wishes and
whims became law, and he was responsible to none. The people living under his
cruel subjugation had no right of resistance or revolt.

The Muslim jurists, political thinkers, statesmen and diplomats invented a

political theory which affected a superficial and sophisticated compromise
between the two forces. The compromise was given religious sanctity and
justification, so that it became permanent and unchallengeable.

Al-Mawardi’s Views:
Al-Mawardi is greatly influenced by the political ideas of his age. He discards the
divine right of rule, for despite his anxiety for the restoration of sovereign
power of Abbasid Caliphs, he nowhere supports their claim, or the claim of
jurists to unchallenged obedience to the Head of the State.

1. Al-Mawardi quotes the following tradition from Abu Hurairah: the Prophet

(P.B.U.H) said, “After me there will be appointed rulers over you, and
both the good as well as bad deeds will go by them; but you must obey
the orders from them that is based upon righteousness; for if they rule
with fairness the good of it will occur to them and to you both, if they
rule with inequity you will get the benefit of it and they, the evil
consequences thereof.”
2. Al-Mawardi clearly advocates revolt when the Imam either falls prey to
sensual passions or becomes sceptic of the basic tenets of Islam. But it is
ambiguous as to how a tyrant or heretical Imam can be deposed. No method
has been proposed by means of which the will of the people may be
ascertained, or the Imam may be expelled his office. There is no precedent in
Islamic history when an Imam was deposed from office by legal and proper
means. And since the Imam is the executive Head of the State, and not
responsible to any Majlis or Tribunal, it is obvious that he cannot sit to impeach
himself or allow others to punish him.

One thing is quite clear from the writings of Al-Mawardi, that he is opposed to
the claim of undisputed obedience to the Caliph. He does not elaborate a
detailed theory of rebellion, nor discusses the fundamental rights of man. He is
very careful in choosing only those traditions which suit his purpose. He could
have easily established from the tradition of the Prophet (P.B.U.H) as well as
from the practice of the Pious Caliphs, that Islam has given an open charter of
rights to humanity, and that it has unambiguously defined limits of State’s
powers and freedom of the individual.

He could have noted that the famous verse of the Quran, “Obey God, and
obey the Prophet (P.B.U.H), and obey the ruler who is from amongst
you,” (Al-Quran, 4: 58) does not give license of despotism to rulers, for the
same verse continues, “if you quarrel on any issue, bring it to the
judgment of God and the Prophet (P.B.U.H), provided you believe in
God and in the day of Judgment.” Obedience to the head of the State is
bound by the condition that he obeys the injunctions of God, that is, rules with
truth and justice. In another verse the Quran says, “Their affairs are decided
by mutual counsel amongst themselves" (Al-Quran, 42: 38) and not by
the arbitrary will of a ruler.

Hazrat Abu Bakr (R.A) reported that the Prophet (P.B.U.H) said, “Indeed if

the people see evil and do not rise to ward it off, it is just probable that
the vengeance of God may overtake them all.” Abu Said narrated that
the Prophet (P.B.U.H) said, “Some of the most loved and nearest
persons to me on the Day of Judgment shall be the Just Imam, and the
most hated and damnable person to me on the Day of Judgment shall
be the Tyrant Imam.”

When Hazrat Abu Bakr (R.A) was elected Caliph, he said in his policy

speech: “Obey me as long as I obey God, but when I disobey Him you
are no longer bound to obey me.” He continued the speech and said, “And
I am just like one of you so when you find me on the right path, follow
me, but if you see me diverting, set me right.”

In the early phases of Islamic history, there were a general and strong feelings
among the Muslims that there existed a solemn covenant between the State
and people, that the State was conducted by the elected representatives of the
people, and that it existed only to protect and promote their interests. So when
the rulers broke this covenant, and violated the principle of representation and
threw overboard the interest of the people, the people thought it as their
inherent right to repeal such rulers and grab political power from them. It was
the clear infringement of this covenant that eventually led to the assassinations
of Hazrat Usman (R.A) and Hazrat Ali (R.A) and also to the sudden collapse of
the powerful Umayyads. The Abbasid Caliphs fetched the reign of the Islamic
empire, killed these ideas altogether and the concept of the covenant was
completely forgotten.

Conclusion:
Al-Mawardi did not elaborate a theory of rebellion and if he wanted to propound
a theory, he could have found abundant sanction for it in early thought and
practice. It may be noted here that the idea of rebellion has always been most
abhorrent to Muslim rulers throughout history, because after the regime of the
Pious Caliphs, many a ruler denied the right of the people to participate in the
affairs of the State. But there is no denying the fact that the people resented
the autocratic trends in the statecraft and stood for their basic rights.

Theory of Imamate

Al-Mawardi says that Almighty Allah laid down laws in order that issues might
be satisfactorily settled and the principles of right, truth and goodness may be
widely known. He has also entrusted the control of His creatures to various
governments so that order and peace in the world may be maintained. Al-
Mawardi describes that the real objective of the state is the rule of justice and
truth and to bring tranquility and peace to its inhabitants. He further describes
that the real motive of the Imamate is following the straight path and
strengthening the political bonds. He is also of the view that Imamate is not
only an institution sanctified by tradition and history but can be proved to be
necessary according to pure reason; for wise men entrust their affairs to a
leader able to keep them from being molested and to adjudge between them in
case of mutual quarrels and squabbles.
The salient features of the institutions of Imamate:

1. The institute of Imamate is necessary as a requirement of the Shariah and

not as a requirement of reason. The appointment of an Imam by the consensus
of the Muslim community is obligatory.

2. The Imamate is instituted by means of election. The electoral college shall

consist of persons with the special qualifications:

a. Justice with all the conditions pertaining to it

b. Knowledge of religion and of the interests and policy of the nation

c. Wisdom

The candidates of Imamate should also fulfill certain conditions:

1. Justice
2. Learning
3. Integrity of physical senses
4. Integrity of physical organs
5. Wisdom
6. Bravery
7. Qurayshite descent

Rosenthal is of the view that the Caliph be physically and mentally fit to
discharge his duties as ruler, and he must possess courage and determination
to protect the territory of Islam and wage holy war against its enemies and
against infidels. He must also be a descendant of the Quraish.

3. The election principle of the Imamate quoted above is obviously against the
Shi’ite claim of bequeathal or divine nomination. Al-Mawardi omits the case
when a debauch and licentious person is elected as Imam.

4. The right of franchise is not enjoyed only by the people in the capital. The
Caliph, however, traditionally elected in the capital because the death of the
previous Caliph is first known there, and political considerations require the
immediate appointment of a new Caliph, and because most of the people
possessing the necessary qualifications for the Imamate generally reside there.
This principle was enthusiastically contented by Khawarij who believed in
complete democracy and universal franchise.
5. The Qurayshite descent of the candidate of Imamate is very important. Al-
Mawardi lays great stress on it and says that if any one raises any objection on
the ground that it excludes non-Qurayshites from the Caliphate such an
objection would not be considered because it was this Qurayshite descent that
was presented by Abu Bakr as an argument for preference in the election of
Saqifat Bani Saidah. This flimsy emphasis on the Qurayshite descent is a
formidable hit on the claims of Fatimids.

6. The Imam is appointed in one of the two ways:

i. He may be elected by the electoral college

ii. He may be nominated by the ruling Imam

In the first case some scholars hold that Imam must be elected by all the
members of the Electoral College in all the cities; others oppose this view and
say that Caliph Abu Bakr was elected by the citizens of Medina. Still others
assert that only five persons are sufficient to elect the Imam. But Al-Mawardi
says that one person is enough to elect the Caliph. He sites the tradition of
Abbas in evidence.

Sherwani says that Al-Mawardi bases his arguments by the precedent of the
choice of Abu Bakr by election and that of Usman by nomination. Once the new
Imam has taken his place he binds himself by an Ahd that he would loyally
perform the duties assigned to him, this is followed by the Bai’at or pledge
modeled after the pledges of Aqbah, in which the people or their
representatives promise to be loyal to the new Imam.

Rosentahl also says, “Apart from election, a Caliph can be chosen and invested
as a result of his designation by the ruling Caliph. This is expressed by the term
Ahd and the designated successor is styled “Wali’l-ahd.” Al-Mawardi gave two
examples from the early period of Islam: Abu Bakr’s designation of Omar,
accepted by the Muslim Jamaa and Usman’s succession to Omar. The
precedents are valid because they were set by the first two of the four Khulafa-
e-Rashidin, who are universally acclaimed as shining examples of the ideal
Muslim ruler.

7. Al-Mawardi says that the election of a less qualified person in the presence of
a more qualified person is perfectly legal provided the former fulfills all the
conditions of the Imamate. It was this principle under which most of the feeble
and incapable Caliphs took refuge. It was also directed against the Shiahs, who
believe that an inferior person cannot have precedent over a superior one.

8. Al-Mawardi says that if there is only one suitable candidate for the Imamate,
he automatically becomes the Imam, and no election is required. Other jurists
and scholars are of the opinion that election must be held if there is only one
candidate for it, for otherwise the Imam cannot acquires legal status.

9. The existence of two Imams contemporaneously is illegal. Al-Ashari opposes

this view and says that two Imams at a time are possible if their territories are
far-flang and widely separated by an ocean, which hinders easy communication
between the two.

Successions:
1. The ruling Imam can nominate his successor. Al-Mawardi holds that there is
complete consensus on this point in the Muslim community. The Muslims
without any tinge of resentment or cause of rivalry accepted Umer as the next
Caliph not on the suggestion of Abu Bakr but in obedience to his order as
Caliph. Similarly when Umar appointed a Majlis-e-Shura to elect for
appointment as his successor, it was an order from the Imam and there was no
choice for the Muslims to show disagreement to the Caliph’s orders.

2. The Imam can easily nominate any suitable person as his successor,
provided he does not happen to be his father or son. Al-Mawardi fairly discusses
the different opinions of the jurists whether or not the Caliph is entitled to
designate one of his sons or relations as his successor and whether he acts
legally in doing so. This difference of opinion reflects different attitudes to the
institution of the Caliphate and to its nature. Those who recognize the absolute
authority of the Caliph as Head of the Muslim nation naturally concede him the
right, in his capacity as ruler, to appoint a successor. Those who do not
recognize the authority as absolute, justify their opposition by declaring that
family considerations must not weight with the Caliph, who is bound by law to
choose one who fulfills the conditions laid down for the holder of the office of
the Imam.

It was this theory of nomination that cut at the very root of democratic ideals in
Islamic polity. Thus apparently the structure of the Caliphate was maintained by
the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Fatimids and the Turks, but the spirit of
Islamic democracy as buried in the coffin of Hazrat Ali, the last of the Pious
Caliph.

3. Al-Mawardi is of the view that the nomination of a person as heir apparent

becomes effective only when he declares his consent to it. The Imam cannot
withdraw the nomination until there occurs in this heir-apparent some
important change which legally invalidates hint. So also an Imam cannot be
deposed until a similar change occurs in him.

4. The imam can appoint the Electoral college as well as the persons who may
contest for the Imamate. This opinion of Al-Mawardi is based upon the election
of Usman which was by a limited Shura appointed by Unar.

5. The Imam can nominate two or more heirs-apparent to succeed him one
after the other. The argument has been derived from the battle of Mutah, in
which the Prophet (P.B.U.H.) appointed Zayd bin Harithah as the Commander of
Islamic forces and said if he fell fighting he was to be succeeded by Abdullah
bin Rawahah. If Ibn-e-Rawwah also fell in the field then the Muslims could
choose any one from among themselves as their Commander. Apparently the
citation of this incident in support of a fundamental issue like that of the
Caliphate is but a fake reasoning.

This practice of appointing two or more heirs-apparent proved to be the

greatest political evil in Muslim polity. This practice during the reign of Abbasids
engendered palace intrigues and induced destructive internecine wars and
dynastic feuds.

Designation and Privileges:

1. When a person is duly elected as Imam the people should entrust him all the
affairs and must give him unquestioning obedience. The Imam may not consult
them in affairs of state. Yet they must obey him. It is the clearest example of
despotism and totalitarianism. The Islamic idea is that the people must take
fuller participation in the administration of the state and their opinions for the
uplift of the state and betterment of the society must be given due
consideration. It was the suppression of this right that exposed the Muslim state
to disruption and decay.

2. The Imam may be addressed as the Khalifa-tu-Allah, but the majority of

jurists say that this title is forbidden, for no human being can represent God on
Earth, since man is mortal and imperfect. Hence the Imam may either be called
a mere Khalifah or Khalifah Rasul-Allah. Once when Caliph Abu Bakar was
addressed as Khalifa-tu-Allah he exclaimed, don’t address me as Khalifa-tu-
Allah but as the Khalifa Rasul-Allah.

Duties and Factions of the Imam:

According to Al-Mawardi, Imam should perform following ten principle duties:

1. To safeguard and defense of the established principles of religion as

understood and propounded by the consensus of ancient authorities. If anyone
innovates an opinion or becomes a sceptic, the Imam should convince him of
the real truth and correct him with proper arguments and make him obey the
injunctions and prohibitions of the Shariah, so that the people at large may be
saved from the evil effects of such heresies.

This is undoubtedly the main duty of the Imam under the Shariah. Most
unfortunately, under the cover of this pretext, the second civil war of Islam was
fought by the Umayyads, the Hashimites, and Zubayrites. When the Abbasids
came to power they called themselves the sole defenders of faith, and crushed
every political dissentient in the name of religion, and sent many innocent souls
to the gallows to save Islam. The Alids, too, have always stressed that they are
the right repositories of Islam and it is only safeguarded by their Imams. When
they founded the Fatimid Empire and later the Safawid Dynasty in Persia, they
wiped out their political opponents with cruelty and butchery.

2. The dispensation of justice and disposal of all litigations in accordance with

the Shariah. He should curb the strong from showing harshness to the weak,
and encourage the weak to take his due in the teeth of opposition of the strong.

3. The maintenance of law and order in the country, to make it possible for the
people to lead a peaceful life, and proceed to their economic activities freely
and travel in the land without fear.

4. The enforcement of criminal code of Holy Quran to ensure that the people do
not outrage the prohibitions of God, and that the fundamental rights of men are
not violated.

5. The defense of the frontiers against foreign invasions to guarantee the

security of life and property to Muslims and non-Muslims both in the Islamic
State.

6. The organization and prosecution of religious wars against those who oppose
the call of Islam or refuse to enter the protection of the Islamic State as non-
Muslims.

7. The imposition and collection of Kharaj and Zakat taxes in accordance with
the laws of the Shariah and the interpretation of the jurists without resorting to
extortion or pressure.

8. The sanction of allowances and stipends from the state treasury to those who
are needy, sick and poor and cannot afford to get their wards educated.

9. The appointment of honest and sincere men to the principal offices of the
state, and to the treasury to secure sound and effective administration and to
safeguard the finances of the state.

10. The Imam should personally look into and apprise himself of the affairs of
his dominions so that he himself directs the national policy and protect the
interests of the people. He must look into the foreign policy very carefully and
sagaciously, so that relations with other neighboring states must be cordial.

3. Al-Ghazali

Introduction:
Abu Hamid Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Ahmad, surnamed
al-Imam-ul-Jalilm, Hujjat-ul-Islam and Zainuddin, was born at Ghazzalah near
Tus in 1058. He is one of the greatest and distinguished original philosophers
not only in the history of Muslim philosophy but also in the history of human
thought. He was educated at Tus proper in the early years of his career and
later on he shifted to Jurjan, and then finally migrated to Nishapur to imbibe
wisdom and philosophy by sitting at the feet of perhaps the most versatile
genius of his time, Abul-Maali Muhammad al-Juwaini Imam-ul-Haramain, who
was invited back from Hijaz to preside over one of the great colleges founded
by Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi. He was accepted first as the pupil and the assistant by
the Imam. Al-Ghazali won great fame and prominence because his philosophical
doctrines and consequently as a great sage of the age, he was called to the
court of Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi while still in his twenties. He was the intellectual
adviser and chief canonist till 1091 when he was formally appointed to the great
foundation of Baghdad.

Al-Ghazali was aptly considered a mujaddid and reckoned at par with the four
Imams. There have been many philosophers and scholars in Islam and other
religions, but the distinct caliber of one of great philosophers ushered a unique
era of knowledge of his age. He left behind indelible impressions because of his
immortal works and philosophical-cum-political doctrines which have still
influence upon this modern age. In 1095, he had discontinued his work of
teaching in Baghdad. His mind continually in a state of doubt, probably found
no satisfaction in dogmatic predictions. Sherwani said, “Baghdad did not see
very much of Ghazali and it seems that deep thought, coupled with murder of
his patron Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi and the death of Malik Shah in 1092, all these
things had a tremendous effect on his psychology.”

For about ten years, in the period of utter disillusionment, Al-Ghazali

extensively traveled here and there to imbibe wisdom and intellect from every
source, dividing his time between pious exercises and literary work. Al-Ghazali
remained in fretful years because of state politics which took a serious turn. He
died in Tus on 19th of December, 1111. His closing years were chiefly devoted
to pious contemplation and the study of the Traditions, which as a youth he
could never remember. A beautifully complete and rounded life in which the end
comes back to the beginning.

Principle political works of Al-Ghazali are as follows:

1. Munqidh Min ad-Dalal (Deliverance from Waywardness)

2. Ihya-ul-Ulam (Renaissance of Sciences)

3. Tibr-ul-Masbuk (Molten Gold)

4. Sirr-ul-Alamain (The Mystery of the Two Worlds)

5. Fatihat-ul-Ulum (Introduction to Sciences)

6. Kimiya-i-Sa’adat (Alchemy of Goodness)

7. Iqtisad Fil-I’tiqad (Moderation in Belief)

8. Kitab-ul-Wajiz (a hand book of Fiqah, canon law)

Contribution of Al-Ghazali to Islamic Political Thought

Al-Ghazali is undoubtedly an outstanding and remarkable political scholar in

Islam. His philosophy is an expression of his own personality. He abandoned the
attempt to understand this world. But the religious problem he comprehended
much more profoundly than did the philosophers of his time. Dr. T. T.
Debeer said, “These were intellectuals in their methods, like their Greek
predecessors, and consequently regarded the doctrines of Religion as
merely the products of the conception of fancy or even caprice of the
law givers. According to them Religion was either blind obedience, or a
kind of knowledge which contained truth of an inferior order. On the
other hand, Al-Ghazali represents Religion as the experience of his
inner being; it is for him more than Law and more than Doctrine, it is
the Soul’s experience.”

Al-Ghazali’s philosophical analysis, logical positivism and religious empiricism

have profoundly influenced every age of philosophy and religion and even
today, modern student of the political history seeks inspiration in solving all
philosophical and political inquiries. His liberalism and intellectualism completely
dominated Western Philosophy and even Western thinkers preserved main
elements of his great philosophy in their works. Europe, about the end of the
eleventh and beginning of the twelfth century of the Christian era, was in the
abyss of degradation and political degeneration. This period is dubbed by one of
the greatest of modern political scientists as “essentially unpolitical”.

In the contemporary age of Al-Ghazali, Europe was engulfed in perpetual

controversy between Pope and the Emperor. This controversy led to political
cleavage and intransigents and wreckers mutilated all traits of progress and
prosperity. There was nothing but blood, destruction and wars, which snapped
all resources and economy. Poverty and wrangling had become regular features
of the day. At that time, East was at the pinnacle of glory and progress.

It is certainly difficult to agree with unfounded and sweeping statement of Hitti

that Al-Ghazali constructed such a scholastic shell for Islam that all its future
progress became arrested within it. If the progress of the West consisted as it is
said in breaking a similar shell within context of his own religion then quite a
few hammer strokes therein were wrought by the hands of the Muslim thinkers
of which the uppermost hand was the hand of Al-Ghazali. This anybody might
see for himself by making a close study of Al-Ghazali’s influence on the West.

Al-Ghazali as a great savant was decidedly superior to some of those who had
gone before him. For while he had become conversant with the working of the
political system when he was attending the court of his patron, Nizam-ul-Mulk
Tusi, Prime Minister of Suljuqi Kings, Al-Ghazali, while living in such
surroundings had made a close study of the problems of politics. It was his
efforts to leave off his luxurious life and write most of his works from a mental
point of vantage in Syria or Arabia or else in the seclusion of his paternal hearth
and home. Al-Ghazali is definitely superior to Al-Mawardi in being analytical as
well as comparative in his arguments. 
Sherwani was of the view that “A student of the history of political
theories is aware of the great gap which seems to exist between the
decline of Roman thought about the beginning of Christian era till about
the thirteenth century, when thought seems dull, constitutions
unscientific and people lethargic and pleasure-loving. Knowledge would
be the richer and chains of thought more continuous if that artificial
blank were to be filled by such giants of wisdom as Mawardi, Nizam-ul-
Mulk Tusi and Al-Ghazali. Even in oriental thought, Al-Ghazali’s place is
certain. His greatness lies partly in having successfully refilled the
desired outlined by brilliant Islamic colors, although they were not
destined to last very long, giving place once again, and finally to
barbaric hues.”

“Amir” of Al-Ghazali

Al-Ghazali, a political philosopher, renowned in East and West because of his

versatile genius, harnessed his thoughts into a proper channel for an efficient
and systematic government in order to bring about progress and peace in the
state. He appears to be particular about the duties and functions of the
sovereign, so that administration of the state must not become unwieldy and
dogmatic. He enumerates the necessary qualities of an ideal ruler, and
reverently expresses that he should have intellect, knowledge, perception, right
proportion of things, chivalry, loves for his subjects, diplomatic bend, foresight,
strong will-power and must be well informed of the news of the day and the
past history of the kings. He must learn the lesson from the past kings. He
should n ot repeat the errors and failures of his predecessors. Amir must also
vigilantly watch that his judges, secretaries, viceroys and other officers did their
work well, it is chiefly in these qualities which go to make a ruler the shadow of
God on earth.

Al-Ghazali relates how a learned man once told the great Caliph, Harun-ar-
Rashid, to beware that he was sitting where Hazrat Abu Bakr (R.A.) once sat
and be truthful, where Hazrat Umar (R.A.) once sat and differentiate between
right and wrong, where Hazrat Usman (R.A.) once sat and be modest and
bountiful, where Hazrat Ali (R.A.) once sat and be knowing and just. He puts
forward the case of the Apostle of Islam, who himself fed his cattle, tied his
camel, swept his house, milked his goat, mended his shoes, patches his clothes,
took meals with his servants, ground his own corn in time of need and did his
own marketing.
Daily Routines and Duties of “Amir”
Al-Ghazali says that the daily routines of an Amir should be following:

1. The Amir, after morning prayers, should go out riding in order to have
investigation in person about wrongs done to his subject.

2. He should then sit in court and permit all and sundry to have a direct access
so that he might have first-hand information about any complaints.

3. The ruler should make a point of taking advice from simple men of
knowledge, intelligence and experience.

4. The ruler must extend interviews to foreign ambassadors and envoys. He

should be well-versed in diplomacy and politics.

5. Al-Ghazali strictly warns the Amir against too much indulgence in drink,
chess or hunting and says that the best mode of simple life be practiced.

6. The Amir and good kings should used to divide their time in four parts,
setting apart one for prayers, another for state affairs, justice and counsel of
the learned about the affairs of the state, the third for food and rest, and the
last for recreation and hunting.

7. He is very particular that the Amir should not pay head to the advice offered
by his women favorites, and quotes the instance of Umar who actually divorced
his favorite wife when he was elated to his exalted office for fear of being
influenced by her in state affairs.

8. Al-Ghazali warns that the ruler must not show them any favoritism, but
instead must appoint nepotism or people on merits.

Rosenthal said, “Al-Ghazali proceeds to enumerate the virtues by which

the Imam must be distinguished in order to lead men entrusted to his
care to the goal which the Sharia has set for men. Although we meet
with the qualifications stipulated by Al-Mawardi they are partly
modified to meet the general political situation and the particular case
of Al-Mustazhir. Ability to wage jihad is conditioned by the possession
of power and courage. It has always been considered one of the
foremost duties of the Caliph. But Al-Ghazali faced with a young Caliph
and a powerful Seljuq master, explains away its absence in Al-
Mustazhir by pointing to the Shawka, the force and power of the
Seljuqs which guarantees the najda required of the Caliph. He wants to
think of them not as independent rulers but as the loyal servants of the
Caliph.”

Simplicity of the “Amir”:

Al-Ghazali persistently lays stress that the ruler should be simple in his habits.
He says that the Amir should have a limited source of income which does not
provide him possible opportunity to indulge in luxury and debauchery. He says
that Amir must spend his life according to the income at his disposal, and
should not abundantly and lavishly spend so that the economy of the country
may not be disturbed. Al-Ghazali quotes the Apostle that God would be kind
and compassionate to rulers who are themselves meek and kind to their people.
He regards Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz as a model of justice, equality and
simplicity, who once wanted his monthly salary in advance to buy the Eid
clothes for his daughters but desisted from drawing it from the state treasury
because he was reminded by Finance Minister that there was no certainty of his
living for the month for which he wished to draw his pay.

Oppression and tyranny was normally the salient feature of king’s life and the
ruler had to become totalitarian in order to create effective subjugation over the
people. Complete arrest from freedom and political subjugation were the
normal orders of the day. But the sages of ages became the source of
instrumental change of destinies. They played a vital role in liberating the
people from enslavement and cruel yoke. Beyond any praise such was the
greatness of Al-Ghazali in those fretful days that in spite of the great honor
bestowed upon him, he replied that he did not want anything from any of God’s
creatures.

“In spite of those lofty ideals, Al-Ghazali seems to have rightly realized
that time had changed since the early days of Islam, and besides
honest work there was something else, a certain amount of prestige
which is wanted to exert a psychological influence on the people and
keep law and order in the hand, and he would desist from doing
anything which might result in the disintegration of the state through
the lack of these factors.” (Sherwani)

4. Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi

Introduction:
Khawaja Abu Ali Hasan bin Ali bin Ishaq widely known in history of Islamic
political thought as Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi. He was born in 1017 AD. Nizam-ul-Mulk
was not his real name. it was a title of honor conferred upon him by his Saljuqi
ruler, Alp Arslan, after his appointment as minister. His father, Abu al-Hasan Ali
belonged to a family of landowners of Radhkan, a small town in the suburn of
Tus, where Nizam-ul-Mulk was born.

His elementary education started with the study of Traditions and Jurisprudence
and his father wanted him to take up the legal profession, so consequently he
was put under the scholarly guidance of Al-Samad Funduraji, who was a
profound scholar of Law of his age. Tusi traveled to Bukhara and Merv, and also
to a number of towns in Transoxiana in search and employment. After 1049 he
went to Ghaznah, where he sought service with Ghaznawids, thus having an
opportunity to acquaint himself with their state administration. When Sultan
Abdul Rashid was killed in 1052 and with his demise, the political situation ion
the country became aggravated and in the hours of turmoil and confusion, he
fled to Balkh and entered the service of Ali bin Shadhan who was the governor
of that province. Then he went to Merv and there Chaghari Beg appointed him
the mushir (counselor) of the katib (secretary) of his son, Alp Arslan. It was Alp
Arslan who conquered all the territories of Western Asia till then ruled by the
Eastern Roman Emperor Constantine, imprisoning Emperor Diogenes himself
and forcing him to pay tribute to the Islamic state.

Later on the advice of Ali bin Shadhan that Alp Arslan after his accession to the
throne in 1062, Nizam-ul-Mulk was appointed as a joint Minister with Amin-ul-
Mulk Kunduri. But Kunduri was soon put to death. Then Tusi became the full-
fledged Prime Minister of the whole empire with the succession of Malik Shah to
his father’s throne in 1072, which he owed entirely to Nizam-ul-Mulk’s efforts.
From the capital of Saljuqs, his influence spread to the capital of the Abbasid
Caliph, who is said to have honored him with the titles of Radi-ulAmir al
Muminin. Sherwani was of the view that during his term of offices he was
showered with all kinds of honorific titles and dignities both by his
master, Alp Arslan and Malik Shah, and by the titular Caliph of
Baghdad, Al-Qaim, and as if these titles would not suffice to connote
the qualities of the man, the great divine of the period, Imam-ul-
Haramain Sheikh Abdul Malik-I Jawaini added a number of other
distinctions to his honorific titles.

In his last days he came into collision with the Ismailyah movement of Hasan
bin Sabah, in whose activities he saw danger to the Saljuq Empire. Nizam-ul-
Mulk was cruelly assassinated by one of Fidais (the Assassins) in 1091 AD.

Nizam-ul-Mulk’s Persian works are the chief inspiring sources for the study of
his political ideas:

1. Siyasat Namah or Siyar-ul-Mulk (The book on State polity and

administration)

2. Dastur-al-Wuzara (The conduct of Ministers). It is more generally

known as the Wasaya-i-Khawaja Nizam-ul-Mulk (The precepts of
Khawaja Nizam-ul-Mulk)

3. Nizam-ul-Mulk is said to have written a book entitled as Safar Namah (The

book of Travels) which is now extinct.

Contribution of Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi to Islamic Political

Thought

An age of Political Turmoil:

Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi lived in a dark age of political warfare and constant conflict
among the political demagogues to grab power which has witnessed the lower
degradation of the Caliphate, following its transformation during a period of
three centuries from a democracy into autocracy and then from autocracy into a
mere puppetry in the hands of powerful aristocrats and wazirs. This also saw
the decline of the Ghaznawids Empire and the Bhwaihid kingdom and the
emergence of the Suljuqs after their victory over the Ghaznawids in 1040 when
their nomadic and wandering life changed into the cultured race who ruled over
vast gigantic empire. It was an age of radical change and fusion of social and
political ideas and institutions, specifically in the Muslim world in which Nizam-
ul-Mulk Tusi lived and worked relentlessly.
Contribution of Nizam-ul-Mulk:
This is an admitted fact that Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi wielded a profound influence
on the succeeding generations by making valuable contributions to the history
of political thought. He was an irrepressible advocate of natural rights of
individuals and he ardently championed their cause to give liberty and freedom
but with restrictions to show respect and regard to the rulers. He did away with
the stagnant politics and despotic conspiracies of palaces and became
responsible for heralding a new era of political consciousness.

It is sufficient to know the ideas contained in the Siyasat Namah came from the
prominent Prime Minister of the Saljuqis and are the ones accepted by his
master Jalal-ud-Din Malik Shah as the constitutional code of his extensive
empire. In his immortal political works, Siyasat Namah, he discussed at length
all evils and ills of politics of his age and he aptly suggested remedies in order
to avoid all kinds of destructive tendencies among the states. His foreign policy
was a great success, and he maintained cordial relations among his neighboring
states.

His work was a valuable constitution of his country, and his contributions not
only became advantageous in his era but also greatly influenced the later
period. the book was compiled nearly a thousand years ago, when the House of
Abbasids was tottering, the power was declining, and the days of the Eastern
Empire of Constantinople were nearing their end, and India got a miserable
shock and set-back due to perennial internal dissentions and conflicts, the
ailment of the caste system and the threats of a permanent conquests by
outsiders. Sherwani pays tribute to Tusi in these words, “It is to the great
credit of Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi that in the dark and uncertain epoch, he
sat down to write a book which was as useful to a seeker of political
truth in our own times as it was to his contemporaries. He freely takes
his cue from the non-Arabic and non-Muslim sources. In fact he amrks
an epoch in the history of Eastern learning and arts, for he was an
expert in the arts and sciences of his day, a faithfully counselor of his
patron and his eminent son, a friend of the great Persian astronomer-
poet, Umar Khayyam, founder of the Nizamiyah University and its
branches, and a martyr at the hands of a murderer, in a word he rose to
such eminence that the whole continent of Asia may well take a prides
in his personality and his work.”

Theory of Kingship

Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi served many kings and he profoundly studied the

monarchical system of government developing under the aristocratic rule of
prince, as against the constitutional structure of the Caliphate which was
delicately interwoven since the ascendancy of Islam. His political theory
represents a phase of the development of the Muslim polity which was
characterized by kingship. The first thing distinguishable about his exposition of
the institution of kingship is that he is careful to make no reference to the
Caliph as the head of the Muslim political community, and to remark nothing
about the constitutional relations of the Saljuq enter with the Abbasid Caliphs.
He very often uses the title of Sultan for the Saljuq king. And as for the term
Amir Mustauli (Governor by usurpation) it does not occur at all throughout his
writings, both being the terms of the constitutional law employed by the jurists
to denote the legal superiority of the Caliph over the prince. He generally calls
his ruler as Padshah, a Persian term used for the king.

Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi had to surmount all difficulties in regard to the coordination

of Islamic principles in which he had an implicit belief with the Perso-Turkish
thought and practice in politics in rogue, and it is unnecessary to indulge in
controversy about the powers of the two offices. It is curious that the reason for
the establishment of the kingly office as remarked by him should be identical
with the set-up of the Imamat as given by Mawardi, and it seems contradiction
in terms that while trying to justify the hereditary king he should be using
arguments already advanced in favor of an elected President. His theory is that
the king enjoys the right to rule over his subjects by virtue of divine
appointment.

“In every age God the Almighty selects some one from among men and
gives over to him the charge of the well-being of the world and the
comfort and tranquility of the human race after duly furnishing him
with the art of government. He also makes him responsible for the
peace and security of the land and endows him with all the necessary
prestige in order that God’s creatures may live in peace and plenty and
that justice and security may be the order of the day.” (Nizam-ul-Mulk
Tusi)

Functions of the King:

According to Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi the essential functions which the king has to
fulfill in human society are the following:

1. It is the duty of a king to remain in constant consultation with the wisest, the
most experienced and the most competent of his people and to repose
confidence in such of his subjects as deserve it and delegate to them a part of
his duties according to their merit and worth.

2. Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi was of the view that the ultimate object to which the king
must canalize his energy and initiative for maintaining peace and order in the
state, so that the people may live with comfort under the shadow of his justice.

3. According to Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi, a king must issue an instrument of

instructions to all his subordinate officers and governors of the states enjoining
them to treat the people well and extract only the dues allowed by the law of
the land.

4. Nizam-ul-Mulk’s prince must work for the collective good of his people, so
that an era of prosperity and progress may usher. The sovereign must
remember that God the Almighty is pleased with a king only when he treats his
people with kindness and justice.

5. Tusi lays great emphasis on obedience as the most essential duty of the
people towards the ruler, since he brings to them peace and prosperity after
they have been deprived of it as a punishment for their obedience to God.

6. Tusi said that the people must blindly obey every order and instruction of the
prince without questioning the validity of his authority. It is valid because it is
de facto.

7. Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi believed that “the king is endowed by God with

wisdom and knowledge so that he can treat each of his subjects
according to his worth and can give each a position according to his
value. His wisdom is just like a lamp that gives off abundant light.
People can find their way in its light and can come out of darkness.”
Tusi treats Prince as divinely appointed ruler, vested with unlimited powers; he
does not regard him by any means as a law-giver. A human authority with
absolute legislative powers has never existed in a true Muslim polity, because
legislation in the proper sense of the term has never been recognized as a
human function in the Muslim legal theory. According to this theory there
already exists a divine law (Shariat) which is theoretically as binding on the
ruler himself, however autocratic he may be in practice, as on his subjects. Tusi
was of the view, “It is obligatory for the king to seek knowledge of
religious matters and to comply with and make arrangements to carry
out the commands of God and the traditions of the Prophet (P.B.U.H)
and to pay due respect to religious scholars.”

Religion and politics are inseparably joined together, and are complementary to
each other. Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi said, “The state and religion are like two
brothers.” The principles of conduct which he lays down for the king under the
influence of this religious trend are in striking contrast with those prescribed by
Machiavelli for his “Prince”. Unlike the Machiavellian Prince who is advised to
handle religion merely as a useful instrument for achieving political ends, and
who is taught to appear rather than become religious. But Nizam-ul-Mulk’
Prince is taught to believe sincerely in religious truths, and to exercise political
power as an essential means of attaining them. He emphasizes the importance
of religious character of the king’s authority and it tones down the autocratic
attitude of his monarch. The moral obligations he sets on the absolute authority
of the king prevent it from growing into an oppressive despotism. The first and
foremost obligation of the king towards his subjects is to do justice. He firmly
believes it to be a religious duty, for it has been ordained by Almighty God.
Justice, as a principle of good government, occupies a predominant place in his
concept of kingship, and time and again, he lays emphasis on its importance for
state and society. “A state can continue to exist notwithstanding impiety,
but it cannot exist with tyranny.” (Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi)

Nizam-ul-Mulk Tusi is greatly impressed by the Persian standards of justice that

he believes that “Sassanian kings, especially Nushirwan the Just, have
surpassed all other monarchs in justice, generosity and courage.” He
was of the view that “The king should strive to seek the favor of God,
which can be attained through the kindness with which they treat the
people and through justice which they administer to them. When the
people pray for the welfare of the king, his state grows stable and
prospers everyday.”

5. Ibn-e-Khaldoon
Introduction:
Abu Zaid Abd-al-Rahman Ibn-e-Khaldoon, the North African Muslim of the 14th
century, was undoubtedly the first to introduce a most scientific method in the
political study of the history of human civilization. He is distinguished for
considering history as a science worthy of study and not merely a narration of
facts. Ibn-e-Khaldoon belonged to an Andalusian family which had migrated
from Seville to Tunis on the expulsion of Moors on the conquest of Spain by
Ferdinand III of Castile. It was one of these humble families that Ibn-e-
Khaldoon was born in 1332, and he raised to be a man of remarkable
knowledge as well as of profound historical and political acumen, perhaps the
first scientific historian of world and one who has left an indelible mark on the
sciences of historiography and sociology.

During fourteenth century, Tunis was the cradle of learning and knowledge.
Young Ibn-e-Khaldoon took full advantage of the scholastic opportunities which
were abundantly available there. He learnt the Quran by heart, studied the
Traditions and Maliki Jurisprudence, as well as Arabic Grammar and Rhetoric
from eminent scholars and by dint of his sharp diligence and intellect, he was
taken in service at the age of twenty by the ruler of Tunis, Abu Ishaq II. The
restless spirit that was in him made him roam about from one capital to
another, now secretary of state of Fez, then crossing the straits of Gibraltar as a
fief holder of Muhammad bin Yousaf, Sultan of Granada, later as the head of a
political mission to Pedro the Cruel, king of Castile who was staying at his
ancestral town of Seville. Then he moved on to the court of the Prince of Bejaya
near Constantine. In 1374, he again went to Granada but it was not long before
he was expelled back to Africa.

After returning Africa he was tired and weary of perennial wanderings and he
took refuge in African Desert and compiled his world-famed Prolegomena giving
finishing touches to it about the middle of 1377, after which he returned to his
native town of Tunis a quarter of a century after he had left it. In 1382 he went
to Cairo where he lived the rest of his life. At Egypt, he occupied a distinct
position and high status as a Chief Justice a number of times and during the
intervals, he used to deliver lectures. He died as judge in Cairo on March 17,
1406. He was reverently buried in Sufi Cemetery outside Cairo’s Nasr Gate. He
was a versatile genius, a great philosopher and a man of strong convictions of
his age, who wielded an abysmal influence on the posterity.
Ibn-e-Khaldoon made great contributions in the field of knowledge and learning
and his works are still widely read by every student of political philosophy. He
gave us the following works:

1. Kitab-al-Ibrar…..It is a universal history written in seven volumes, the

introduction to this work entitled Muqaddamah, extensive enough to take the
whole of the first volume. It was about the author’s views with regard to the
nature and method of history.

2. al-Taarif

3. Histroy of the Berbers

Contribution of Ibn-e-Khaldoon to Islamic Political Thought

Ibn-e-Khaldoon wielded a deep influence on his succeeding political

philosophers due to his systematic study of political theory in a dark age, when
political discussion meant nothing more than a rough and ready formulation of
the functions of the ruler. Almost all the eminent western philosophers like
Machiavelli, Boding, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Hegel and Marx were
profoundly influenced by his political theory composed in his immortal work
“Muqaddamah” which extensively deals with a great variety of subjects. Ibn-e-
Khaldoon was greatly reverenced as a sage of the age and his contemporaries
envied him for his steadfastness and political acumen for combating political
abuses and ills that prevailed in all ages of thoughts and philosophies. He left
behind a treasure of knowledge which will work as a store-house for the
posterities.

Ibn-e-Khaldoon discussed various Islamic political institutions in the light of the

history of the early Islamic state. He made political enquiries into the various
historical events of the early period of Islam with impartiality and analytical
mind of jurist. He upholds the practicability of Islamic laws in the state and
considers the Sharia state as definitely superior to the Power state. He
contemplates little of the Siyast Madaniya for he considers the philosophers
ideal state as the visionary product of utopian thought, having no relation with
historical facts. The ideal for him is the Islamic state as it existed under the first
four Caliphs. But his empiricism is manifest in his analysis of the Muslim
empires of his own day. In his political thinking, it is Islam that emerges as the
sole objective for all human endeavors.

Mohsin Mahdi says, “The biographical, stylistic and doctrinal evidence

introduced in this study establish this point beyond any reasonable
doubt. It has been shown that he articulately though cautiously,
defended the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle against Neo-Platonism,
atomism and logical nominalism; and that his study of Prophecy, the
religious law and the character of the Islamic community prove that he
was a true disciple of the Islamic Platonic tradition of political
philosophy.”

Ibn-e-Khaldoon seems to be the only great thinker who not only saw the
problems of the relation of the history and the science of society to traditional
political philosophy but also made full endeavors to develop a science of society
with the framework of political philosophy as based on its principles. According
to Ibn-e-Khaldoon, traditional philosophy demands the study of man and
society as they really are, and supplies the frame work of directing such a study
and utilizing its results. Rosenthal was of the view that importance of Ibn-e-
Khaldoon was not recognized in his own time, and until the seventeenth century
did Muslims writers take any notice of him, while Europeans scholars discovered
him only in the last century. Ibn-e-Khaldoon’s importance consists in a number
of novel insights of permanent value and significance:

1. In his distinction between rural and urban life and the necessity of the latter
for the emergence of civilization and a state in the strict sense of the term.

2. In his postulating the Asabiya as the principal driving force of political action.

3. In his projection of Islam into a universal human civilization, thus standing

on the social and in the climate of Islam and looking out towards humanity at
large.

4. In his realization of the casual interdependence of the several factors of

social life in the power state; economic, military, cultural and religious.
5. In the concept of the parallel existence of the state founded by a prophetic
law-giver, as distinct from the state built on power in response to the human
need for political association and the desire of strong personalities for
domination.

6. Arising from the last point, in his definition and analysis of the Islamic
country, as a composite structure whose law is a mixture of Shariah and
political law.

7. In his basic recognition of the vital part which religion should play in the life
of the state, especially if it transforms the Asabiya into a durable, cohesive and
spiritual motive power.

Ibn-e-Khaldoon’s Historical Approach to the Political Science

With the ascendancy of Islam, historical literature got its birth and religious,
moral and practical aspects of history were greatly stressed for the expansion of
Islamic influence over the whole world. Muslims, by the inspiring source of
history, are directed to contemplate the vicissitudes of earthly life, the rise and
fall of the kingdoms and the Judgment of God upon the nations are revealed in
their fortunes and misfortunes. As to the method they demand and command
veracity and exactitude in transmitting historical information derived, whenever
possible, from primary sources or eye-witnesses. With the expansion of Islam
during the seventh-eighth centuries and the production of a vast and varied
historical literature, the seeds of historical thought contained in the Holy Quran
and the sayings of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H).

History as a profession started in Islam with the search for and the collection
and transmission of individual reports about specific events. These reports were
first transmitted orally and when written records were gradually introduced,
these were accepted at first merely as aids to memory. The historians took
pains to learn about, and ascertain the competence of the authorities who
transmitted these reports and used the science of biography (Ilm al-rijal) and of
authority criticism (al-jarh wal-tadil) as their main tools. Tabri, a famous Muslim
historian, was of the view that history is not a rational discipline and that
human reason does not play significant role in it.

Ibn-e-Khaldoon’s Views on History:

Ibn-e-Khaldoon had seen considerable political ordeals and vicissitudes, and he
fully knew that a number of states quite distinct in culture, dialect, historical
environments and administration were destroyed under the wheels of time and
fully realized the factors responsible for the rise and fall of Islamic states. The
methods of argument that he adapts to a large extent, is analytical but he does
not fail to supplement it with historical data. Ibn-e-Khaldoon also considered
history as a science. The aim of history for him is not merely to narrate the
stories of kings, queens and dynasties or prepare the chronicles of war and
pacts among states but to describe the facts of vise and fall of human
civilization. It is essentially the record of human society, its growth and decay,
under different geographical, economic, political, religious and other cultural
conditions.

Laws of Sociology:
Ibn-e-Khaldoon was undoubtedly a sociologically minded historian. He was
conscious of the originality of his work and claimed himself to be discoverer for
the first time of the laws of national progress and decay. The sociological laws
operate with regard to masses only and would not be significantly determined
with reference to single individuals, for the individual’s own attitudes and beliefs
are considerably conditioned by the social environment in which they are
placed.

Historical Approach to the Science of Politics:

His political theory developed as part of his description of human civilization.
Ibn-e-Khaldoon held that all political institutions are closely associated to the
socio-economic conditions of a time and that they are quite at in with the
environments of a particular age, both mental and physical. That is why he
makes political enquiries pertaining to religious, social, economic and physical
circumstances. Ibn-e-Khaldoon’s science was new, independent and was not
dealt with by any previous thinker with such originality, extension and
profoundness. He was the first Muslim philosopher cum-historian who
contributed to the study of political institutions, forms of Government and the
other public institutions and their development in Muslim States.

Physical Environments:
Ibn-e-Khaldoon is predecessor of Montesquieu, realizing the influence of
physical environments and climatic conditions on the habits and characters of
people. He devotes a major portion of his work on the enquiry of the influence
of food and climate upon human things. He explains that the people of fertile
zones are stupid in mind and coarse in body, and that the influence of
abundance upon the body is apparent in matters of religion and divine worship.
He signifies the influence of physical environments on political institutions which
reflect the character of people as molded by geographical environments. He
said, “Bedouins are more courageous than other and the decline sets in life of a
dynasty when people indulge in luxury and ease-loving life due to abundance of
food and also development in arts and crafts.”

Natural Society:
Herbert Spencer regarded moral improvement merely as an existence of the
biological concept of adaptation, and social well-being in terms of the law of the
survival of the fittest. Ibn-e-Khaldoon preceded him in propounding a theory of
organic state. He said, “Dynasties have a natural life span like individuals.
They have life of their own which normally does not exceed a period of
120 years for each dynasty in its capacity as a ruling nation.” Ibn-e-
Khaldoon had already stressed on moral improvement in terms of biological
concept of adaptation in the course of his discussion on problems concerning
the transformation of nomadic life together with its variations in the various
aspects of social behavior.

Professor Schmidt says, “Ibn-e-Khaldoon is a philosopher as much as

Auguste Comte, Thomas Buckle or Herbert Spencer. His philosophy of
history is not a theodicy as Hegel’s. Thus he is placed as philosopher,
historian of civilization, a scholar of sociology and political economy. It
is worthwhile to discover the glimpses of Ibn-e-Khaldoon’s views in the
works of every western philosopher.”

Stages in the Development of Society and the State

During the period of establishment, solidarity based upon familiarities and

religion continues to be essential for the preservation of the state. This is the
period during which the ruler forces the ruled to build the institution necessary
for a civilized culture. There are new activities to be carried out and new
political relations to be created. When aided by religion, solidarity becomes
more effective in establishing the state, since the subjects will then obey the
ruler and his directives more willingly convinced that in doing so they are
praying to God. The stages in the development of the society and the state are
following:

Stage 1. During the first stage, solidarity is still largely based on a community
of sentiments, and the ruler owes his position to his noble ancestry and the
respect of his fellow tribesmen. His role is dependent on their number, power
and assistance. He is still their chief rather than their master and king. He has
to accommodate their sentiments and desires and to share his power with
them. The same is true of religion. The ruler who is establishing a state with the
aid of a religious passage cannot act as a master and a king, since religion
means the obedience of all to God and the religious Law.

Stage 2. The second stage in the development of the period of consolidating

the ruler’s power is to create absolute kingship. Natural solidarity and religion
are checked so far as they mean the sharing of power, and are used at the
discretion of the absolute ruler. Solidarity is replaced by a paid army, and an
organized administrative bureaucracy, that carry out his wishes. Natural
solidarity becomes increasingly superfluous. The people generally acquire the
habit obeying their new ruler. The impersonal organization of the army and
bureaucracy take care of the protection of the state and the development of the
various institutions of a civilized culture.

Stage 3. As the ruler’s lust and aggrandizement for attaining absolute power is
satisfied with the full concentration of authority in his hands, he begins to use
his authority for the satisfaction of his other desire in other words; he starts to
collect the fruits of authority. Thus a third stage of luxury and leisure follows.
The ruler concentrates on the organization of the finances of the state and goes
on increasing his income. He spends lavishly on public works and one
beautifying the cities in imitation of famous civilized states. He enriches his
followers who start living a luxurious life. Economic progress and prosperity
usher a new era of development, which satisfy the increasing desires of the
ruler. The crafts, the fine arts and the sciences are greatly patronized to be
flourishing for the satisfaction of the new ruling class. The state has finally
reached the stage where it is able to satisfy man’s craving fro luxuries and his
pride in possessing them. This is a period of rest and self-indulgence in which
men enjoy the comforts and pleasures of the world. 
The first three stages are powerful, independent and creative, they are able to
consolidate their authority and satisfy the subjects becoming the slaves of these
desires.

Stage 4. Having reached its zenith, the next stage is a period of contentment
in which the ruler and the ruled are satisfied and complacent. They imitate their
predecessors in enjoying the pleasures of life, how their predecessors struggled
to achieve them. They think that their luxurious life and the various advantages
of civilization have always been existed and will continue to exist for ever.
Luxury, comfort and the gratification of their desires become a habit with them.
The length of this period depends upon the power and extent of the
achievements of the founder of the state.

Stage 5. During fifth stage, the state is already starting to decline and
disintegrate. The fifth and last stage of waste and prodigality is setting in. the
state has reached old age and is deemed to be slow or nearing death. The very
process of establishing it had destroyed the vital forces of solidarity and religion
that were responsible for its existence. The ruler had destroyed the communal
pride and loyalty of their kinsmen, who humiliated and impoverished have lost
the drive to conquer. Their successes, having known only the life of luxury and
surrounded by a prodigal entourage, continue to spend more and more on their
pleasure. They increase taxes and these in turn discover economic activity and
lead to a decline in the income of the state which makes it impossible for the
ruler to support his new followers.

Rosenthal was of the view “The fifth phase is one of extravagance and

waste. In this phase the ruler destroys what his ancestors have
brought together, for the sake of lust and pleasure. For he is generous
towards his intimates and liberal at his banquets in order to win the
scum of the people, to whom he entrusts great tasks which they are
unable to undertake. In this way, he spoils (his chances) with the noble
and distinguished among his people and with the followers of his
predecessors, so that they are filled with hatred against him and agree
among themselves to desert him. Moreover, he loses point of his troops
because he spends their pay on his pleasure and prevents them from
getting to know him personally. In this phase, the natural ageing of the
dynasty (that is the decay) sets in and a chronic disease gets hold of it
without remedy or release until it collapses.”
Further, the habits of comforts and luxury generate physical weakness and
moral vices. The elite and the aristocrats forget the courageous manners of
primitive life. They are powerless before an outside invasion by a strong
civilized state or by united primitive people. Excessive taxes and fear of
invasion weakens the hopes of ruled. Despondency becomes so common and it
reigns the day and consequently it freezes all economic activities. The entire
population physically weakens and living in large crowded cities become subject
to disease and plague. With the decrease of economic activity and the
depopulation of cities, the state begins to disintegrate; starting form the
outlying regions, princes, generals and the discontented kinsmen of the ruler
become independent. 

In the capital of the state, the mercenary troops and civil bureaucracy begin
intriguing to wrest the actual power from the ruler, leaving him but the insignia
and the name. Finally an external invasion puts an end to the life of the state,
or it may continue to decline until it withers away like a wick dying out in the
lamp of which oil is gone or goes under the subjugation of foreign power.

Ibn-e-Khaldoon as a Father of Political Economy

Ibn-e-Khaldoon has rightly been claimed as the forerunner of a great many

Western scholars such as Machiavelli, Boding, Gibbon, Montesquieu, and many
other notable thinkers. There is hardly any other thinker with whom he might
not be compared. Long before Adam Smith, Ibn-e-Khaldoon foresaw the
interconnection of political and economic institutions. The Muslim genius made
an enquiry into the various aspects of economic activities and recorded their
political significance in respect of their good and bad effects on the
state. Stefan Colosio said, “The great Muslim historian was able to
discover in the Middle Ages the principles of social justice and political
economy before Considerant, Marx and Baconine. He was an original
economist who understood the principles of political economy and
applied it skillfully and intelligently, long before it was known to
Western research. He thus talks about state’s work in economic field,
and its bad effects about political forces and social classes, the
methods and kinds of property, the social task of labor, and its division
into free and paid labor, and about law of supply and demand.”

Role of capital and labor in Economy:

Ibn-e-Khaldoon depicts a vivid picture of the role of capital and labor in an
economy. He devotes special chapters to the question of Government finances
and other business affairs. His theory of labor, in which he defines profit and
sustenance and the role of labor in the fixation of the values of the
commodities, exerted a marked influence on the writings of classical
economists. Ibn-e-Khaldoon defines the term sustenance and profit as, “The
part of the income that is obtained by a person through his own effort
and strength is called profit. When a particular person enjoys its fruits
by spending it upon his interest and need, it is called sustenance. Thus
it is the part of the profit that is utilized. If the profit results from
something other than a craft, the value of the resulting profit and
acquired (capital) must also include the value of the labor by which it
was obtained; without labor it would not have been acquired. A portion
of the value whether large or small, comes from the labor.”

Ibn-e-Khaldoon praises Islamic economic system which prescribes Zakat,

Kharaj and Jizya. To establish the superiority of Islamic economic system, he
quotes the saying of Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H.): “The only thing you possess
of your property is what you ate, and have thus destroyed; or what you
gave as charity, and have thus spent.” Ibn-e-Khaldoon severely condemns
the engagement of rulers in the commercial activity because it creates hurdles
in the development of a free competition in economic field, which is most
essential for the circulation of wealth in the society as a whole. If the rulers
indulge in trade activities, they would be I an advantageous position in the
selling and purchasing of the commodities, by virtue of their political control on
the commercial activities. Thus injustice would be brought about in the society
which is disastrous for the dynasty.

Taxation Policy:
Among the economic problems his discussion first elaborately starts with
taxation. As a practical politician he had full knowledge of the ways and means
to collect the Government revenues. He was of the view that taxation must be
equitable and just. When justice and equity are lacking in taxation policy of a
Government, it is inviting its own ruin. He said, “In the beginning of dynasty
taxation yields large revenue from assessments. At the end of the dynasty,
taxation yields small revenue from large assessments.”

A balanced budget is essential for sound economy and is the key to stability of
the political order. Ibn-e-Khaldoon said, “In the beginning of the state,
taxes are light in the distribution but considerable in their total and
vice versa. The reason is that the state, which follows the ways of
religion, only demands the obligation imposed by the Shariah, namely
Zakat, Kharaj and Jizya, which are light in their distribution and these
are the limits beyond which one must not go.”

A rural economy based on agriculture, with a simple standard of living and light
taxes, provides an incentive to work hard, with prosperity as the prize. But as
soon as autocrats assume power and urban life, with a much higher standard of
living, makes greater demands, heavier taxes are levied upon farmers,
craftsmen and merchants. Production and profits decline, since the incentive
has been taken away from all those engaged in the economic life of the state.

Salaries and Allowances:

The deductions in services and allowances decrease expenditures of those
affected which ultimately affects the incomes of so many others from whom
they used to buy things. This involves a decrease in a business activity and
monetary transactions and thus leads to diminishing tax revenues of the state.
He disapproves such procedures by a state. Ibn-e-Khaldoon extensively deals
with the injustice to the people and is of the view that it brings about the ruin of
civilization, because attacks on people’s property remove the incentive to
acquire or gain property.

The great injustice which he mentions is buying the people’s property at

cheaper rates and selling it at higher rates. It is most destructive to civilization.
This involves taking the capital of the people and this making them unable to do
the cultural enterprise. When capital is decreased, profits are diminished,
people’s incentive slackens and thereby the business dwindles. Ultimately this
proves to be a death blow to the state.

Standard of Living:
The prosperity and business activity in different cities differ in accordance with
the difference in the size of their population. As labor is the fundamental source
of profit or income, larger the labor, the higher the profit. The extra labor works
for luxuries and luxury goods and crafts etc. Production thrives income and
expenditure of the inhabitants multiply and more and more population pours
into the city. All the strata of the society in the large city is affected. As profit is
the value realized from labor, larger the labor the more will be the value
realized from it, which leads to prosperity. In less populated cities or remote
towns, villages and hamlets, people are equally poor because their labor does
not pay for their necessities and does not yield them a surplus which they can
accumulate as profit. Even beggars and poor differ in large and small cities.

Income and expenditure balance each other in every city. If both are large, the
inhabitants are prosperous and the city grows. Ibn-e-Khaldoon concludes that
the favorable conditions and much prosperity in civilization are the result of its
large size. As is the case in cities, so it is with the countries. He gave the
examples of the populated countries such as Egypt, Syria, India, and China as
being more prosperous as compared to the less populated regions which were
less prosperous.

It should be noted that Ibn-e-Khaldoon’s thesis is that higher population brings

much labor and much value is realized from it, which causes profit and
prosperity. Apparently it may sound strange today, that more populated
countries are poor and less populated ones are advanced. But as far as cities in
a given country are concerned, his construction is as valid as it was in his time.
Technological changes were not occurring in his time, he does not explicitly
elucidate the role of productivity of labor.

Ibn-e-Khaldoon was of the view that the wages of the teachers and religious
officials are lower, because demand for their services is not high. His
remarkable exposition of labor, value, profit, population and their correlation
with prosperity and civilization has stood the test of time. He gives the
definition of profit as the value realized from human labor. He said, “With the
decrease of population sustenance of a country disappears, springs
stop flowing because they require labor, they flow only if dug out and
water drawn. He compares this process with the udders of cattle.”

Livelihood:
His derivation of livelihood is interesting, he said, “It should be known that
livelihood means the desire for sustenance and the efforts to obtain it.
Livelihood is information from Ashe life. The idea is that Ashe life
obtained only through the things (that go into making a living) and that
they are considered with some exaggeration, the place of life.”

Among productive activities he included medical services, education and

musical etc. whereas Adam Smith excluded services from his definition of real
national product. But Ibn-e-Khaldoon excludes activities such as based on
fraud, exploitation or ignorance i-e, astrology, alchemy, search for buried
treasure and the various public servants who receive their shares from public
receipts vitiated by injustice, oppression and fiscal pressure. While dealing with
comparative wages, he has very intelligently analyzed the reasons for the low
wages of dealing with religious matters, teachers, mufti, prayer leaders,
preacher, muezzin etc. as profit is value realized from labor, the value of labor
profits differs according to the needs or particular kind of labor. He said, “Now
the common people have no compelling need for the things that the religious
officials have to offer.” So their share is in accordance with the general need
and demand of the population for them. It is meager as compared with others.
Besides he deals with various other and economic problems such as high and
low prices, crafts, agriculture, prices of food stuff and hoarding etc. in all these
matters, Ibn-e-Khaldoon showed the depth of great thinker and political
economist.

6. Allama Iqbal

Introduction:
Allama Muhammad Iqbal is a figure of legendary greatness amongst the
scholars and poets of the modern age and his political thought has won a great
deal of attention and respect amongst discerning students of political
philosophy. He was born at Sialkot, a renowned city of Pakistan. He received his
early education in Scotch Mission College, Sialkot and after his elementary
schooling; he came to Lahore for higher education. He did M.A. in Philosophy
from Government College Lahore in 1899 and served the Government College,
as a lecturer in the subject of Philosophy for about five years. He later left for
England in 1905 for higher studies. He obtained PhD degree from Munich
University by writing a thesis, The Development of Metaphysics in Persia. He
again went to London and did Bar-at-Law from Lincoln’s Inn. He returned to
India in 1908 and was appointed as Professor of Philosophy in the Government
College Lahore. Along with professorship he enrolled himself as a practicing
barrister at the Lahore High Court. He resigned after a year and half from
professorship and continued his legal practice.

He entered into practical politics and joined his efforts with freedom-champions
to liberate the Indian Muslims from the clutches of the Hindus and subjugation
of the English. He was elected as Member of the Punjab Legislative Council, and
later elected unanimously of the President of All-India Muslim League. He
vigorously advocated the two nation theory and demanded a separate
homeland for Indian Muslims, where their religion and culture could flourish
without any fear of chauvinism. He actuated the Muslims of India from political
slumber to champion their cause for separate country within India, and this
very vision became crystal reality in his pronouncement in the annual session of
the League in 1930. Dr. Allama Iqbal’s declaration for Pakistan echoed
throughout the world and it became the instrumental in re-awakening and the
enlightenment of Muslims to combat all forces for the achievement of a
separate homeland i-e. Pakistan.

Dr. Iqbal has given an ever-inspiring treasure of knowledge and philosophy

through his works, which have immortalized him on the pages of existence. He
is widely respected because of his philosophy and poetry which enlivened the
nation, living in a state of vertigo to win their liberty from the usurpers. As poet
he is considered to be the poet of Prophets for all ages. His works have been
translated into many foreign languages so that the students must properly be
benefited in their future researches by his thoughts and philosophies.

His works are detailed as under:

1. Development of Metaphysics in Persia (Thesis for PhD)

2. Asrar-e-Khudi (Secrets of Self)
3. Ramooz-e-Bay-Khudi (Mysteries of Selflessness)
4. Payam-e-Mashriq (Message of the East)
5. Bang-e-Dara
6. Zaboor-e-Ajam
7. Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam (collection of lectures)
8. Javed Namah
9. Bal-e-Jibraeel
10. Pas Che Bayad Kard Ay Aqwam-e-Sharq
11. Zarb–e-Kaleem
12. Armughan-e-Hijaz
13. Ilmul-Iqtisad (Economics)

Iqbal as a Muslim Political Thinker

Allama Iqbal a great supporter of freedom and pioneer of Muslim movement in
the sub-continent recklessly strived for the achievement of his noble ideals.
Indian Muslims were tied in the chains of enslavement and subjection and he
strived for the whole nation with his virulent speeches and thought-provoking
declarations for making unanimous efforts for liberty and emancipation. His
dynamism is proverbial, his mysticism is extraordinary and his simplicity is an
example for his followers. He gave new inspiration to the Muslims who were
politically unconscious and ignorant. He kindled fire in them to fight for their
basic rights. He is loudly applauded everywhere due to his greater contributions
leading to the ultimate establishment of Pakistan.

Allama Iqbal was a sensitive sage of his age and he saw the prevailing political
ills in India, and inculcated ideals for the complete liquidation of the dominators,
so that Islamic culture and heritage be protected from all penetrating evils. The
Hindu and the English were the two domineering forces in the sub-continent
and all fundamental privileges for Muslims were completely denied. In order to
liberate the Muslims from cruel subjugation, our thinker took deep interest in
the political situation and problems as no sensitive and intelligent young Indian
could fail to do, but “it was only when he realized that most of the
political leaders of the Muslims were lacking political acumen and
foresight that he started taking active interest in politics.” (S.A.Vahid)

Allama Iqbal was a member of the Committee of Muslim League formed in

London in 1903 by the Rt. Hon. Ameer Ali. On his return from England, Iqbal
took keen interest in the objective working of the Muslim League but did not
participate actively in politics from 1910-1923. In 1924, Allama Iqbal joined the
National Liberal League of Lahore but not finding it very effective resigned from
it later on. In 1926, he was elected as a member to the Punjab Legislative
Assembly.

Secretary of Muslim League:

In 1928, Iqbal became secretary of that branch of the Muslim League which
functioned under the President-ship of Sir Muhammad Shafi. Along with other
members of League, he appeared before the Simon Commission which was
appointed by the British Government to report on the introduction of further
political reforms in the sub-continent. While participating eagerly in Punjab
politics, Iqbal was also interested in all-India politics. In 1929 he attended the
Muslim Conference held in Delhi under the Chairmanship of Sir Agha Khan, and
made some important contribution to the deliberations of the conference. In
1930, he was unanimously elected to preside over the Annual Session of the
Muslim League held in Allahbad. In his historic presidential
address, Iqbal said, “I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier
Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state. Self-
government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the
foundation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears
to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West
India.”
Round Table Conference:
In 1931, Allama Iqbal attended the Second round Table Conference in London
and served as the representative of the Minorities Committee. He returned to
Lahore on 30th December 1931 most disappointed at the attitude of Mr. Gandhi
and other Hindu leaders at the conference and convinced more than ever, that
the only solution of the political troubles of the sub-continent was a division of
the country.

In 1932, Iqbal was invited to attend the Third Round Table Conference. While
the Conference was in progress, Iqbal grew so dissatisfied with its proceedings
that he resigned and returned to India. In 1936, at the inspirations of Mr.
Jinnah, Iqbal undertook the work for the Punjab Parliamentary Board, which
was to conduct elections. Muslim politics was in turmoil and chaos as at that
time Mr. Jinnah was facing a very hard time. But in the midst of all this
darkness there shone a flickering light in Lahore and this was Iqbal who stood
steadfast by Jinnah in those trying days and helped him to charter the course of
Indo-Muslim politics.

When Allama Iqbal died as a broken heart without seeing the fulfillment of his
ideals, Mr. Jinnah sent this message to his son, “To me he was friend,
guide and philosopher and during the darkest moments through which
the Muslim League had to go he stood like a rock and never flinched
one single moment.”

On March 24, 1940, when the Pakistan Resolution was passed by the Muslim
League at Lahore, Mr. Jinnah said, “Iqbal is no more amongst us, but had
he been alive he would have been happy to know that we did exactly
what he wanted us to do.”

Iqbal’s Contributions:
No one today denies that Iqbal placed a very vital part in the founding of
Pakistan. Iqbal was perhaps not a politician in the strict sense in which Mr.
Jinnah or Mr. Nehru were, but he could see further than almost any other of his
contemporaries could. It was the part of Allama Iqbal’s greatness that he not
only formulated conception of an Islamic State in India and outlined its physical
boundaries but laid down the characteristics which a state must
have. Rushbrook Williams said, “If it were to provide that interplay
between the individual and the society in which the individual lives,
which Iqbal knew to be essential for the highest development of both.”
Allama Iqbal’s contributions to Islam and Muslims are unparalleled in their
characteristics and his followers interwove the practicability on the basis of his
ideals. All Muslims of the world are indebted to our great thinker and pay
gratitude for his relentless fight for a separate homeland, which changed the
political attitudes of other sovereigns. His selfless services and devotion in the
field of poetry, philosophy and metaphysics are unprecedented, which ushered
a new era of literature and knowledge. His message through his statements,
speeches and work will ever vibrate against evil, slavery and subjugation.

Iqbal’s Concept of an Islamic State

Allama Iqbal’s greatness as a versatile poet and his originality and profoundity
as a renowned thinker can never be denied in any age of human thought and
philosophy. His greatness in these fields can attract no controversy. The eternal
presence of the Poet of the East in Pakistan is felt with deep reverence and
respect more than a visionary poet or merely an academic philosopher. He is
the creator of the very conception of the state of Pakistan. The birth of
Pakistan, as an independent Islamic state, on the map of globe, had many
causes but name so potent as the one that has reference to the vision which
Iqbal had about the political future of the Indian Muslims.

Field Marshal Muhammad Ayub Khan, the former President of Pakistan,

said, “It is common fallacy to believe that the concept of Pakistan was
formed in a poet’s dream. The poet, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, was no idle
dreamer. Nor can countries like Pakistan, 364737 square miles;
population 80,000,000 spring from the nebulous realm of poetry alone.
Iqbal was in fact a philosopher of traditional as well as modern thought
who had made a careful study of human affairs, both of East and West,
and focused the light of his inquiry on the causes of economic and
cultural subjugation to which the Muslims of India had been
systematically subjected since their first abortive struggle for
independence in 1857. It was in his presidential address at the annual
session of All-India Muslim League in 1930 that he spelt out the broad
outlines of a plan under which the Muslims of India were led to aspire
to an independent state in which they would be free to follow their own
way of life.”

Allama Iqbal in the name of Ijtehad, strongly defended his idea of the creation
of Muslim Empire within the sub-continent of India, which was very akin to its
approximation to the Western conception of the term “state”, purely as an
interim and transitional phase of the growth of universal brotherhood of
man. Khawaja Abdur Rahim was of the view that Universal brotherhood is
an ideal good for human evolution which Islam came to establish, and
the symbol of which phenomenon every year is held aloft by Islam for
the rest of the world to see on the day of pilgrimage at Mecca, when
millions of Muslims coming from distant parts of the world congregate,
in the presence of One God, and stand shoulder to shoulder in spite of
the local loyalties they may owe to the lands whence they come.

Allama Iqbal said, “For the present every Muslim nation must sink into
her own deeper self, temporarily focus her vision on herself alone, until
all are strong and powerful to form a living family of republics. A true
and living unity, according to the nationalist thinkers, is not so easy as
to be achieved by a merely symbolical over lordship. It is truly
manifested in a multiplicity of free independent units whose racial
rivalries are adjusted and harmonized by the unifying bond of a
common spiritual aspiration. It seems to me that God is slowly bringing
home to us the truth that Islam is neither nationalism nor imperialism
but a League of Nations which recognizes artificial boundaries and
racial distinctions for facility of reference only and not for restricting
the social horizon of its members.”

The state of Pakistan exists to fulfill higher Muslim aspirations in the modern
world history; to begin with, it must be made to serve as a stepping stone to
the final phase of Muslim history, as a sort of a platform from where we are to
appeal to the rest of the humanity to listen to the Divine Oracle which says that
all humanity is one and the various communities into which it is divided is
merely for the purpose of identification and the division has no other deeper
meaning. The philosophy of colorless cosmopolitan must not be accepted. For
the uplift of universal brotherhood of mankind, Pakistan should not emphasis
the growth of the distinctive and cultural features. It is rather to stress that the
historical evolution of our national life in all its uniqueness is an important
condition precedent for the full realization of the ideal of brotherhood of man.
We have to love Pakistan and develop the distinctive features of Pakistan’s
culture.
Allama Iqbal was of opinion that the rehabilitation of Muslim history could take
place provided in Pakistan, future homeland of Indian Muslims; historical task
will be approached, for development of national culture with an eye on ultimate
goal of universal history. In Islam the idea of territorial frontiers has no ultimate
juridical significance, because fundamentally the earth belongs to the God and
is the inheritance of the righteous ones. The discords and the conflicts which
are presently infesting the world peace and are threatening to mount up to a
point where another global war may breakout with consequences too terrible to
contemplate, are ultimately traceable to the rigid adherence to the concept of
absolute national sovereignty. 

No nation is prepared to surrender any part of its sovereignty in favor of the

creation of super national authority; that is so simply because the state in our
own day has become an idol which is to be worshipped to the utter neglect of
our reverence for that element of transcendence which gives to the human
history, a universal background. Much of the chaos and disorder that one
notices is the social, economic and political. Life in Pakistan ultimately reflects
the crisis of a character which has taken place in our interior consciousness. It
is here that an attempt that healing has to be initiated. Ethics but not
Economics lay down the primary force for the redemption of man. All strength,
even material strength is ultimately possible and durable only upon a moral
basis.

Iqbal’s Conception of Khudi (Ego)

The conception of Khudi has been the most important contribution of Iqbal to
the realm of political thought. It was not due to the fact that he was the first to
treat the subject before him such eminent minds as Nietzsche, Fichte, Bergso
and William James had dealt with the subject from the various angles of vision.
Iqbal’s originality lay in the fact that the whole concept of Khudi underwent a
radical change and assumed a realistic interpretation under his masterly pen.
To Iqbal, Khudi or ego does not signify pride or arrogance, but the spirit of self
affirmation of one’s potentialities and their proper utilization. Every object of
the universe exhibits this spirit in some way or other. Even the Creator of this
universe could not help expressing His ego and created this world in order to be
known. One Hadith alludes to this fact in these words:

“I was a hidden treasure. I wished that I may be recognized, therefore

I created the whole creature.”

Thus man being the highest creature, should have spirit of “I-am-ness” in its
perfection, and should assimilate and absorb in himself the attributes of God
and thus become His vicegerent (naib) on earth. This implies that a limited
authority has been given to every man to fashion his life according to ego. Ego
must then consist in creating desires and wishes and trying to realize them, by
the authority vested in every man.

Iqbal said,

‫خویشتن را چوں خودی بیدار کرد‬

‫آشکارا عالم پندار کرد‬
‫صد جہاں پوشیدہ اندر ذات او‬
‫غیر او پیداست از اثبات او‬
‫در جہاں تخم خصومت کاشت است‬
‫خویشتن را غیر خود پنداشت است‬

When the Self awakened itself, it revealed the world of concepts.

A hundred worlds are hidden in its being; its not-self comes to being
from its self-affirmation.

It has sown the seeds of hostility in the world by imagining itself to be

other than itself.

Allama Iqbal believed that the philosophy of self-denial was developed by the
weaker nations in their days of decline and degradation. The criticism of
Nietzsche against Christianity was based on the fact that the Christians having a
defeatist mentality believed that paradise was to be given to the weak and the
humble few and not to the wealthy and the strong.

Iqbal and Nietzsche:

Despite the high price he bestowed upon Nietzsche and acceptance of his
influence, the fact remains that Iqbal was never completely a follower of
Nietzsche. Iqbal profited from many great thinkers and renowned Sufis, but in
keeping with his own philosophy of Khudi he never completely became an
imitator of any. The influence of Western thought apparent in Asrar-i-Khudi
contains not only the philosophy of Nietzsche but also ideas of the German
philosopher, Fichte, and of the French Jews, Bergson.

Allama Iqbal has delineated in his famous poem, Asrar-i-Khudi that there are
three stages in the development of Khudi. The first stage is called Obedience,
the second Self-Control and the third is called Divine Vicegerency. In the first
stage the self is likened which is taken directly from Nietzsche, while the other
tow are taken from Islamic philosophy and literature. Allama Iqbal states in his
famous lecture entitled, “The Human Ego” that there is in the history of modern
thought one positive view of immortality. This view deserves some
consideration, not only because Nietzsche has maintained i.e. with prophetical
fervor but also because it reveals a real tendency in the modern mind.

Allama Iqbal said, “The Quranic view of the testing of man is partly

ethical, partly biological. I say partly biological because the Quran
makes in this connection certain statements of a biological nature
which we cannot understand without a deeper insight into the nature of
life. It mentions, for instance, the fact of Barzakh, a state perhaps of
some kind of suspense between Death and Resurrection. Resurrection
appears to have been differently conceived. The Quran does not base
its possibility, like Christianity, on the evidence of the actual
resurrection of an historic person. It seems to take and argue
resurrection as a universal phenomenon of life, in some sense true
even of birds or animals.”

According to Quranic view:

1. That the ego has a beginning in time, and did not pre-exist its emergence in
the spatio-temporal order.

2. There is no possibility of return to this earth. This is clear from the following
verses: “When death overtook one of them, he said, Lord! Send me back
again, that I may do the good that I have left undone. By no means,
these are the very words which he shall speak. But behind them is a
barrier (Barzakh), until the day when they shall be raised again. "(23,
101)

3. That infinite is not a misfortune: “Verily there is none in the Heavens

and in the Earth but shall approach the God of Mercy as a servant. He
has taken note of them and remembered them with exact numbering:
and each of them shall come to Him on the day of resurrection as a
single individual.”

This is a very important point and must be properly understood to have a clear
insight into the Islamic theory of salvation. It is with the irreplaceable
singleness of his individuality that finite ego will approach the infinite ego to see
for himself the consequences of his past actions and to judge the possibility of
his future.

Helpers of Ego:
Allama Iqbal maintains that stability, permanence and integrity are the essence
of ego. A dew-drop vanishes with the sunlight; a drop of tear disappears after a
while, because they took stability, while a drop which remains in a sea shell
becomes a pearl. Similarly, an individual should subjugate and exploit to his
benefit, the things external to him and save himself from being subjugated. It is
true that as against God man is helpless, but as against other creatures, or
natural objects, man is quite powerful, to harness them to his best advantage
and benefit.

Mr. Justice Anwar-ul-Haq said, “According to Iqbal, life is a forward,

assimilative process and in essence is the continuous creation of
desires and ideas. The human ego has a definite mission on earth in the
two main diversions. In the first place, it has to struggle with its
environment and to conquer it. By this conquest it attains freedom and
approaches God, Who is the freest entity. In the second place, the ego
has to maintain a constant state of tension and thereby attain
immortality. By attaining freedom and immortality the go conquers
space on the one hand and time on the other. The ego has to help in the
upward march of humanity by leading to the birth of a higher type of
man, namely, the superman or the perfect man, who is the ideal to
which all life aspires.”

According to Iqbal the following factors and forces fortify the human ego or
personality:

1. Love:
Iqbal explained the word Love in a letter to Prof. Nicholson, “It means the
desire to assimilate, to absorb. Its highest form is the creation of values and
ideals and the endeavors to realize them. Love individualizes the lover as well
as the beloved. The effort to realize the most unique individuality individualizes
the seeker and implies individuality of the sought, for nothing else would satisfy
the nature of the seeker.”

2. Faqr:
By Faqr, Iqbal means an attitude of mind which enables a man to endlessly
strive spurning delights and rewards, except the attainment of worthy ends. In
other words, it depicts selflessness and abnegation and ascendancy over one’s
natural environment and a sense of complete detachment from worldly affairs
and rewards. Once an individual is able to achieve this attitude of mind, there is
no limit to what he might attain in the way of development of personality and
spiritual strength. Allied with Faqr is the element of courage, both physical and
moral.

3. Courage:
Both physical and moral courage means overcoming and combating all
obstacles and hurdles with no failure of nerve, no submission to forces of evil or
to desire to give in except to conviction. Iqbal calls upon the younger
generation to live dangerously and courageously. He said,

‫آئین جواں مرداں حق گوئی و بے باکی‬

‫اللة کے شیروں کو آتی نھیں روباھی‬

The code for men of courage is spontaneous truth and fearlessness;

Brave people knew nothing about cunningness.

4. Tolerance:
For other people’s views and manners represents the strength of the high order
and its cultivation is greatly beneficial to human society. It also sustains and
strengthens the human ego.

5. Kasb-e-Halal:
In a world where selfishness and aggrandizement are playing vital part in
human life, insistence on kasb-e-halal is of the utmost significance. Iqbal insists
that the individuals should constantly exert him to acquire things which he
wants to enjoy. He even goes to the extent of deprecating inheritance of
worldly good as he feels that it hurts the ego. Even in the field of ideas, Iqbal
advices avoidance of borrowing. Succinctly, lawful and rightful acquisition,
anything not obtained by foul means like cheating, fraud or theft, acquiring
things or ideas through one’s personal efforts and struggles.

6. Creative and original activity:

Iqbal is opposed to mimicry and copying others slavishly. Blind imitation is of no
avail and must be discouraged.

As against these positive factors there are certain negative forces which are
constantly at work to weaken the ego and stultify the human personality. These
are:

1. Fear:
Fear of persons and objects (except God) in all its different phases such as
worry, anxiety, anger, jealousy and timidity is a positive danger for ego. It robs
man of efficiency and happiness.

2. Beggary:
Not used in the limited sense but all that is achieved without personal effort and
it is in every form inimical to ego development. All economic and social
parasites which flourish on society under various high-sounding names are
beggars.

3. Slavery:
It completely arrests the freedom of man, which retards the development of
one’s ego. Enslavement and mental torture of man, who’s self prompts him for
freedom. Every kind of slavery, whether physical or mental, distorts character
and lowers man to the level of a beast and weakens the human ego. It stifles
the growth of ego which needs freedom for its normal development.

4. Nasab-Parasti:
Races, nations, tribes, communities, castes and families take pride in their
superior racial characters come to destroy the peace and tranquility of the
world.

Iqbal is strongly opposed to all these weaknesses in human character. In fact

these weaknesses develop due to the failure of the individual to practice or
inculcate in him the positive elements for the development of character and
personality.

Mr. Justice Anwar-ul-Haq says, “These basic elements in Iqbal’s concept

of Khudi were explained to the younger generation of this country in
which hope lies for the future. In fact humanity at large could benefit
immensely by the adoption of these ideals. While man has made
enormous strides in the development of scientific techniques and is on
the verge of conquering space and outer space. I am not sure whether
he has made progress in conquering the basic elements in his own
nature. It is imperative for us, who are fortunate to have the stage of
Iqbal’s philosophy, to understand this philosophy and to try to act upon
it in our daily lives. Who knows that the salvation of the world may yet
lie with those who imbibe the teachings of Iqbal and of the Quran
which is the source of Iqbal’s inspiration?”

Abne-Rushid, Imam Ghazali, Ibne-Taymiyya, Nizam-ul-MulkTusi, Al-Ghazali,

Ibn-i-Khuldun, Shah Waliullah, Allama Muhammad Iqbal, Jamaluddin Afghni,
Rashid Rida, 

Part -B (50 Marks)

III. State System: The nature and emergence of modern nation-state system,

Islamic concept of state and Ummah 

1. Definition of State
2. Nature of State
a. State as an Ethical Institution
b. State as a legal institution
c. State as an organic unit
d. State as a welfare organization
3. Elements of State
a. Population
b. Territory
c. Government
d. Sovereignty
4. The state system from a global perspective
5. Bipolarity and the cold war raged from 1946-1991

Source:Imtiaz Shahid

ISLAMIC CONCEPT OF STATE

1. Introduction
2. The purpose of ideal Islamic state
3. Essentials
a. Islamic Ruler ship
 b. Political consensus
c. The shariáh
d. Morality in an ideal Islamic state
i. Examples of legislation of morals in islam (Drinking, gambling,
fornication etc)
e. Human rights and obligations in islam
i. Women rights
f. Obedience of the ruler (ulul-amr)
g. Equality/Equal opportunity
h. Justice
i. Welfare state/social welfare
j. Amr bil maroof wa nahianil munkar

IV. Political Concept (Western and Islamic): 

Sovereignty
1. Sovereignty
a. Meaning: Supremacy of the will of state as expressed by its laws, over all
individuals, associations within its boundsaries
b. Population
c. Territory
d. Government
e. Sovereignty
2. Difference between western and Islamic Sovereignty
a. As to sovereignty
i. Islamic: belongs to Allah
ii. Western: Belongs to people
b. As to making authority
i. Islamic: Law making authority is Allah
ii. West: are people
c. As to religion
i. Islamic: religion has important role
ii. West: may not have religion
d. As to legislation
i. Islamic: Majlis-e-shura, limited powers
ii. Western: Parliament, unlimited powers of law making
3. Aspects of sovereignty
a. Internal
b. External
4. Attributes of sovereignty
a. Absoluteness (absolute, supreme and unlimited power)
i. Limitations
1. Customs, religion, morality
 2. Written constitutions
3. Duties
4. Externally equal to other states
5. Physical capacity
b. Indivisibility
i. Limitations: federations
c. Exclusiveness
d. Universality or all-comprehensiveness
e. Inalienability

Source: JWT

Justice
1. Introduction
a. Social Justice
b. Personal Justice (Conscious)
c. Supernatural justice (Justice is controlled by GOD, energy or force)
2. Court System
3. Conclusion

Source: JWT

Law
1. International law
2. Constituional and administrative law
3. Criminal law
4. Legal Systems
a. Civil law
b. Common law and equity
c. Religious law
5. Legal institutions
a. Judiciary
b. Legislature
c. Executive
d. Military and police
e. Bureaucracy

Source: Imtiaz Shahid

Liberty
1. Introduction
a. How to preserve sovereignty without destroying individual liberty
 b. Idealism: State as the end, individual as the means
c. Individualism: Individual as the end, state as the means’
d. What is liberty: Negative meanings
i. Absence of restraint
e. Positive meanings
i. Absence of restraint and presence of opportunity
2. Kinds of liberty
a. Natural liberty: Absolute and unlimited power to do whatever one likes,
man enjoyed in state of nature
b. Civil liberty: liberty in society, guaranteed by state
c. Constitutional liberty: rights available against the government
d. Economic liberty: Freedom of earning a decent and sufficient economic
income, freedom from fear of unemployment or loss of economic income
(economic rights: rights to earn,, minimum wage etc)
e. Moral liberty: Act according to one’s own conscience, right to freedom of
belief and opinion
f. Political liberty: power of people to determine how they are governed,
power to be active in the affairs of the state
g. National liberty: freedom and independence of a nation, free from foreign
control, right of self-government, self-determination, right to be ruled by
national government
3. Three aspects of liberty: Thought, speech and action
4. Ends or advantages of liberty
a. Develops personality and makes life a fine art’
b. Assures good government
c. Liberty of the individual is the starting point of all human progress in arts,
science, culture and industry
5. Liberty, Law and State
a. Two views
i. Law and liberty are opposed to each other, more of one means less of the
other (indiivudalists, syndicalists and anarchists)
ii. Law and liberty are necessary to each other (Hegelians and idealists)
b. Correct view
i. Law creates conditions in which individual can enjoy liberty
ii. Law creates those essential conditions without which liberty cannot be
enjoyed
iii. Law creates conditions of liberty by putting restrictions on the authority of
the government
6. Safeguards of liberty
a. Law is an importance condition of liberty
b. Independence of judiciary (judges protect the enjoyment of liberty and
rights)
c. Democracy
d. Fundamental rights
 e. Local self-governing institutions
f. Rule of law
g. Economic equality
h. Eternal vigilance
i. Decline of liberty in the modern state
7. Causes of decline of liberty
a. Growth of moderns science and industry
b. Decline in social position and value of individual
c. Growth of mass propaganda
d. International tension
e. Growth of centralisation

Source: Mazharul haq

Freedom
Power or right to do as one wants

1. Free will
2. Rights
3. Civil liberties
4. Political freedom
5. Freedom of assembly
6. Freedom of association
7. Freedom of choice
8. Freedom of speech
9. Economic freedom
10. Moral responsibility
11. Academic freedom
12. Intellectual freedom
13. Scientific freedom
14. Self-determination
15. Autonomy in the sense of giving oneself one’s own laws

Equality
1. Problem of Equality
a. Men are equal and are entitled to same treatment, but men are not equal
in mental or bodily powers
b. Principle of equality arose as protest against the class distinctions and
injustices of medieval society
2. Meaning of equality
 a. Absence of special privileges for any class of people
b. Equal opportunities to develop one’s ability
c. Equal before law
3. Different kinds of equality
a. Civil or legal equality
b. Political equality
c. Economic equality
d. Social equality
4. Liberty and Equality
a. Two views
i. Liberty and equality ore opposed to each other
ii. Liberty would be hollow without equality and equality would be
meaningless without liberty
5. Political liberty and equality
a. Complementary especially political liberty and economic liberty
6. Civil liberty and economic equality
a. Inequalities of wealth or economic possessions will inevitable bring
inequalities of treatment and rights

Rights and Duties

RIGHTS

1. What is a right
a. When claim or power of a person to do something or have something is
recognised by others
2. Utility of rights
a. Necessary conditions for the development of human personality
b. Enrichment of social life
c. Useful for the state
3. Theories of rights
a. Theory of natural rights: Rights enjoyed in state of nature, natural rights
are inalienable
i. Criticism: term nature is confusing and vague, rights are not prior
to society and state, theory implies existence of natural liberty
b. Modern theory of natural rights: Inherent in the moral nature of man,
minimum basic conditions for moral development and self-realisation
c. Legal theory or rights: state does not recognize but creates rights
i. Criticism: state does not create rights, it recognizes them
d. Social welfare theory of rights: rights are essential for social welfare
4. Classification of rights
a. Moral rights
b. Legal rights
i. Civil rights
 ii. Political rights
c. Relation between civil and political rights: exercise of political rights
without civil right is meaningless
5. Particular Rights
a. Civil Rights
i. Rights to life
ii. Right to liberty and free movement
iii. Right to property
iv. Freedom of religion and conscience
v. Right to education
vi. Right to work
vii. Freedom of speech, opinion, press or publications
viii. Freedom of association
ix. Right to contract
x. Right to family life
xi. Right to equality before law
b. Political rights
i. Right to vote
ii. Right of election to legislature
iii. Right to public office
iv. Other political rights
6. Fundamental Rights
a. Difference between fundamental and natural rights: fundamental sanctioned by
state, natural enforced by nature
b. Importance of fundamental rights
7. The State and the rights
a. ‘Rights are prior to the state’
b. How the state safeguards rights
c. Can individuals have rights against the state

DUTIES

1. What is a duty:
a. Obligation to do or not do something for the sake of others
2. Relation between rights and duties
3. Kinds of duties
a. Moral duties
b. Legal duties: Pay tax etc
4. Duties of citizen towards the state
a. Obedience of law
b. Allegiance to the state
c. Payment of taxes
d. Duty to vote
5. Duties of the state

Source: Imtiaz Shahid

 Human Rights
1. Introduction
a. Inalienable and assigned by the virtue of being a human personality
b. Universal and inherent dignity of human beings
2. Age of right
a. Human rights only political-moral idea that has received universal
acceptance
b. UDHR, judiciary important, doctrine of might is right outdated
3. Sovereignty of states
a. Human rights do not negate sovereignty of states
b. Implement laws domestically by national law
4. Role of human rights
5. Problem of human rights
a. Political, Civil, Social, Economic
6. Maintenance of human rights
a. UNO, International human rights commission etc
7. Philosophy of human rights
a. Three generations
i. Civil and political rights
ii. Economic social and cultural rights
iii. Solidarity rights as of peace and to clean our environment
8. Universal declaration of human rights
a. 1948, no legal binding, 30 articles
9. The human rights situation in Pakistan
10. Conclusion

Source: JWT

Political authority
1. In Government
a. Used interchangeably with power, authority is a claim to legitimacy
2. Max Weber
a. Rational-legal authority: derived from formal rules and established laws
b. Traditional authority: long established customs, habits and social
structures
c. Charismatic authority: the gift of grace

Source: Imtiaz Shahid

 Power
1. Ability to influence or control the behaviour of people
2. Theories- five bases of power
a. Legitimate Power: Positional power
b. Referent Power: Charisma and interpersonal skills of power holder
c. Expert power: Derived from skills or expertise
d. Reward Power: Confer valued material rewards
e. Coercive Power: Application of negative influences
3. Types of power
a. Condign (based on force)
b. Compensatory (through use of various resources)
c. Conditioned (the result of persuasion)
d. Personality (individuals)
e. Property (Their material resources)
f. Organizational
4. Hard Power and Soft power
5. Will to power by Nietzsche
6. Desire for Power

V. Comparative Politics: 

Political Socialization
1. Introduction
2. Family
3. Schools
4. Peer groups
5. Mass Media
6. Religion
7. Work place

Source:JWT

Political Culture

1. Introduction
2. Culture
3. A nations political personality

Political Development

1. Indicators of political development

a. Existence of political parties
 b. Democracy with political parties
c. Existence of constitution
d. Effectiveness of constitution
e. Existence of legislature
f. Effectiveness of legislature
g. Existence of independent judiciary
h. Writ of judiciary and effectiveness of judiciary
i. Existence of govt and writ of govt
j. Free and fair elections
k. Availability of fundamental rights

Source: Imtiaz Shahid

Political Recruitment

Social Change

1. Introduction
2. Meaning of Social Change
3. Characteristic of Social Change
a. Social change is social
b. Social change is universal
c. Social change occurs as an essential law
d. Social change is continuous
e. Social change involves no-value judgement
f. Social change is bound by time factors
g. Rate and tempo of social change is uneven
h. Definite prediction of social change is impossible
i. Social change shows chain-reaction sequences
j. Social change takes place due to multi-number of factors
k. Chiefly those of modifications or of replacement
l. May be small-scale or large-scale
m. Short term and long term change
n. Peaceful or violent
o. Planned or unplanned
p. Endogenous or exogenous
q. Change within and change of the system
4. Social Evolution
5. Conclusion

Source: JWT
 Civil Society
1. Introduction
2. What is civil society
a. Voluntary participation
b. Not just individuals but also institutions who participate
c. Civic culture
d. Social capital is human equivalent of economic capital
3. Why is civil society important
4. What individuals can do

Source: JWT

Violence and Terrorism in Politics

1. Motivations for political violence
a. Political
b. Cultural
i. Separatism (lets separate)
ii. Irredentism (Irredentism)
iii. Nationalism (Lets organize ourselves)
c. Psychological

Source: Imtiaz Shahid

Gender and Politics

1. Introduction
2. Voting rights for women
3. Women in recent politics
4. Gender stereotyping
Source: JWT

Women Empowerment
1. Introduction
2. Women’s empowerment principles
3. Gender subordination
4. Women-related social issues
5. Protection against harassment of women
6. Women political leaders
 7. Complex and multidimensional process

VI. Political Participation: 

Political Change and Revolution

POLITICAL CHANGE

Occurs due to major events such as war, economic crises and sudden electoral shifts

1. International security: from hegemonic to constitutive wars

2. International political economy: The meaning of crises

REVOLUTION

1. American
2. French
3. Russian Revolution
4. Chinese communist Revolution

Source: Imtiaz Shahid

Elections
ELECTIONS

1. Charateristics
a. Suffrage
b. Nomination
c. Electoral Systems
d. Scheduling
e. Election Campaigns
f. Difficulties with elections
g. Lack of open political debate or an informed electorate
h. Unfair rules
i. Intereference with campaigns
j. Tampering with the election mechanism

ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

1. Plurality electoral systems

2. Majority electoral systems
3. Proportional representation
4. Party list systems
5. Single transferable vote
 Public Opinion
1. Nature of Public Opinion
a. Individual opinion may be expressed ideas or attitude of an individual on
an issue
b. Public opinion is sum of individual opinions on an issue
2. Definition of Public Opinion
a. Aggregate of views men hold regarding matters that affect or interest the
community
b. Collection of individual opinions on an issue of public interest, which can
exercise influence over individual group and government behaviour or
policy, formed under the influence of or communicated by a leader party
or group.
3. Public opinion or majority opinion
a. Generally speaking public opinion is majority opinion
b. Minority opinion can become public opinion if it aims at common good
4. Two kinds of public opinion; Political and Social
a. Not merely political, can be social, matters concerned with social
importance
5. Characteristics of Public Opinion
a. Living issues of politics
b. Non-identifiable group (linked by common opinions or desires)
c. Widely-held opinions (minority might carry more weight)
d. Pooling of differing opinions
e. Intensity of opinions
f. Informed opinion
g. Continuity and Change in Public Opinion
6. Dynamics of Public Opinion
a. Adoption by greater part of population of a point of view, of a policy, ideal
or prejudice, put forward by some interested persons or groups using
various methods of dissemination or propaganda at their disposal
7. How is Public Opinion formed
a. Public leaders and Thinkers
b. Propagators and moulders of public opinion
c. Masses of the people
8. Importance of Public Opinion in Modern States
a. Exercise of power by people
b. Acts as watchdog
c. Drawbacks: People are not rational, erratic, inconsistent, conservative
d. Sometimes influenced by foreign sources
9. Dangers of Public Opinion
a. Ill-informed, unintelligent, prejudiced and misguided
 b. Watchdog of democracy becomes the mad dog of tyranny
10. Conditions of Sound Public Opinion
a. Education
b. Free Press
c. Free discussion’
d. Social Harmony
e. Economic security
11. Hindrances in the way or sound public opinion
a. Illiteracy
b. Ignorant and apathetic
c. Economic inequality
d. Deep-seated religious and sectarian differences
e. Dishonest press
f. Selfish leader
12. How to ascertain Public Opinion
a. Newspapers, public speeches, election results, manifestos of political
parties, conversing with people
13. The making of public opinion in democracy and dictatorship
a. Democracy: Complex, multiple levels, newspapers, magazines, tv, books,
booklets, posters etc
b. Dictatorship: Deprived the people of all means and sources of forming
public opinion, parties banned, leaders arrested, ban on tv newspaper
radio association public meetings
14. Agencies influencing Public Opinion
a. Family and other primary groups
b. Educational Institutes
c. Radio, television and Cinema
d. Press
e. Public speeches or platform
f. Political Parties
g. Legislature
h. Government and Public Opinion
i. By guiding and educating the public
ii. By securing public support for its policies
15. Quantitative measurement of public opinion or opinion polls
a. Enable governments to formulate domestic and foreign policy in light of
opinion polls results
b. Non-democratic governments to control or guide public opinion
c. Foreign governments and parties study to influence likelihood of
opposition, revolt or revolution
d. Commercial firms, corporations, banks study for marketing their goods etc
16. Philopsophy of opinion polls
 a. Number of opinions, number of people supporting each view and extent of
influence or the intensity of the opinion of these people
b. Conservatives, liberals and socialists
17. Methods of measuring public opinion
a. Sample, people or population from which the sample is chosen is
universe, representative of views of various groups called respondents or
interviewers, interviewers, questionnaire, simply data, opinion data
18. Time Methods
a. Accidental sampling, quota sampling and random sampling
b. Ballots, pollsters
19. Postal Polls
a. Sent to certain selected persons whose addresses have been found
from telephone directories or electoral registers of voters
20. Quota Sampling
a. Fixed number of people usually chosen from electoral registers
21. Random Sampling
22. Drawbacks of opinion polls
a. People don’t vote according to the opinion they have expressed to the
interviewers
b. Opinion of individual may change
c. Answers provide no clear guide about the intensity of the opinions
23. Methods od influencing Public Opinion
a. Propaganda and pressure groups

Propaganda
1. History of Propganda
a. Initially person to person basis now through devices of high technology
b. First used by the roman catholic church against protestants
c. Nazi Germany set up ministry of propaganda
d. Commercial propaganda in the form of publicity and advertisement
e. Ministry of propaganda, Ministry of information, public relations or public
enlightenment
2. Definition
a. Deliberate attempt to influence or manipulate other peoples beliefs,
attitudes or actions by means of words, gestures, flags, images, music,
monuments and such other signs and symbols
b. Management of mass communications, manipulation of facts etc
3. Propoganda and Education
a. Education enlightens, propaganda teaches what to think instead of what
to think
4. The process, methods and techniques of propaganda form of
propaganda
 a. Spoken words, printed words, slogans, symbols, personal contact, mass
action
b. Three factors
i. Propagandist and his message
ii. Strategy and techniques used
iii. Audience or the people
5. How is propaganda undertaken
a. Strategy: overall campaign, goals and objectives
b. Tactics: various methods or procedures
c. Techniques: publicity, publication, censorship, indoctrination
d. education
6. Principles of Propaganda
a. Simplicity, repetition, creditability
7. Propoganda device
a. Name-calling device: Arouses fears then appeals to people’s fears, hatred
etc
b. Glittering generalities: winning love, respect and loyalty to his own cause
c. Card-stacking device: Confuses those who try to find out facts
d. Bandwagon device: everybody is doing it
e. Plain-folk device: we feeling for the great common man
f. The transfer device: wins confidence by something prominent or popular
g. Testimonial device: Widely known person endorsing
h. Righteousness: All right-thinking people should support it
i. Transfer: Identifying causes with respectable symbols or institutions
j. Selection: Using selected facts
k. The big lie: resort to mass propaganda cause people are dumb
8. Types of Agents
a. Innocent looking agents or front organisations
9. Various propaganda devices
a. Use of familiar symbols and signs (fatherland, mothercountry, etc)
b. Rest all mediums of communication or information spreading
10. Effects and importance of propaganda
a. Effect on public mind
b. Great force in maintaining unity, strength and stability of the modern
state
11. Causes of the success of propaganda
a. Crisis and war situation
b. Winning side
c. Existence of censorship
d. Marginal issues
e. High degree of accuracy
f. The appeal of specific groups
 12. Measurement of propaganda effects
a. Content analysis
b. Intensive interviews
c. Extensive observations
d. Experiments and panel interviews

Source: Mazhar ul Haq

Political Parties
1. Definition
1. When a group seeks to acquire political power by collective action
2. 5 elements: members, principles, programme, leadership, governmental
power
2. Historical evolution of parties
1. First in England: Tory and conservative parties
3. Characteristics of the polictical party
1. Agreement on fundamental views and ideas
2. Organisation and leadership
3. Constitutional methods (Ballots)
4. Promotion of national interests
4. Party distuingish from faction
1. Loose united group of men who unite to achieve private or sectional
interest as opposed to national interests
5. Party and Pressure Group Distinguished
6. Kinds of political parties
1. 4 kinds: Reactionary, conservative, moderate or liberal, radical or
revolutionary
7. Basis of political parties
1. Religion, economics, form of government, nationality, class interests
8. Three theories of origin of parties
1. Theory of human nature: parties arise because human nature is split into
two tendencies namely progressivism and conservatism
2. Theory of ideological motivation: ideas move men
3. Theory of economic or class conflicts
9. Importance of political parties
10. Functions of Political Parties
1. They organise public opinion and formulate the general will
2. They select candidates for public offices
3. They endeavour to capture government by constitutional methods
4. They also criticise the government
5. Control their members in the legislature
11. Defects of the party system
 1. Encourages disunity and disruption in the state
2. It leads to moral corruption
3. Opposed to the spirit of democracy
4. Encourages bossism, factionalism and political adventurism
12. Merits of the party system
1. Essential for democracy
2. Gives political education to people
3. Makes representative government stable and responsible
4. Government becomes stable
5. Party discipline brings harmony between the government and the people

THE PARTY SYSTEMS

Two party, Multiparty, One party system

1. The two party or the Bi party system

2. Arguments for the Bi-party system
a. Offers clear cut alternative to the voters
b. Formation of government is easier
c. Secures a really representative government
d. Ensures stable and strong government
e. Easy to fic responsibility for failure of government under the dual party
system
f. Long term planning and policy possible
3. Multiple Party System Merits
a. Allows greater freedom of opinion
b. Saves country from the clutches of the two irreconcilable groups
c. Leads to cabinet dictatorship and despotism of the majority
4. Arguments against the multiple party or group system
a. More defects than merits
b. Comparison of both: neither are desirable nor practical
5. One party system
a. Its rise: votes for candidates of this party
b. No opposition
c. People enjoy no civil liberties

POLITICAL LEADERS AND LEADERSHIP

1. Meaning of leadership
a. Influenced by psychological, social, political and historical factors
2. Party leaders
3. Government leadership
4. Administrators
 Pressure Groups and Lobbies
In democracies work openly, in dictatorships not so much

1. Pressure Group
a. Group of individuals organised for promoting their special economic or
some other interest by influencing the government or a public officer
b. The means used by groups to apply pressure or influence the government,
legislators, administrators, political parties are agitation, persuasion,
political sniping, public-opinion mongering or even bribery
c. Kinds of pressure groups: Economic interests (trade unions), educational,
social and religious purposes or reform, promoting humanitarian or
philanthropic purposes
d. Examples: Trade Unions, Chambers of commerce, manufacturers,
bankers, associations, farm organisations,etc
2. Interest Group
a. Any conscious desire to have government policy or the authoritative
allocation of values, move in a particular general or specific direction
b. Promote interest by concerning itself with government policy
3. Lobby
a. Works in a legislature to influence legislatures in the interest of the group
b. In US congress: Farmers lobby, labour lobby, railroad lobby, school
lobbies
4. Cause Group
a. Promote some cause of general benefit for all etc Greenpeace
b. Faction is a pressure group that works within a political party
5. How do pressure groups work
a. Put pressure on the legislature, political parties, executive or
administrative organs of the government, the public at election time
b. Exclusive or partial groups
6. Organization and working of the pressure groups
a. Few or many members, Well organised and loosely bound, openly and
secretly,
b. Endeavours to include public figures and prominent people
c. Real work done by small paid officials and research workers, lobby men,
propagandists and paid agents
d. Pressure may be through friendly talk, discussion, threats, rewards,
bribery etc
e. Campaigns of propaganda or education tp manufacture public opinion
f. Present petitions, pass resolutions, mass meetings, telegrams, visits
7. Nature of pressure politics
a. Skilful method of attaining special limited interests and programmes
 b. Rationalizes its own interests to make them appear advantageous to the
entire nation
8. Functions of the pressure groups
a. Provide specialized and technical information to government and
administrators
b. Intermediaries between government and people
c. Act as check on political extremism
d. Minority parties and communities can influence government through their
pressure or interest groups
9. Pressure groups and government
a. Some government activities delegated to them
i. Consultation
ii. Joint Cooperation
10. Forms of Pressure
a. Refusal of cooperation with government
b. Strikes
c. Electioneering
d. National publicity campaigns
e. Formation of a political party
11. Effectivness of the pressure group
a. Size (The larger the better, better financial resources)
b. Unity
c. Leadership
d. Strength of the party system
e. Importance to the economy

Source: Mazhar ul Haq

VII. Political Institutions and Role of Government: 

Theory of Separation of Powers

1. Montesquieu’s Theory of Separation of Powers

 Various reasons why separation is necessary such as

a) King if executive and legislator might make enforce laws in tyrannical manner
b) If judicial power joined with legislative, would result in arbitrary control
c) If judicial power with executive, judge might behave with violence and oppression
d) If all 3 exercised by one, there would an end to everything

 In Defence of liberty
a) Whoever possessed unrestrained power would abuse it
 How Far True
a) Only true in part
 b) Functional specialization leads to administrative efficiency
c) Individual liberty is not dependent on separation of powers (e.g England)
 Criticism
a) Complete Separation is Impossible
b) Leads to constitutional deadlocks and administrative inefficiency
c) All departments are not co-ordinate or equal
d) It destroys responsibility
 Applicability to USA, Great Britain, France
a) USA: No absolute or complete separation
b) Great Britain: In theory separation, in practise there is no separation
c) France: Combination of Powers’

Source: Mazharul Haq

Legislature
1. Functions of legislature
a) Legislation
b) Financial Functions (Tax, revenue, expenditures, budget)
c) Administrative Functions (Controls executive in parliamentary/cabinet
form of govt)
d) Amendment of the Constitution
e) Other functions (UK High court, US Senate Admin Appointments etc)
2. Organisation of the legislature
a) National Representative Body
b) Good legislative procedure
c) Structure of legislatures (adequate representation is essential)
3. Merits of Bicameralism/Demerits of unicameralism
a) Prevents hasty legislation
b) Proper representation of national interests and minorities
c) Check on legislative despotism
d) Reduces pressure of work
e) Secures election of able and secure men
f) Necessary in federation for representation of component units
g) Correct barometer of public opinion
4. Arguments against Bicameralism/In favour of Unicameralism
a) Unicameralism is democratic: Bicameralism divides responsibility
b) Second Chamber either mischievous or superfluous
c) Unicameralism prevents duplication and wastage
d) Ideal Second Chamber is Impossible
e) Defects of Second Chamber: reactionary, conservation
f) Defects of Unicameralism are remediable or non-existent
g) Bicameralism not necessary even in a federal state
h) Bicameral are transient (Short-live and changing)

5. Functions of the Second Chamber

 a) Revising body for bills
b) Politically unimportant and non-controversial bills should initiate from here
c) Delaying but not obstructing body
d) Full and free discussion
e) Subordinate position to Lower House

6. Actual Powers and Functions of Second Chamber

Two Theories
1) Powers equal and coordinate with lower house
2) Lesser and Subordinate to lower house
In Practise
1) Possess all power except money bill
2) Revising body
3) No control over executive
4) Special powers (US ratify treaties and appointments)

7. Composition and Representation of Second Chamber

1) The principle of Heredity (UK House of Lords)
2) Principle of Nomination (Canada)
3) Principle of Election (US directly, France indirectly)

Satisfactory Composition
a) Indirectly Elected
b) Include competent members
c) Longer tenure
d) Nominated members too

8. Direct Legislation by the people

 Modern Devices for Direct Democracy

1) Referendum: Submitted to popular assent for law
2) Plebiscite: Public question not law submitted to popular vote
3) Initiative: Right of citizens to make law on proposal of a prescribed number
of citizens(Direct and Indirect)
 Merits of Referendum and Initiative
1) Encourage Respect for Laws
2) Avoid the defects of legislative bodies
3) Based on Sovereignty of People
4) Good political education of people
5) Good safety value and safeguard against revolutionary violence
 Demerits of Direct Legislation
1) Undermines prestige of legislatures
2) People are unfit to pronounce on complex problems
3) Electorate exposed to propaganda pressures as legislatures
 4) People don’t take much interest
5) Vitiates the majority of people (small minority deciding)
6) People are conservative in temperament
7) Unfit for parliamentary and large states

Source: Mazharul Haq

Executive
1. Meanings of the executive
a) Broad Sense: All officials of state from highest to lowest
b) Narrow Sense: Heads of Executive Departments (President,King,Ministers,
Cabinet)
2. Executive and Administration Distuingished
a) Executive: Political function of formulating law, elected officials,
responsible to legislature, politicians
b) Administrative: Administrative function of enforcing law, permanent
officials, responsible to heads of departments, no part in politics
3. Importance of the Executive
4. Its Essential Attributes
5. Functions and Powers of the Executive
1) Internal Administration (Maintain law and order, power of appointment
and of direction)
2) Military functions
3) Diplomatic Functions
4) Legislative Functions
5) Financial Functions
6) Judicial Power (Pardon, Clemency etc)
7) Administrative Justice
8) Other functions
6. Executive Powers on the Increase
1) Need for leadership
2) Change in Attitude (suspicion of executive now gone)
3) Decline of legislatures
4) Delegated Legislation
5) Quantitative increase in governmental functions
6) Executive is Elected
7) Party Discipline
8) Public Opinion
9) Modern War
10) Rise of Dictatorships
11) Judicial powers such as administrative law

7. Types of the Executives

 1) Nominal and Real Executives
a. Nominal: Ceremonial/Titular
b. Real: Prime Minister with Real Power
2) Single and Plural Executives
a. Single: Example US President, all power in one
b. Plural: Swiss Federal Council
3) Hereditary, Elective and Nominated Executives
a. Hereditary: Passed down
b. Elective: Direct Election and Indirect Election and Election by
legislature such as in Pakistan President
c. Nominated: By superior authority
4) Parliamentary and Presidential Executives
5) Dictatorships

Source: Mazharul Haq

Judiciary
1. Importance of the Judiciary
1) Protects rights/liberties, welfare and security, etc
2. Functions of the Judiciary
1) Settlement of Disputes
2) Interpretation of laws
3) Preventive Justice
4) Judicial Review
5) Advisory Opinion
6) Non-Judicial Functions (Grant license, naturalise aliens etc)
3. Independence of Judiciary
Necessity of independent Judiciary
How independence of Judiciary is secured
a) Mode of Appointment of Judges
1. Election by Legislature (Defective)
2. Election by the People (Defective)
3. Appointment by the Executive (Best)
b) Long Tenure of Office
c) Promotion and security of office
d) Fixed and adequate salary
e) Qualification of Judges
f) Separation of the Judiciary

4. Organisation of the Judiciary

a) Hierarchal Organisation of courts
a. Courts of First Instance
b. Intermediate courts of appeal
 c. High or supreme courts
b) Criminal and Civil Courts
c) Special Courts
d) Federal Courts
e) Single Judge vs Several Judges
5. Judicial Review
 Meaning
 Federalism and the Doctrine of Judicial Review
1) Spheres of State and Federal Authority
 Arguments for the Judicial Review and Control
1) Make centre and units stay within their respective spheres of power
2) Protect fundamental rights
3) Rigid constitution can be modified and extended by judicial interpretation
 Arguments Against Judicial Review
1) Violates principle of separation of powers
2) Gives veto power
3) Violates principle of sovereignty of legislature
6. Judiciary and Individual Liberty
1) Welfare of people is the supreme law
2) Officials usually deny liberty
7. The Rule of Law
 Meaning of Rule of Law
 Dicey’s analysis of rule of law
1) Supremacy of law
2) Equality before law
3) Ordinary law guarantees individual rights and liberty
 Limitations on rule of law
1) Growth of delegated legislation (skeleton laws)
2) Growth of Administrative Jurisdiction
3) Special Immunities of certain public officials
8. Administrative Law
 Its meanings:
 Origin and Organisation of the Administrative law and courts
 Arguments against Administrative law and courts
1. Tendency to protect officials
2. Judges are not independent
3. Opposition to rule of law
4. Judges cannot be impartial
5. Same body is prosecutor and judge
6. Law is indefinite and vague
 Arguments for Administrative law and courts
1. Promotes efficiency in the administration
2. Does not threaten individual liberty
3. Dispense justice in easy, inexpensive and speedy manner
 4. Criticism on principle of inequality of official and citizens not very
sound
5. It does not extend to all breaches of official duties (fault of
service/personal fault)
6. Mostly consists of precedents

Source: Mazharul Haq

Political Elites

Civil Military Bureaucracy. 

VIII. Forms of Government:

Monarchy
1. Introduction
 Monarch derived from latin word monarcha and greek word monarkhas,
mono means one/single and arkho means to rule.
 Single and at least nominally absolute ruler
 Currently, refers to traditional system of heredity as elective monarchies
are rare in modern world.
2. Forms of Monarchy
a. Absolute Monarchy
i. Form of autocracy
ii. Individual or group has absolute power
iii. Unlimited power of monarch
iv. Russia under Tzar and France under Louis XIV
b. Hereditary Monarchy
i. Office is passed through inheritance within a family group
ii. Kuwait and Saudia Arabia
c. Constitutional Monarchy
i. Monarch’s discretion is formally limited
ii. Not authorised to rule going beyond the constitution
iii. UK
d. Elective Monarchy
i. Monarchs are elected or appointed by some body for life or defined
period
ii. Holy Roman Emperor chosen by Prince Electors
 iii. Three elective monarchies exist today: Pope of Roman Catholic
Church (rules as sovereign of Vatican city state) elected by the
college of cardinals
3. Rule of Religion
a. In absolute monarchy, monarch sometimes linked to religious aspects
b. King of Saudi Arabia is head os state who is both the absolute monarch
and custodian of the two Holy Mosques
4. Criticism on Monarchy
a. No freedom of speech etc

Source: JWT

Democratic
1. Its meanings
2. Dimensions of Modern Democracy
a) Three historical developments: English parliamentary system, Great French
Revolution 1789 and the industrial revolution
b) Three types: Full democracies, semi-democracies, pseudo democracies
3. Kinds of democracy
1. Direct or Pure Democracy: Mass Assembly, Participatory Democracy
2. Indirect or Representative democracy: Small body of elected persons,
modern form of democracy
4. Three aspects of Democracy: Political, Econmic, Social Democracy
1. Political: Sovereignty of people, political rights, liberty, one vote, right to
stand for election, hold office etc
2. Economic: No class distinction, equal distribution of wealth
3. Social: Social Justice and Equality , No prejudice
5. Democratic Government, Democratic State and Democratic Society
1) Government: Controlled by and responsible to electorate, elected
representatives, majority rule, etc
2) State: Mode of appointing, controlling and dismissing a government,
adult franchise, political rights, civil liberties, free press etc
3) Society: No prejudices or distinctions

Note: Democratic government is not possible without democratic state but state is
possible without government

6. Tests of Democracy
1. Does the right of free expression of opinion and opposition exist?
2. Do people have right to change government?
3. Is there equality before law?
4. Are the rights of the individual assured and protected?
 5. Are there opportunities for the common man?
6. Are the people free from tenor?
7. Conditions for the success of democracy
1. Enlightened Citizenship
2. Character and Ability (Civic sense)
3. Vigilance
4. Tolerance and Responsibility
5. Education
6. Organisation and leadership
7. Fundamental Rights
8. Common Goals
8. Democratic Ideals
1. Faith in Common Man
2. Individual is the end and state is the means
3. Liberty and Equality: Rights of the Individual
4. Form of government where everyone has a share
5. Peace
9. Defects of Democracy
1. It is impracticable
2. It is the rule of ignorance
3. It is based on false principles
i. Votes are counted not weighed
ii. Government by amateurs
iii. Territorial representation
iv. Rule of majority, quantity but not quality
4. Good citizenship doesn’t exist anywhere
5. Enemy of liberty and good government
6. Hostile to cultural and scientific progress
7. Capitalistic and imperialistic
8. Unhealthy and corrupting influence of political parties
9. Not stable form of government
10. Weak in times of war and crisis
10. Merits of Democracy
1. Stands for welfare of people
2. Based on Equality
3. Upholds liberty and fraternity
4. Efficient form of government
5. Ensures stable government
6. Great Educative Value
7. Based on optimistic view of human nature
8. Not based on psychology of power or fear
11. Future of Democracy
 12. Dawn of Democracy the world over
13. Islamic concept of Democracy
14. Islam is a Democratic Religion
 Ijma, Ijtehad, Istihsan, Istilah all are highly democratic in nature

Source: Mazharul Haq

Dictatorship, Totalitarian/Authoritarian
1. Dictatorships: Ancient and Modern
1. Ancient: Greek Tyrant by force, Roman dictator with consent of Roman
Senate
2. Modern: Coup détat or revolution (resemblance to greek tyrant)
2. Rise of Modern Dictatorships
1. Successful military man or strong party leader
2. Secures popular support by strong government and plebiscite against law and
constitution
3. Modern dictatorships can be classified into three distinct types
1. Communist: Abolishes religion altogether (Russia in 1917)
2. Nationalist: Separates politics from religion (Kemal Attaturk 1921 Turkey)
3. Fascist: Subordinates religion to state (Bennito Moussilini 1922 Italy)
4. Nazi Dictatorship
5. Monarchical Dictatorship
4. Main features of dictatorships
1. Crisis Product
2. Arbitrary exercise of power
3. Aggressive and dynamic methods of decision making
4. Employment of despotic methods of political and social control
5. Abolition of constitutional and legal basis of political power
5. Organisation of Dictatorship or Totalitarianism
1. By one man or one party with supreme power
2. See point 3
6. Defects of Dictatorship
1. Regards the state as the end and the individual as the means
2. Based on force and violence and not on discussion and argument
3. Leads to apathy in public life
4. Spreads war and aggression
5. Not a permanent institution
7. Merits of Dictatorship
1. Makes government strong
2. Efficient and Prompt administration

Source: Mazharul Haq

 Unitary, Federal, Confederation

UNITARY STATE
1. What is a unitary state
a. Supreme governmental authority vested by constitution in a single
central government
b. For administrative convenience, country divided into province or
departments with their own local administrative bodies, powers are only
those delegated by central government, local governments have no
autonomy
2. Merits
a. Strength and vigour
b. Control over local administrators enables them to deal effectively and
vigorously with all questions internal and foreign
c. Especially manifested in foreign policy and national defence
d. Uniformity of laws, policy and administration throughout the country
e. Simple, saves money, less expensive
3. Demerits
a. Disregards local needs and interest
b. Concentration of power makes central government despotic
c. Subordinate position of local government deprives them of initiative
d. Suits small country
4. Example
a. England, France, Italy, Iran

FEDERAL STATE

1. Definition
a. Supreme powers distributed by the constitution between central
government and government of federating units
b. Dual government, association of states forming a new one
c. Federal and constituent government
d. Government of federating unit not subordinate to central government
2. Nature
a. Local Autonomy
b. Formal distribution of sovereign powers between the federal government
at the centre and the governments of the federating units
c. Federal Constitution reconciles claim of national sovereignty and state
sovereignty
d. Union of governments
i. Two sets of government: federal and federating governments
 ii. Common interest/national importance matters given to central
government, local matters entrusted to local governments
iii. Union rather than unity, dual government, own separate and
autonomous existence
iv. States which federate into a union lose their former sovereignty
v. Written constitution
vi. Constitution provides the process of amending the constitution
vii. Permanent union, different from confederation (loose and limited
union of state) and alliances of sovereign states (NATO etc)
3. Origin of Federal States
a. Integration (Centripetal forces): USA, Switzerland, Australia
b. Decentralisation (Centrifugal forces): India, Pakistan, Soviet Unions
4. Essential Conditions of Federation
a. Geographical Contiguity (Should be near each other)
b. Desire for Union
c. Desire for local independence
d. Common economic interests
e. Community of cultural and other interests (nation)
f. Equality among component units (through senate, principle of parity)
g. Political Ability and Legalism (legalism is general willingness to accept the
decisions of law courts)
5. Sallient Features of a federation
a. Supremacy of the constitution
i. Written constitution
ii. Rigid Constitution
iii. Sovereignty of the amending authority
b. Distribution of powers (between central and federating governments)
i. Basic principle of distribution: national importance to
national/central government, regional importance to units, 3 usually
given to centre that are military and defence matters and foreign
relations
ii. Concurrent powers: legislation required by both central and
provincial legislatures
iii. Three methods of distributing the residuary powers
1. Enumerate powers of federal government and leave the rest
to component units called residuary powers or reserve
powers
2. Enumerate powers of the component units and leave the rest
to the federal government (strong centre)
3. Enumerate powers in 3 separate lists of federal, provincial
and concurrent powers.
c. Supremacy of the Judiciary
 d. Bicameral Legislature
6. Problems of Fedralism
a. Satisfactory distribution of powers
b. Protection of the smaller units against dominance by the larger
c. Organisation of the relations between the centre and the units
d. Satisfactory method of amendment
e. Secession
7. Merits of Federation
a. Combines that merits of unity with diversity
b. Experimentation is possible
c. Creates new states by peaceful incorporation and voluntary union
d. Brings strength, progress and prosperity to small states
e. Lessens danger of international wars and enhances prestige of the federal
state
f. Suits large state with great territory or small state with great diversity
g. Prevents despotic tendencies in a government
h. Means local or self-government on a large scale
i. More suitable for modern society than the unitary state
j. Only way by which whole world can be united into a single state
8. Disadvantages of Federation
a. Source of weakness for the state (duality of government results in
conflict)
b. Prevents uniformity of law and policy for the whole state
c. Distribution of powers cannot be perfect for all times (locally important
matter today may become matter of national importance tomorrow)
d. Rigidity of the federal constitution is an obstacle to the harmony and
progress of the federal state
e. Obstacle to the conduct of a vigorous foreign and home policy
f. Expensive and uneconomic
g. Exposed to the danger of secession
9. Future of Federation

CONFEDERATION
1. Definition
a. Group of association of two or more sovereign states which have
permanently given up part of their liberty for some specific aims and
objectives, such as defence.
b. Stronger than an alliance but weaker than a federal union
c. Union of states
2. Federation and confederation contrasted
a. Confederation is a league of sovereign states while a federation is a single
sovereign state
 b. Confederation is based on contract, federation on constitution
c. A confederation has no central government
d. In a confederation, citizens of confederate states retain their citizenship
while in federation people become citizens of that state

Source: Mazharul Haq

Presidential and Parliamentary

CABINET OR PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT

1. Its Nature
1. Legislative and executive organs closely connected are interdependent
2. Two executives: titular head and real executive
3. Responsible government
2. Its organisation
1. King/president
2. Prime minister
3. Cabinet/council of ministers
4. Parliament
3. Merits of Parliamentary Government
1. Secures harmony between the executive and the legislature
2. Ensures responsibility and checks autocracy
3. Has flexibility and elasticity in times of crisis
4. Governed by the able men
5. It has great educative value
4. Defects of Parliamentary Government
1. Causes too frequent ministerial changes and leads to instability of
governments
2. Too largely a system of party government
3. Leads to cabinet dictatorship
4. Government by amateurs
5. Cabinets are constantly growing in size

PRESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT

1. Its Nature
1. Executive and legislature are distinctly separate, namely the president and
the congress
2. Executive organ head president, not responsible to legislature or congress
3. Separation of powers
 2. Its organisation
1. President
2. His Ministers
3. The congress
3. Merits of Presidential Government
1. Secures stable government
2. Ensures continuity of policy
3. Ensures certainty of policy
4. Can avail services of the experts and is free from party spirit
4. Demerits of Presidential Government
1. It is based on wrong principles
2. It encourages autocracy
3. It is rigid
4. Leads to conflict between executive and the legislature
5. Leaves too much to the president
6. It produces rivalry among departments

IX. Political Ideologies: Capitalism, Marxism, Communism, Socialism,

Totalitarism, Fascims, Nationalism, Islamic Political Ideology

X. Local Self Government: Theory and practice of Local Self-Government with

special reference to Pakistan, Comparative analyses of systems of local
governance, Public Administration and Public Policy