POLITICAL THEORY (MPS-001)

SECTION- I

1. Trace the evolution of political theory.

Ans- Tracing the Evolution of Political Theory

Political theory, the study of ideas and concepts about politics, governance, and the state, has
evolved significantly over millennia. Its development can be divided into several key stages, each
reflecting the intellectual and social context of its time.

1. Ancient Political Thought: The roots of political theory can be traced back to ancient civilizations.
In classical Greece, thinkers like Plato and Aristotle laid foundational concepts. Plato’s “Republic”
envisioned an ideal state governed by philosopher-kings, emphasizing justice and the role of the
ruling class. Aristotle, in contrast, analyzed existing Greek city-states and developed the notion of
“political science,” categorizing different forms of government—monarchy, aristocracy, and polity—
while advocating for a mixed constitution.

2. Roman Contributions: Roman political theory further expanded the field. Cicero, a key Roman
thinker, introduced the idea of natural law and the importance of moral integrity in politics. His
works on the republic and the duties of citizens influenced later political thought, emphasizing a
mixed constitution that combined elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy.

3. Medieval Political Theory: The Middle Ages saw the integration of classical ideas with religious
thought. St. Augustine’s “City of God” addressed the relationship between the divine and the
temporal, asserting that true justice and governance are rooted in divine will. Later, St. Thomas
Aquinas adapted Aristotelian philosophy to Christian theology, articulating a vision of a just society
grounded in natural law and the moral order of the universe.

4. Renaissance and Early Modern Political Theory: The Renaissance revived classical ideas and
introduced new perspectives. Niccolò Machiavelli’s “The Prince” marked a shift towards realism,
focusing on pragmatic aspects of power politics and statecraft. His work challenged the idealism of
earlier theories by emphasizing the often harsh realities of political life.

5. Enlightenment Political Theory: The Enlightenment era, with its emphasis on reason and
individual rights, brought significant advancements in political theory. John Locke argued for the
protection of natural rights—life, liberty, and property—and the concept of government as a social
contract. Montesquieu’s “The Spirit of the Laws” introduced the separation of powers, which
profoundly influenced modern democratic structures. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social Contract”
emphasized popular sovereignty and the general will, advocating for a political system based on
collective participation.

6. Modern Political Theory: The 19th and 20th centuries saw the emergence of diverse and
sometimes conflicting theories. Karl Marx’s critique of capitalism in “The Communist Manifesto” and
“Das Kapital” introduced a historical and materialist perspective, focusing on class struggle and
economic structures. In contrast, John Stuart Mill’s liberalism advocated for individual freedom and
representative democracy. The 20th century also witnessed the development of various critical
theories, including feminist theory and post-colonialism, which challenged traditional narratives and
explored power dynamics from new angles.

7. Contemporary Political Theory: In contemporary times, political theory continues to evolve,

addressing global challenges and new paradigms. Issues such as globalization, environmentalism, and
digital technology are reshaping political discourse. Theories now frequently engage with concepts of
justice, human rights, and the implications of modern governance structures in a highly
interconnected world.

Conclusion: The evolution of political theory reflects humanity’s ongoing quest to understand and
improve political life. From the philosophical inquiries of ancient Greece to the complex, global
considerations of today, political theory has continually adapted to address the changing nature of
societies and their governance. This dynamic field remains crucial for analyzing and shaping the
political landscape of the future.

2. Examine Procedural and Substantive democracy.

Ans- Examining Procedural and Substantive Democracy

Democracy, as a system of governance, is often discussed in terms of its procedural and substantive
aspects. These two dimensions provide a comprehensive understanding of democratic principles and
practices, each addressing different facets of democratic governance.

1. Procedural Democracy:

Procedural democracy, also known as minimal or formal democracy, emphasizes the processes and
mechanisms through which democratic governance is implemented. It focuses on the structures and
procedures that ensure democratic legitimacy and participation. Key elements of procedural
democracy include:

 Free and Fair Elections: Procedural democracy requires regular, competitive elections where
all eligible citizens can vote without coercion or discrimination. The integrity of these
elections is crucial for ensuring that political leaders are chosen based on the will of the
people.

 Rule of Law: In a procedural democracy, laws must be applied uniformly and impartially. This
ensures that all individuals, including government officials, are subject to the same legal
standards, which helps prevent abuses of power and maintains legal predictability.

 Political Participation: Procedural democracy mandates mechanisms for political

engagement, such as the right to vote, run for office, and participate in political parties. This
inclusion of diverse voices is essential for reflecting the will of the populace in governance.

 Checks and Balances: A key feature of procedural democracy is the separation of powers
among different branches of government—executive, legislative, and judicial. This system of
checks and balances is designed to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful and
to ensure accountability.

Procedural democracy is foundational for any democratic system, providing the framework and rules
that enable democratic practices. However, it focuses on the "how" of democracy rather than the
"what" it achieves.

2. Substantive Democracy:

Substantive democracy, on the other hand, concerns itself with the outcomes and quality of
democracy rather than just the procedures. It is concerned with the extent to which democratic
processes lead to equitable and just outcomes. Key aspects of substantive democracy include:
  Social Justice: Substantive democracy emphasizes the need for democratic processes to
result in fair and just social outcomes. This includes addressing economic inequalities,
ensuring that marginalized groups have equal opportunities, and promoting social welfare.

 Human Rights: A substantive democratic system must protect and promote fundamental
human rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press.
These rights ensure that democratic processes lead to meaningful participation and respect
for individual dignity.

 Responsive Governance: Substantive democracy requires that elected officials and

institutions not only adhere to democratic procedures but also respond effectively to the
needs and preferences of the populace. This involves addressing societal issues,
implementing policies that reflect public interests, and being accountable to citizens.

 Effective Representation: In a substantive democracy, representation should go beyond

mere electoral participation. It should ensure that all groups, including minorities and
disadvantaged communities, have a voice in decision-making processes and that their
interests are considered in policy formulations.

Comparing Procedural and Substantive Democracy:

While procedural democracy is crucial for establishing the legitimacy of democratic institutions, it
does not guarantee that democratic processes will produce just or equitable outcomes. Procedural
democracy ensures the framework for participation and governance, but substantive democracy
evaluates the effectiveness of this framework in achieving real-world justice and inclusivity.

Both dimensions are interdependent. Procedural democracy provides the necessary structure for
democratic governance, while substantive democracy ensures that this governance delivers
meaningful benefits and upholds democratic values. A robust democracy must address both
procedural integrity and substantive outcomes to achieve true democratic governance.

Conclusion:

In essence, procedural and substantive democracy represent two vital aspects of democratic theory
and practice. Procedural democracy focuses on the mechanics of democratic processes, while
substantive democracy assesses the quality and effectiveness of these processes in achieving
equitable and just outcomes. Together, they provide a holistic view of what constitutes a functioning
and meaningful democracy.

4. Elaborate upon negative liberty.

Ans- Elaborating Upon Negative Liberty

Negative liberty is a concept in political theory and philosophy that emphasizes freedom from
external constraints and interference. Rooted in classical liberal thought, it is often contrasted with
positive liberty, which focuses on the capacity to act upon one’s free will. To understand negative
liberty comprehensively, it is essential to delve into its origins, definitions, key proponents, and
implications.

1. Definition and Origins:

Negative liberty refers to the absence of external constraints or coercion, allowing individuals to act
according to their own will. It is defined by what one is free from, rather than what one is free to do.
This concept was notably articulated by philosopher Isaiah Berlin in his essay "Two Concepts of
Liberty" (1958), where he distinguished between negative and positive liberty.

Berlin defined negative liberty as “freedom from interference by other people,” stressing that an
individual's liberty is maximized when they are free from external restrictions. This perspective is
rooted in classical liberalism and the Enlightenment tradition, which emphasized individual
autonomy and limited government intervention.

2. Key Proponents and Theoretical Framework:

The concept of negative liberty is closely associated with classical liberal thinkers such as John Stuart
Mill, John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes. Each of these philosophers contributed to the development
and articulation of negative liberty in various ways:

 John Stuart Mill: In his work "On Liberty" (1859), Mill argued for the protection of individual
freedoms against societal and governmental interference. He posited that individuals should
have the freedom to pursue their own paths as long as their actions do not harm others,
encapsulating the essence of negative liberty.

 John Locke: Locke’s theories on natural rights and the social contract laid the groundwork for
negative liberty. He believed that individuals possess natural rights to life, liberty, and
property, which governments must protect. The legitimacy of government, according to
Locke, depends on its role in safeguarding these rights rather than infringing upon them.

 Thomas Hobbes: In his work "Leviathan" (1651), Hobbes discussed the need for a social
contract to escape the "state of nature," where individuals’ freedoms are constrained by the
dangers of living without societal order. While Hobbes’s view of liberty is more complex and
involves submission to a sovereign authority, his ideas contribute to the discourse on
negative liberty by highlighting the importance of security in enabling freedom.

3. Implications and Criticisms:

Negative liberty has several implications for political theory and practice:

 Limited Government: A key implication of negative liberty is the advocacy for minimal
government intervention in individual lives. Proponents argue that a government should only
intervene to prevent harm to others, protecting individuals from coercion and ensuring their
freedom to make personal choices.

 Autonomy and Individualism: Negative liberty underscores the importance of personal

autonomy and individualism. It values personal choice and self-determination, emphasizing
that freedom is best preserved when individuals are free from external constraints.

However, negative liberty is not without criticisms:

 Social Inequality: Critics argue that a strict focus on negative liberty can overlook social and
economic inequalities that limit individuals’ effective freedom. For example, while individuals
may be free from legal constraints, they may still face barriers due to poverty or lack of
access to resources, which can impede their ability to exercise their freedoms meaningfully.

 Positive Liberty Concerns: Some critics assert that negative liberty alone does not address
the need for positive conditions that enable individuals to exercise their freedoms. They
 argue that positive liberty—ensuring that individuals have the actual capacity and resources
to pursue their goals—is also crucial for a comprehensive understanding of freedom.

Conclusion:

Negative liberty provides a fundamental perspective on individual freedom, emphasizing the

importance of freedom from external constraints and interference. By advocating for limited
government and personal autonomy, it has played a significant role in shaping classical liberal
thought and modern political theory. However, it is essential to consider its limitations and
complement it with a focus on positive liberty to address social inequalities and ensure that all
individuals can effectively exercise their freedoms. This balanced approach offers a more nuanced
understanding of liberty in contemporary political discourse.

SECTION- II

6. (a) John Rawl’s critique of Utilitarianism

John Rawls’s Critique of Utilitarianism

John Rawls, in his seminal work A Theory of Justice (1971), offers a robust critique of Utilitarianism, a
dominant moral theory advocating for actions that maximize overall happiness or utility. Rawls’s
critique focuses on three primary concerns: individual rights, distributive justice, and the principles
of fairness.

1. Individual Rights and Justice: Rawls argues that Utilitarianism, by prioritizing the greatest
happiness for the greatest number, can justify sacrificing individual rights for the sake of collective
well-being. He contends that this approach is morally flawed because it allows for the infringement
of individual rights if doing so benefits the majority. For example, Utilitarianism might permit the
exploitation of a minority if it results in a greater overall benefit, which Rawls views as unjust.

2. Distributive Justice: Rawls introduces the concept of justice as fairness, contrasting it with
Utilitarianism’s focus on aggregate welfare. He proposes that justice should be concerned with how
benefits and burdens are distributed among individuals, not merely with maximizing total happiness.
His theory is grounded in the idea of the "original position," where individuals choose principles of
justice behind a "veil of ignorance," unaware of their own social positions. This ensures impartiality
and fairness in the distribution of resources and opportunities.

3. The Difference Principle: Rawls's Difference Principle allows for inequalities only if they benefit the
least advantaged members of society. Unlike Utilitarianism, which might tolerate significant
inequalities if they maximize total utility, Rawls’s approach ensures that any inequalities work to
improve the situation of the worst-off, aligning justice with fairness.

In summary, Rawls critiques Utilitarianism for its potential to overlook individual rights and fairness,
proposing an alternative framework that prioritizes equitable treatment and the well-being of the
least advantaged.
6. (b) Significance of duty

Significance of Duty in Political Theory

Duty, a core concept in political theory, underscores the obligations individuals have towards others
and society. Its significance can be understood through its roles in ethical governance, social
cohesion, and democratic participation.

1. Ethical Governance: Duty plays a crucial role in guiding the conduct of public officials and leaders.
Ethical governance relies on the notion that leaders have a duty to act in the public interest, uphold
justice, and adhere to moral principles. This ensures that political decisions are made with integrity
and accountability, fostering trust in political institutions.

2. Social Cohesion: In a democratic society, the concept of duty extends to the responsibilities
individuals have towards their community. This includes fulfilling civic duties such as voting, paying
taxes, and obeying laws. By performing these duties, individuals contribute to social stability and the
common good, reinforcing the idea that democracy requires active participation and engagement
from its citizens.

3. Moral Responsibility: Duty is also integral to moral philosophy, influencing how individuals
navigate ethical dilemmas. The idea that individuals have moral obligations to others, based on
principles of fairness, respect, and reciprocity, helps in formulating ethical standards and norms. This
perspective is reflected in the works of philosophers like Immanuel Kant, who emphasized the
importance of duty in ethical decision-making, asserting that actions should be guided by universal
moral laws.

In summary, the significance of duty in political theory lies in its ability to guide ethical behavior,
promote civic engagement, and ensure the moral responsibility of individuals and leaders. It is
foundational for both personal integrity and the functioning of democratic societies.

9. (a) Welfare state

Welfare State

A welfare state is a form of government in which the state plays a key role in protecting and
promoting the economic and social well-being of its citizens. This model aims to provide a safety net
and reduce social inequalities through various programs and policies.

1. Core Functions: The welfare state is characterized by its commitment to social justice and the
provision of basic needs. It typically involves:

 Social Security: Providing financial support through pensions, unemployment benefits, and
disability allowances to ensure citizens’ economic stability.

 Healthcare: Offering universal or subsidized healthcare services to ensure access to medical

care for all, regardless of income.

 Education: Funding public education to provide equal opportunities for all individuals and
reduce educational disparities.

 Housing and Welfare Services: Supporting affordable housing initiatives and social services to
assist those in need.
2. Theoretical Foundations: The concept of the welfare state is rooted in the idea that government
intervention is necessary to address market failures and social injustices. Thinkers like John Maynard
Keynes advocated for state involvement in economic and social welfare to stabilize the economy and
improve living standards. The welfare state aims to balance individual freedoms with collective
responsibility, ensuring that economic prosperity benefits everyone.

3. Variations and Challenges: Different countries implement welfare state policies to varying degrees,
influenced by political ideologies and economic conditions. While the welfare state can enhance
social equity and reduce poverty, it faces challenges such as fiscal sustainability, the potential for
dependency, and balancing state intervention with individual freedom.

In summary, the welfare state is significant for its role in providing essential services, reducing
inequalities, and promoting social welfare, reflecting a commitment to a more inclusive and
equitable society.

9. (b) Libertarianism

Libertarianism

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that prioritizes individual liberty, minimal government

intervention, and free markets. It advocates for the protection of personal freedoms and property
rights while minimizing the role of the state.

1. Core Principles: Libertarianism is grounded in the belief that individuals should have the maximum
freedom to pursue their own lives, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. Key
principles include:

 Individual Autonomy: Libertarians argue that individuals are the best judges of their own
interests and should be free to make their own choices in personal and economic matters.

 Limited Government: The state’s role, according to libertarians, should be restricted to

protecting individual rights, such as enforcing contracts and ensuring national defense.
Beyond these functions, government intervention is seen as intrusive and counterproductive.

 Free Markets: Libertarians advocate for a capitalist economy with minimal regulation,
arguing that free markets lead to greater innovation, efficiency, and prosperity. They believe
that market forces, rather than government control, should determine economic outcomes.

2. Philosophical Roots: Libertarianism draws on classical liberal traditions, influenced by thinkers like
John Locke, who emphasized natural rights and limited government, and more contemporary figures
such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, who championed free-market economics.

3. Criticisms and Variations: Critics argue that libertarianism can lead to significant social inequalities
and inadequate provision of public goods. Variations within libertarianism include anarcho-
capitalism, which advocates for the elimination of the state altogether, and minarchism, which
supports a minimal state with essential functions.

In summary, libertarianism is a philosophy that emphasizes personal freedom, minimal government,

and free-market capitalism, advocating for a society where individuals can freely pursue their own
goals with limited state interference.
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: THEORY AND PROBLEMS (MPS-002)

SECTION- I

3. Explain the main assumptions of liberalism. How is it different from Realism?

Ans- Main Assumptions of Liberalism and Its Differences from Realism

1. Main Assumptions of Liberalism:

Liberalism is a prominent political and economic theory that emphasizes individual freedoms,
democratic governance, and the potential for cooperation in international relations. Its main
assumptions can be summarized as follows:

a. Individual Rights and Freedom: At the core of liberalism is the belief in the inherent rights and
freedoms of individuals. Liberalism posits that individuals possess natural rights—such as life, liberty,
and property—that should be protected by government. This principle underpins the advocacy for
democratic institutions and legal frameworks that safeguard personal liberties and equality.

b. Democracy and Rule of Law: Liberalism assumes that democratic governance is the best means of
ensuring individual freedom and political equality. It supports representative democracy, where
elected officials are accountable to the people and governed by the rule of law. The rule of law
ensures that laws are applied equally and fairly, preventing arbitrary power.

c. Market Economy: Economic liberalism advocates for free-market capitalism, emphasizing minimal
government intervention in the economy. It argues that individuals and businesses should have the
freedom to engage in economic activities, believing that market competition leads to innovation,
efficiency, and overall prosperity.

d. International Cooperation: Liberalism also extends to international relations, where it assumes

that states and other international actors can cooperate and achieve mutual benefits through
institutions and agreements. It posits that international organizations, such as the United Nations,
can help resolve conflicts and promote peace through dialogue and cooperation.

2. Differences from Realism:

While liberalism focuses on cooperation and individual rights, realism presents a contrasting view of
international relations. The main differences between liberalism and realism are as follows:

a. View of Human Nature:

 Liberalism: Liberalism generally holds an optimistic view of human nature, believing in the
potential for individuals and states to act cooperatively and morally. It assumes that human
beings are capable of reason and ethical behavior, which can be institutionalized to achieve
collective goals.

 Realism: Realism adopts a more pessimistic view, asserting that human nature is driven by
self-interest and power. Realists argue that states act primarily to enhance their own security
and power, often at the expense of others.

b. State Behavior and International Relations:

 Liberalism: Liberalism views international relations as a realm where cooperation is possible

and beneficial. It emphasizes the role of international institutions, norms, and
interdependence in mitigating conflicts and fostering collaboration. Liberals believe that
 states can work together to address global issues such as trade, environmental challenges,
and human rights.

 Realism: Realism, in contrast, views international relations as a competitive and anarchic

environment where states prioritize their own national interests and security. Realists argue
that the absence of a central authority leads to a “self-help” system, where states are
primarily concerned with their own survival and power.

c. Role of International Institutions:

 Liberalism: Liberalism supports the creation and strengthening of international institutions

and laws to promote order and cooperation. Institutions like the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) and World Trade Organization (WTO) are seen as essential for managing
international relations and resolving disputes.

 Realism: Realism is skeptical of the efficacy of international institutions, viewing them as

tools for powerful states to advance their interests. Realists argue that institutions have
limited influence and that states’ actions are ultimately driven by power dynamics rather
than legal norms.

d. Approach to Conflict:

 Liberalism: Liberals believe that conflict can be mitigated through diplomacy, international
agreements, and economic interdependence. They argue that increasing cooperation and
mutual interests can reduce the likelihood of war.

 Realism: Realists view conflict as an inherent aspect of international politics, driven by

competing national interests and power struggles. They emphasize the importance of
military strength and strategic calculations in maintaining security.

Conclusion:

In summary, liberalism is characterized by its focus on individual rights, democratic governance, free-
market economics, and international cooperation. It contrasts sharply with realism, which
emphasizes self-interest, power politics, and the anarchic nature of international relations. While
liberalism envisions a world where cooperation and institutions can foster peace and prosperity,
realism underscores the persistent competition and conflict inherent in global politics.

1. What is International Relation? Explain the differences among International Relations,

International Politics and Global Politics.

Ans- What is International Relations?

International Relations (IR) is an academic discipline that studies the interactions between states and
other actors on the global stage. It seeks to understand the behavior of countries, the nature of their
interactions, and the factors influencing global events. IR encompasses a wide range of topics,
including diplomacy, conflict, trade, international organizations, and human rights. Its primary goal is
to analyze and explain how states and non-state actors navigate the complexities of the international
system, and to offer insights into improving international cooperation and resolving conflicts.

Differences Among International Relations, International Politics, and Global Politics

1. International Relations:

International Relations is a broad field of study that covers the interactions between states and non-
state actors, such as international organizations, multinational corporations, and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs). It examines how these actors engage with one another in various areas,
including diplomacy, security, trade, and human rights. IR theories, such as realism, liberalism, and
constructivism, provide frameworks for understanding these interactions.

 Scope: IR encompasses both theoretical and practical aspects of international interactions,

aiming to explain and predict state behavior and the dynamics of the international system.

 Focus: The focus is on the relationships and processes between countries and other
international actors, including institutions and norms that influence global affairs.

2. International Politics:

International Politics refers specifically to the political relationships and power dynamics among
states. It is a subfield within IR that concentrates on how states pursue their national interests, the
influence of power on international relations, and the strategies employed in diplomacy and conflict.

 Scope: The focus is narrower than IR, dealing primarily with political power, statecraft, and
diplomatic interactions between countries.

 Focus: International Politics is concerned with issues such as balance of power, security
dilemmas, and geopolitical strategies. It often emphasizes the role of power and national
interest in shaping state behavior and international outcomes.

3. Global Politics:

Global Politics is a broader concept that extends beyond the interactions of states to include global
issues and challenges that affect the entire world. It incorporates various dimensions of global affairs,
such as environmental concerns, global economic systems, and transnational social movements.

 Scope: Global Politics encompasses a wider array of issues that cross national boundaries
and require collective action. It includes non-state actors, global institutions, and issues that
impact the global community as a whole.

 Focus: The focus is on global challenges and opportunities that transcend individual state
interests, such as climate change, global health, and international human rights. It often
emphasizes the interconnectedness of global issues and the need for international
cooperation to address them.

Summary of Differences:

 International Relations is the broad study of interactions between states and other actors in
the international system, incorporating various theories and perspectives to understand
global dynamics.

 International Politics focuses specifically on the political and strategic relationships between
states, emphasizing power, diplomacy, and state interests.

 Global Politics addresses a wider range of global issues that involve multiple actors and
transcend national borders, highlighting the need for collective action on transnational
challenges.
In conclusion, while International Relations provides a comprehensive framework for studying global
interactions, International Politics narrows in on the political strategies and power dynamics between
states. Global Politics, meanwhile, encompasses the broader spectrum of global issues requiring
international cooperation. Each concept offers a unique lens through which to analyze and
understand the complexities of the world stage.

2. Bring out the key arguments of the dependency approach in International Relations.

Ans-