Political

sciences
paper 01 (pms
Punjab)
 Part B: state and individual
Welfare states perception:

1. Western concept of welfare state

The Western concept of a welfare state revolves around the idea of collective responsibility for
individual well-being. Here’s a breakdown of its core principles:

• Government as a safety net: The state assumes an active role in ensuring a minimum
standard of living for its citizens. This translates to providing essential services and
financial assistance to those in need.
• Social Insurance & Benefits: Programs like unemployment benefits, pensions, and
healthcare are implemented. These are funded through taxes and aim to offer a buffer
against economic hardship, illness, and old age.
• Equality of Opportunity: The focus is on creating a level playing field where everyone
has a fair shot at social mobility and a decent life. This often involves measures like
subsidized education and accessible healthcare.
• Social Responsibility: Society, through the government, acknowledges a shared
responsibility for the well-being of its members. This fosters a sense of collective support
and reduces poverty and inequality.

Evolution of the Welfare State:

• Roots in Charity: Prior to the 20th century, support for the underprivileged came
primarily from charity.
• Industrial Revolution & Social Change: The rise of factories and urbanization led to
harsher living conditions for the working class. This spurred demands for social reforms
and government intervention.
• 20th Century Developments: Following major events like World War I and the Great
Depression, the concept of social security gained traction. Welfare programs became
widespread, aiming to prevent destitution and offer a safety net.
Important to Note:

• The extent of welfare provisions varies considerably across Western nations.

 • Debates exist regarding the balance between individual responsibility and state
intervention.
• The welfare state is constantly evolving, adapting to economic realities and societal
demands.

Overall, the Western concept of a welfare state strives to combine a market economy with
social safety nets. It aims to ensure a basic level of well-being for all citizens, fostering a
more equitable and just society.

2. Islamic concept of welfare state

The concept of a welfare state in Islam emphasizes social responsibility and ensuring the well-
being of all citizens. Here are its key aspects:

Foundational Principles:

Rooted in the Quran and Sunnah (teachings of Prophet Muhammad), it prioritizes:

• Sovereignty of God: Leadership serves the people as a trust from God.

• Social Justice: Aims to eliminate poverty and create a society free from exploitation.
• Equality: All citizens, regardless of background, deserve access to basic necessities.

Core Tenets:

• Fulfilling Basic Needs: The state strives to guarantee essentials like food, shelter,
healthcare, and education.
• Zakat: A mandatory wealth purification ritual ensures wealth distribution to the needy.
• Individual Charity: Muslims are encouraged to give voluntary charity (Sadaqah)
beyond Zakat.
• Social Solidarity: Community support for orphans, widows, and the elderly is highly
encouraged.
Focus Beyond Material Well-being:

Spiritual Upliftment:

• The aim is not just material security but also fostering a moral and ethical society.

Key Differences from Modern Welfare States:

• Source of Funding: Islamic approach relies on Zakat, Sadaqah, and responsible

economic policies, while modern systems often involve taxation.
• Holistic Approach: Islam emphasizes individual responsibility and building a society
based on Islamic values.
Important to Note:

• The concept is considered an ideal to strive towards.

• Implementation has varied throughout Islamic history.

Here’s a point to consider:

• Debates Exist: Scholars debate the extent of state intervention in wealth redistribution.
• Some argue for a minimal role, focusing on facilitating a just economic system that
allows individuals to fulfill their Zakat obligations.

Overall, the Islamic concept of a welfare state emphasizes social responsibility, aiming for a
society where everyone has the opportunity to thrive both materially and spiritually.

Basic concepts:
1. Sovereignty:
Sovereignty: Supreme Power and Autonomy

Sovereignty is a cornerstone concept in political theory and international law. It signifies the
supreme authority a state possesses within its territory and its independence from external
control.

Definition:

• Supreme Power: Sovereignty entails holding the ultimate authority over a nation or
state. This grants a state the power to make and enforce laws, manage its internal affairs,
and maintain order within its borders.
• Freedom from External Control: A sovereign state enjoys autonomy in its decision-
making and international relations. Ideally, external forces shouldn’t dictate its internal
political structure or actions.

Types of Sovereignty:

Sovereignty can be categorized in two ways:

• Internal Sovereignty: This refers to the supreme power exercised by the government
within a state. It focuses on how the state establishes its authority, enforces laws, and
maintains order. A strong internal sovereignty ensures a legitimate and functioning
government.
• External Sovereignty: This emphasizes the state’s independence in the international
arena. It implies freedom from external control over its political system, military, and
foreign policy.
Attributions of Sovereignty:

Sovereignty comes with certain attributions:

• Making and enforcing laws: The sovereign authority establishes legal frameworks and
possesses the power to enforce them.
• Taxation: The state levies taxes to fund its operations and maintain public services.
• Defense: A sovereign state has the right and responsibility to defend its territory and
citizens.
• International relations: Sovereign states can establish diplomatic ties with other
countries, negotiate treaties, and engage in international trade.

Ideal vs. Reality:

While the concept of absolute sovereignty suggests complete independence, the globalized world
presents complexities. International organizations, economic interdependence, and external
interventions can challenge a state’s absolute control.

Popular Sovereignty:

The concept has evolved to incorporate the idea that sovereignty ultimately resides with the
people. This means the government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.

Sovereignty remains a dynamic notion. Understanding its different aspects is crucial in

comprehending how states function within the international system and the ongoing discourse
surrounding intervention and global cooperation.

2. Power distribution
Power distribution is a fundamental concept in political science that refers to the way political
power is divided and exercised within a society. It examines how authority is allocated and
checks and balances are established to prevent its abuse.

• Concentration vs. Dispersion: Power can be concentrated in the hands of a few

individuals or groups (e.g., absolute monarchy) or dispersed among various entities (e.g.,
democratic societies).
• Checks and Balances: A system of checks and balances ensures that no single entity
holds absolute power. This is often achieved through the separation of powers into
different branches of government (legislative, executive, judiciary) with specific
functions and the authority to limit each other’s actions.
 • Distribution of Authority: Power is also distributed among different levels of
government (e.g., federal, state, local) with varying degrees of autonomy and
responsibility.

Importance of Power Distribution:

• Prevents Tyranny: A dispersed power structure reduces the risk of a single entity
becoming overly powerful and dictatorial.
• Protects Individual Rights: When power is shared, it safeguards individual liberties and
prevents their infringement by a dominant force.
• Encourages Participation: A fair distribution of power fosters political participation and
engagement from various segments of society.

Examples of Power Distribution:

• Federalism: Power is divided between a national government and regional governments

(states/provinces).
• Separation of Powers: The government is divided into distinct branches (legislative,
executive, judiciary) with independent functions and the ability to check each other’s
actions.
• Decentralization: Power is delegated from the central government to local authorities.

Understanding power distribution is crucial for analyzing how political systems function and
how decisions are made. It shapes the distribution of resources, the level of political
participation, and the protection of individual rights within a society.

3. Law
Law is central to the concept of political science. It provides the framework for how a state
functions and ensures the peaceful coexistence of individuals within a society.
Here’s how law intertwines with political science:

• Maintaining Order: Law establishes a set of rules and regulations that govern behavior
and helps maintain stability within a society. These rules are enforced through a
recognized authority, like the court system, to ensure compliance.
• Distribution of Power: Law dictates how power is distributed within a political system.
It defines the roles and responsibilities of various government institutions and sets
limitations on their authority.
• Protecting Rights: Law safeguards the fundamental rights of citizens, including
freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. It ensures a level of fairness and equality for
all individuals.
 • Resolving Disputes: Law provides a mechanism for resolving conflicts between
individuals and the state, or between private entities. The court system acts as a neutral
arbiter to interpret laws and deliver judgments.

Political Science studies the law through various lenses:

• Constitutional Law: This branch examines the framework of a government, the

distribution of power among its different branches, and the relationship between the state
and its citizens.
• Administrative Law: This area focuses on the functioning of government agencies and
how they exercise their power. It ensures that these agencies operate within the legal
boundaries set by the legislature.
• International Law: This field deals with the legal principles governing relations
between sovereign states. It covers issues like trade agreements, treaties, and the laws of
war.

In conclusion, law serves as the foundation for a well-functioning political system. It establishes
the rules of the game, ensures order, protects individual rights, and provides a framework for
resolving disputes. Political science plays a vital role in analyzing how law shapes the political
landscape and how it can be effectively used to achieve societal goals.

4. Liberty
Liberty, in political science, refers to the state of being free within a society. This freedom
encompasses several key aspects:

• Absence of Oppressive Restrictions: Liberty stands against undue limitations imposed

by authorities on individuals’ way of life, conduct, or political views. This translates to
freedom from tyranny, arbitrary rule, or excessive control over personal choices.
Two Main Categories:

The concept of liberty can be broadly divided into two categories:

• Negative Liberty: This emphasizes freedom from external constraints. It focuses on the
absence of arbitrary interference by the state or other individuals in one’s life. Examples
include freedom of speech, religion, and assembly.
• Positive Liberty: This concept goes beyond mere absence of restrictions. It emphasizes
the ability of individuals to actively exercise their free will and pursue their goals. This
necessitates certain social and economic conditions that enable individuals to develop
their full potential. Examples include access to education, healthcare, and economic
opportunities.
Intertwined with Democracy:

A fundamental aspect of liberty is the link to democratic principles. This includes:

• Political Participation: The right to vote, hold public office, and participate in the
political process is crucial for ensuring individual agency in shaping the government and
society.
• Balance with Order: While liberty is essential, it coexists with the need for a well-
functioning society. Laws and regulations are necessary to maintain order, protect
individual rights, and promote the common good. Striking a balance between individual
freedom and societal well-being is a constant challenge in political systems.

Further Points:

• Historical Context: The understanding of liberty has evolved over time. Thinkers like
John Locke emphasized individual rights and limited government intervention.
• Economic Dimension: Modern political discourse increasingly recognizes the role of
economic factors in achieving liberty. Freedom from poverty and access to opportunities
are seen as crucial aspects of individual freedom.

In conclusion, liberty is a cornerstone of political science. It represents the ideal state where
individuals can exercise their free will within a framework that protects individual rights and
promotes societal well-being. Understanding the different facets of liberty and the need to
balance individual freedoms with social responsibility remains a central theme in political
discourse.

5. Equality
Equality in political science is a cornerstone principle aiming to achieve a just and balanced
society. It transcends a mere state of being identical and delves into two crucial aspects:
1. Moral Equality:
• Core Idea: This dimension emphasizes the inherent worth and dignity possessed by all
individuals irrespective of their background factors like race, gender, religion, or
socioeconomic status.
• Implication: Every person deserves equal respect and consideration. This forms the
foundation for concepts like universal human rights and stands against practices that
demean or discriminate against individuals based solely on these factors.

2. Equality of Opportunity:
 • Focus: This aspect centers around creating a level playing field where everyone has a fair
shot at achieving their full potential in life.
• Encompasses: Equal access to fundamental rights: This includes the right to education,
healthcare, and basic necessities.
• Fair legal system: The law should apply uniformly, ensuring everyone receives equal
treatment under the judicial system.
• Political participation: Individuals should have an equal opportunity to participate in the
political process, including voting rights and the ability to hold public office.

Types of Equality:

• Political Equality: Guarantees equal political rights like the right to vote and participate
in the government. This is central to a functioning democracy.
• Social Equality: Aims to eliminate social stratification and privileges based on factors
like birth or caste. It advocates for equal opportunities in areas like employment and
social mobility.
• Economic Equality: Focuses on reducing significant wealth disparities and ensuring
everyone has a fair chance to achieve economic well-being.

Nuances and Challenges:

Achieving perfect equality in all aspects might not be entirely possible due to inherent individual
differences and societal complexities.

• Equality of outcome: Treating everyone identically might not address pre-existing

societal disadvantages.
• Affirmative action: Policies like reservations or quotas are sometimes implemented to
bridge the gap and provide historically disadvantaged groups with a leg up.

Equality remains a work in progress, requiring constant striving towards a society where:

• Legal frameworks: Uphold equal rights and offer protection against discrimination.
• Government policies: Actively promote equal opportunities through measures like
progressive taxation and social safety nets.
• Social attitudes: Foster inclusivity and dismantle discriminatory norms.

In essence, equality serves as a guiding principle in political science, striving to create a just and
equitable society that recognizes the inherent worth of every individual while offering a fair
chance to thrive.

6. Rights and Duties

The concept of state rights and duties forms the bedrock of international relations. Here’s a
breakdown of the fundamental principles:

State Rights:

• Independence: Every state has the right to self-governance, choosing its political system
and exercising its legal powers freely. This entails the right to conduct its internal affairs
without external dictation.
• Equality: All states are considered equal under international law. This implies that each
state holds the same basic rights and is subject to the same international legal obligations.
• Jurisdiction: A state possesses the authority over its territory and the people and things
within it. This right allows for implementing laws and regulations within its borders.
However, exceptions exist for diplomatic immunities recognized by international law.
• Self-defense: States have the right to defend themselves against armed attacks, both
individually and collectively.

State Duties:

• Respect for Human Rights: Every state is obligated to uphold fundamental human
rights and freedoms for all individuals under its jurisdiction. This means protecting
citizens from discrimination based on factors like race, religion, or gender.
• Peaceful Relations: States have a duty to maintain peaceful relations with other nations.
This necessitates conducting international relations according to established international
law and fulfilling legal commitments made through treaties.
• Non-intervention: States are prohibited from interfering in the internal or external affairs
of other states. This includes refraining from actions that could incite civil unrest within
another country’s territory.
• Maintaining International Peace: States hold the responsibility to ensure that situations
arising within their borders do not threaten global peace and order.
• Non-aggression: Refraining from resorting to war or using force against another state’s
territorial integrity or political independence is a fundamental duty. This extends to using
force as an instrument of national policy.

It’s important to note that these rights and duties are outlined in the Draft Declaration on Rights
and Duties of States [UN document], though not formally adopted as a binding treaty. However,
the principles within this document serve as a cornerstone for maintaining a peaceful and stable
global order.

Citizens’ Rights:

• Fundamental Rights: These are inherent rights that belong to every individual by virtue
of being human. They are typically enshrined in a constitution or bill of rights and
include:
 1. Right to life, liberty, and security of person
2. Freedom of expression, assembly,
3. and religion Right to a fair trial
• Political Rights: These rights allow citizens to participate in the governing process. They
include:
1. Right to vote and hold office
2. Right to petition the government

Citizens’ Duties:

• Obeying the Law: This is the foundation of a civil society. Citizens are expected to
comply with all laws and regulations set forth by the state.
• Paying Taxes: Taxation is the primary source of revenue for the state, used to fund public
services, infrastructure, and national defense.
• National Service: In some countries, citizens may be required to serve in the military or
perform other forms of national service.
• Jury Duty: Citizens may be summoned to serve on a jury in a court case.

Maintaining the Balance:

• The state has a responsibility to uphold the rights of its citizens and ensure their well-
being.
• Citizens have a responsibility to exercise their rights and duties in a way that contributes
to the collective good.

Examples of Citizen Duties:

• Voting: Responsible participation in elections is crucial for a healthy democracy.

• Staying Informed: Citizens should be aware of current events and government policies.
• Engaging in Civic Activities: This could involve volunteering in the community,
advocating for a cause, or simply staying informed about local issues.
By fulfilling their duties, citizens contribute to a well-functioning society and hold the state
accountable for upholding their rights. This delicate balance between rights and duties is
essential for a stable and prosperous nation.

7. Constitutionalism
A constitution is a document that outlines the fundamental principles and laws of a nation, state,
or organization. It establishes the core structure of the government, the fundamental rights of
citizens, and the relationship between the government and the people.
Types of Constitutions:
Written vs. Unwritten:

• Written constitutions are formally codified in a single document, like the United States
Constitution.
• Unwritten constitutions are based on a collection of laws, judicial precedents, and
customs. The United Kingdom is an example of a country with an unwritten constitution.

Federal vs. Unitary:

• Federal constitutions distribute power between a central (federal) government and

regional governments (states). The United States is an example of a federal system.
• Unitary constitutions concentrate power in a central government with regional authorities
having limited powers. France is an example of a unitary system.

Monarchical vs. Republican:

• Monarchical constitutions define the role of a monarch as the head of state. The United
Kingdom is an example.
• Republican constitutions do not have a monarch and the head of state is usually an
elected president. The United States is an example.

Rigid vs. Flexible:

• Rigid constitutions are difficult to amend, often requiring complex procedures. The
United States Constitution is an example.
• Flexible constitutions can be amended more easily through legislative processes. The
British constitution is an example.

Modes of participation:
1. Demands
In political science, demands represent a specific way citizens attempt to influence the political
process. Here’s a breakdown:

Definition:

Demands are clear, specific statements expressing what a group or individual desires from the
government or policymakers. These statements aim to address grievances or propose changes in
policy, legislation, or resource allocation.

Explanation:
 • Voice Concerns: Demands allow citizens to communicate their needs and expectations to
those in power. This can be done through various channels like petitions, protests, rallies,
or contacting representatives.
• Influence Policy: By expressing demands collectively, citizens can exert pressure on
policymakers to consider their interests. This can lead to:
• Policy changes: Demands can highlight issues requiring government intervention,
potentially leading to new policies or amendments to existing ones.
• Resource allocation: Demands can influence how resources are distributed, ensuring
specific needs are addressed in budgeting and spending decisions.

Examples:

• Protests against environmental degradation: Citizens demand stricter environmental

regulations and stronger enforcement.
• Petitions for increased funding for education: Parents and educators demand more
resources for schools.
• Union negotiations for better wages: Workers collectively demand improved working
conditions and pay raises.

Significance:

• Grassroots Power: Demands enable citizens, especially those without formal political
power, to make their voices heard.
• Policy Agenda Setting: Demands can bring specific issues to the forefront of public
discourse, pressuring policymakers to address them.

Limitations:

• Not a Guarantee: Demanding change doesn’t guarantee success. Addressing complex

issues often requires compromise and negotiation.
• Resource Dependence: The effectiveness of demands can depend on the resources
available to the group making them.
• Competition: Multiple demands from various groups can create competition for attention
and resources.

Additional Points:

• Framing: The way demands are presented can significantly impact their success. Clear,
concise, and well-articulated demands are more likely to gain traction.
• Mobilization: The ability to mobilize a significant number of supporters strengthens the
impact of demands.
In conclusion, demands serve as a crucial mode of participation in political science, enabling
citizens to influence the decisions made by those in power. While not a foolproof method,
presenting demands strategically can be a powerful tool for shaping public policy and ensuring
citizen concerns are addressed.

2. Decisions:
While voting is a fundamental form of participation, decisions hold significant weight in political
science as another crucial mode of engagement.

Definition:

Decisions, in this context, refer to the act of actively influencing or shaping the course of
political action. This extends beyond simply choosing representatives through voting.

Explanation:

• Direct decision-making: This involves citizens directly impacting policy choices.

Examples include:
• Voting on propositions or local initiatives: Citizens directly decide on specific policies
like funding a new school.
• Jury duty: Individuals contribute to legal decisions within the justice system.
• Indirect decision-making: This involves influencing the decisions of those in power
through various methods:
• Lobbying: Advocacy groups attempt to sway policy decisions by presenting their
interests to legislators.
• Public participation in hearings: Citizens voice their opinions on proposed policies during
designated forums.
• Strategic litigation: Legal challenges aim to influence policy through the court system.

Significance:

• Empowerment: Decisions enable citizens to go beyond simply choosing leaders and

actively shape the direction of governance.
• Policy shaping: Informed public participation through decisions can lead to policies that
better reflect the needs and concerns of the citizenry.
• Accountability: Decisions hold elected officials accountable by pressuring them to
consider diverse viewpoints during the policy-making process.

Limitations:

• Accessibility: Not everyone has the resources or knowledge to effectively participate

through complex decision-making processes.
• Power dynamics: Lobbying efforts by well-funded groups can overshadow the voices of
ordinary citizens.
 • Information asymmetry: Citizens may lack access to crucial information needed to
make informed decisions.

In essence, decisions represent a vital mode of participation that complements voting. By

actively engaging in the decision-making process, citizens can exert greater influence on the
policies that govern their lives.

Further Points:

• The level of decision-making power varies depending on the specific political system.
• Modern technology can play a role in facilitating decision-making through online
platforms for public engagement.

Understanding decisions as a mode of participation allows for a more nuanced view of citizen
involvement in political processes. It highlights the importance of fostering an environment that
empowers individuals to actively engage in shaping their political landscape.

3. Public opinion
Public opinion serves as a foundational mode of participation in political science.

Definition:

Public opinion refers to the collective sentiment of a population regarding political issues,
leaders, institutions, and events. It encompasses individuals’ attitudes, preferences, and beliefs on
matters of public concern.

Participation through Public Opinion:

• Indirect Influence: Public opinion primarily functions as an indirect mode of influencing

policymakers and shaping political discourse. Citizens express their views through
various means, like:
• Polls and surveys: These gauge the public’s stance on specific issues, providing valuable
data for policymakers.
• Public demonstrations and protests: Collective action allows citizens to voice their
concerns and garner attention to their cause.
• Media engagement: Public opinion can be shaped and reflected through news coverage,
editorials, and social media discussions.
• Government Responsiveness: Though not a direct voting mechanism, responsive
governments acknowledge the weight of public opinion. Policymakers consider
prevailing sentiments when formulating and implementing policies. This responsiveness
stems from the understanding that:
• Public disapproval can hinder re-election chances or lead to policy revisions.
 • Public support strengthens the government’s legitimacy and facilitates the
implementation of policies.

Nuances and Limitations:

• Public opinion is not monolithic: Diverse viewpoints and varying levels of intensity
exist within the population. Polls and surveys offer a snapshot, not a definitive
representation of the entire population’s opinion.
• Limited individual agency: While public opinion informs policy, individual citizens
lack direct control over the decision-making process.

Significance:

Public opinion acts as a crucial gauge of public mood and a tool for indirect political
participation. It influences policy direction, shapes political debates, and holds governments
accountable to the will of the people, albeit through indirect means.

Further Exploration:

• Public opinion research delves deeper into understanding how opinions form and evolve,
employing methods like surveys, focus groups, and social media analysis.
• The concept of “rational choice theory” explores how individuals make political
decisions based on their perceived costs and benefits.

In conclusion, public opinion serves as a crucial yet indirect mode of participation in political
science. By expressing their views and engaging in the public sphere, citizens contribute to
shaping the political landscape and influencing the decisions made by those in power.

4. Political parties
In the realm of political science, political parties stand as a fundamental mode of participation,
acting as a bridge between individual citizens and the structures of governance. Here’s a
breakdown of their essence:

Definition:

Political parties are organizations that:

• Coordinate candidates: They recruit, select, and back individuals to run for various
levels of public office. This collective approach strengthens the candidates’ chances of
winning elections.
• Share common ground: Party members typically hold similar ideological stances and
advocate for specific policy goals. These shared beliefs serve as a unifying factor and
provide a platform for the party’s actions.
 • Beyond Just Elections: While contesting elections is a crucial aspect, political parties
encompass more than just candidates
• Party Organization: A structured network exists, encompassing various levels of
leadership, from local chapters to national committees. This organization helps mobilize
resources, volunteers, and supporters.
• The Electorate: Parties aim to build a base of voters who identify with their ideology
and policy positions. This loyal support system is vital for electoral success.
• Representatives in Government: Party members who win elections become
representatives within the governing body. They work together to push for the party’s
agenda and translate their policies into action.

Significance of Political Parties:

• Streamline Participation: Parties simplify the process for individuals to engage in

politics. Voters can support a broader set of ideals rather than solely focusing on
individual candidates.
• Policy Advocacy: Parties present a cohesive platform, offering voters a clear
understanding of the policy direction they advocate for. This fosters informed voting
choices.
• Accountability: Parties provide a mechanism for holding elected officials accountable.
Voters can evaluate the party’s performance based on its ability to deliver on its promises.

Examples:

The United States presents a classic two-party system with the Democrats and Republicans as
the dominant forces. However, multi-party systems are prevalent globally, with countries like
India having numerous parties representing diverse ideologies.

In conclusion, political parties serve as a cornerstone of political participation. They act as a

bridge between individual citizens and the government, offering a structured approach to
influencing policy and shaping the political landscape.

5. Pressure Groups
In political science, pressure groups, also known as special interest groups, lobbying groups, or
advocacy groups, are organizations that strive to influence government policies in line with their
specific interests.

Roles

Here’s a breakdown of their role:

 • Membership: Composed of individuals who share a common cause or concern, such as
environmental protection, workers’ rights, or business interests.
• Goal: To shape public policy by exerting pressure on lawmakers and government
officials.
• Differentiation from Political Parties: Unlike political parties, pressure groups don’t
contest elections or aim to directly hold political power.

Key characteristics of pressure groups:

• Issue-Specific Focus: They concentrate on promoting or defending a particular set of

interests, often narrowly defined.
• Shared Cause: Members are united by a common belief or objective rather than a
broader political ideology.
• External Influence: Pressure groups operate outside the formal structures of
government, seeking to influence policy decisions through various tactics.

How do pressure groups influence policy?

• Lobbying: Direct communication with legislators and government officials to present

their viewpoints and persuade them to support their cause.
• Public Campaigns: Mobilizing their members and the public through rallies, protests,
and media outreach to raise awareness and garner support for their agenda.
• Campaign Contributions: Funding political campaigns of candidates who align with
their interests.
• Research and Expertise: Providing policymakers with relevant data, analysis, and
reports to strengthen their arguments.

Examples of Pressure Groups:

• Environmental groups like Greenpeace or the Sierra Club, Labor unions like the
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO)
• Business associations like the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
• Public interest groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Importance:

Pressure groups play a crucial role in a democratic society:

• Representing Diverse Interests: They ensure that a wide range of viewpoints are heard
and considered in the policymaking process.
• Providing Expertise: They offer valuable knowledge and information to policymakers
on specific issues.
• Promoting Public Participation: They can encourage citizens to engage in political
discourse and hold their elected officials accountable.
Challanges:

However, the influence of pressure groups can also raise concerns:

• Unequal Access: Wealthy and well-organized groups may have a greater ability to lobby
and influence policy compared to less resourced groups.
• Special Interests vs. Public Interest: Their focus on specific issues may not always
align with the broader public good.
Understanding pressure groups is vital in comprehending how interests are articulated and
influence flows within the political landscape. They act as a bridge between the public and
policymakers, shaping the policy agenda and contributing to a dynamic political system.

6. Representation
Within the realm of political science, representation signifies the mechanism through which the
collective voice of the people finds expression and translates into policy decisions. It bridges the
gap between a large populace and the governing body.

Here’s a breakdown of this concept:

• Core Function: Representation serves as a substitute for direct democracy, where every
citizen actively participates in making decisions. In contemporary societies with vast
populations, this becomes impractical. Elected representatives act as agents for the
people, entrusted with the responsibility of understanding and reflecting their interests in
the decision-making process.

Modes of Representation:

There are two main approaches to understanding how representation functions:

• Descriptive Representation: This focuses on mirroring the demographics of the

population being represented. Ideally, the representatives should resemble the people they
govern in terms of factors like ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic background, and so on.
This fosters a sense of connection and ensures that the specific needs and perspectives of
diverse groups are acknowledged.
• Delegative Representation: This emphasizes the representatives’ fiduciary duty to act in
the best interests of their constituents. While they may not always perfectly reflect the
populace’s views on every issue, they are entrusted with using their judgment and
expertise to make informed decisions.

Challenges to Effective Representation:

 • Incomplete Information: Representatives cannot possibly possess complete knowledge
of every constituent’s individual viewpoints.
• Issue Complexity: Modern political issues are often multifaceted, making it difficult to
arrive at decisions that perfectly align with everyone’s interests.
• Special Interests: Lobbying and influence from powerful groups can skew policy
decisions away from reflecting the broader public good.

Enhancing Representation:

• Strong Voter Turnout: Active participation in elections ensures that a wider range of
voices is reflected in the selection of representatives.
• Open Communication: Mechanisms that facilitate regular dialogue between
representatives and their constituents, like town hall meetings, are crucial.
• Media Scrutiny: A free and independent media holds representatives accountable for
their actions and ensures transparency in decision-making.

In conclusion, representation acts as a cornerstone of modern democracies. By understanding the

different facets of this concept and acknowledging the existing challenges, political systems can
strive towards achieving a more effective translation of public will into policy outcomes.

Institutions and Leadership:

Institutions of government:
1. Legislature:
A legislature is the branch of government responsible for creating, proposing, and enacting laws.
Essentially, it’s the body that translates the needs and desires of the people into a legal
framework.
Definition:

• The lawmaking branch, forming the cornerstone of a democratic system.

Types:

Broadly divided into two structures:

• Unicameral: A single legislative house (e.g., Sweden’s Riksdag).

• Bicameral: Two chambers – an upper house and a lower house (e.g., the U.S. Congress
with Senate and House of Representatives).

Structure:
 • Members: Individuals elected by the public (direct democracy) or appointed (less
common).
• Committees: Smaller groups within the legislature that specialize in specific areas like
finance, defense, or healthcare.

Role:

• Lawmaking: Proposing, debating, and passing bills that become laws.

• Budget Approval: Authorizing government spending and taxation.
• Oversight: Scrutinizing the executive branch’s activities and holding them accountable.
• Confirmation: Approving presidential appointments for certain positions.
• Treaty Ratification: Granting consent for international agreements.
• Impeachment: Initiating the process of removing government officials from office for
wrongdoing.

Additionally:

• The powers and specific functions of a legislature can vary depending on the country’s
constitution and political system.
• In a presidential system (e.g., the United States), the legislature and executive (president)
are separate entities.
• In a parliamentary system (e.g., India), the executive branch is drawn from the
legislature, fostering closer cooperation.

Understanding legislatures is crucial for comprehending how laws are made, how citizens are
represented, and how the government functions in a democratic society.

2. Executive: The backbone of Government

Definition:
Executives are high-level managers within an organization who hold positions of significant
authority and decision-making power. They are responsible for overseeing the entire organization
or major divisions within it, driving strategic direction, and ensuring the successful execution of
company goals.

Types of Executives:

• C-Suite Executives: This group comprises the topmost leadership positions in a

company, typically including:
1. Chief Executive Officer (CEO): The CEO holds the ultimate responsibility for the
organization’s overall performance and strategic direction.
 2. Chief Financial Officer (CFO): Oversees financial aspects like budgeting, forecasting,
and ensuring financial stability.
3. Chief Operating Officer (COO): Manages day-to-day operations, ensuring smooth
functioning of various departments.
4. Chief Information Officer (CIO): Leads the organization’s technology infrastructure and
strategy.
• Divisional/Departmental Executives: These executives head specific departments or
divisions within the organization, such as Chief Marketing Officer (CMO), Chief Human
Resources Officer (CHRO), or Chief Technology Officer (CTO).

Structure:

Executives typically report to the Board of Directors, a group of elected individuals who provide
oversight and guidance to the organization’s leadership. The specific structure can vary
depending on the company size and industry.

Roles and Responsibilities:

Executives play a crucial role in an organization’s success.

Their key responsibilities encompass:

• Strategic Planning: Setting long-term goals, formulating strategies, and making crucial
decisions that shape the organization’s future.
• Resource Management: Allocating resources effectively, including personnel, finances,
and technology, to achieve organizational objectives.
• Leadership and Vision: Providing direction, motivation, and inspiration to employees at
all levels.
• Building Relationships: Establishing and maintaining strong relationships with
stakeholders like investors, clients, and partners.
• Risk Management: Identifying, assessing, and mitigating potential risks that could
hinder the organization’s progress.
• Performance Monitoring: Overseeing the overall performance of the organization and
making necessary adjustments to ensure it meets its goals.

In essence, executives act as the architects of an organization’s success. Their strategic vision,
decision-making capabilities, and leadership qualities are fundamental in driving the organization
towards achieving its objectives.

3. Judiciary: uploading the Law

The judiciary, also referred to as the judicial system or court system, is the fundamental
mechanism within a nation responsible for:
 • Interpreting Laws: Judges analyze and clarify the meaning of existing laws to ensure
their proper application in specific cases.
• Resolving Disputes: Courts serve as a platform for individuals, groups, or even
governments to settle legal disagreements through established procedures.
• Safeguarding the Constitution: In many countries, the judiciary holds the authority to
review the constitutionality of laws and overturn those deemed incompatible with the
supreme law.

Core Functions:

• Adjudication: Judges preside over legal proceedings, listen to arguments, and deliver
verdicts based on the law and presented evidence.
• Judicial Review: The judiciary can assess the constitutionality of laws passed by the
legislative branch, potentially striking down laws deemed conflicting with the
constitution.

Types and Structure:

The specific structure of the judiciary varies by country, but generally follows a tiered system:

• Supreme Court: The highest court in the land, often responsible for setting legal
precedents and resolving conflicts arising from lower courts.
• Appellate Courts: Review rulings from lower courts, potentially reversing or upholding
them.
• Trial Courts: The initial level where cases are presented, evidence is examined, and
judgments are reached.

Importance and Role:

• Maintaining Rule of Law: The judiciary ensures that everyone, regardless of status, is
subject to the law and legal process.
• Protecting Individual Rights: The court system safeguards fundamental rights
enshrined in the constitution and acts as a check against governmental overreach.
• Promoting Social Stability: By providing a neutral space for resolving disputes and
ensuring adherence to the law, the judiciary fosters a more stable and predictable society.

Additional Points:

• Independence: An effective judiciary is typically independent from the influence of

other branches of government (legislative and executive) to guarantee impartial rulings.
• Accountability: Judges are generally appointed through a rigorous selection process and
are held accountable for their decisions through mechanisms outlined in the legal
framework.
Further Exploration:

For a deeper understanding, you can explore the specific judicial systems of different countries.
Resources like national government websites and legal information portals can provide detailed
information on the structure, functions, and procedures of their judicial branches.

The competing elites:

1. Military
The statement that the military can be a competing elite within a state holds truth, but it requires
context and nuance. Here’s a breakdown:

Military as an Elite:

• Power and Resources: The military possesses significant resources, including advanced
weaponry, trained personnel, and a monopoly on legitimate violence within the state. This
grants them immense power and influence.
• Social Status and Cohesion: Military personnel often enjoy high social status due to
their service and sacrifice. The shared experiences and training foster a strong sense of
internal cohesion within the military.

Competition with Civilian Elite:

• Political Influence: While the military’s primary function is defense, it can exert
political influence through lobbying, advocating for defense budgets, and potentially even
influencing policy decisions. This can create competition with civilian elites, particularly
those focused on economic or social priorities.
• Control of the State Apparatus: In extreme situations, the military might intervene in
the political process through coups or exerting pressure on the government. This
challenges the authority of the civilian leadership.

Important Caveats:

• Civilian Control: Ideally, a well-functioning democracy maintains civilian control over

the military. This is achieved through mechanisms like:
• Subordination to elected officials: The military takes orders from the civilian
government.
• Legislative oversight: Civilian bodies like parliaments hold the military accountable for
its actions and budget.
• Professionalism: The military prioritizes its professional duties and avoids direct
political involvement.
Historical Examples:
 • Military Coups: Throughout history, several countries have witnessed military coups
where the military has overthrown the civilian government. This is a stark example of the
military acting as a competing elite [invalid URL removed].

Maintaining Balance:

• A healthy democracy requires a strong civilian government with clear control over the
military. This ensures that the military’s power serves the nation’s interests and doesn’t
overshadow the authority of elected officials.

Conclusion:

The military’s potential to act as a competing elite is a reality, especially in countries with weak
democratic institutions. However, established mechanisms and a commitment to civilian control
are crucial to prevent such situations and ensure the military’s loyalty to the state and its citizens.

2. Bureaucracy:
Bureaucracy can indeed exhibit characteristics of a competing elite within the state, though
understanding this requires acknowledging the complexities:

Bureaucracy as an Elite:

• Expertise and Power: Bureaucrats, especially at higher levels, possess specialized

knowledge and experience crucial for state functions. This expertise grants them
significant power in policy implementation and decision-making.
• Institutionalized Structure: Bureaucracies are well-organized hierarchies with
established rules and procedures. This structure allows them to wield influence through
control over information and administrative processes.

Competition with Political Elite:

• Conflicting Interests: Political leaders aim to win elections and implement their
agendas. Bureaucrats, ideally, focus on upholding long-term national interests and
established procedures. This creates potential clashes.
• Policy Implementation: Bureaucrats hold the reins of daily governance. Their
interpretation and execution of policies can significantly alter the intended outcomes,
impacting the political elite’s goals.
• Self-preservation: Bureaucracies strive to maintain their power and influence. They may
resist changes or reforms proposed by political leaders, especially if it threatens their
established structures or privileges.
Examples of Bureaucratic Elite Power:
 • Policy Capture: Bureaucrats may develop close ties with specific interest groups,
potentially influencing regulations or decisions in their favor.
• Revolving Door: Bureaucrats moving to lobbying firms leverage their insider knowledge
to influence policy for private gain.
• Bureaucratic Inertia: Resistance to change due to established procedures and a
preference for maintaining the status quo can hinder progress on new initiatives.

Important Caveats:

• Ideal vs. Reality: The concept of a purely neutral bureaucracy is an ideal. Political
influence and personal career ambitions can influence bureaucratic behavior.
• Democratic Checks and Balances: In strong democracies, robust oversight mechanisms
exist to hold bureaucracies accountable to elected officials and the public.

Conclusion:
Bureaucracy can act as a competing elite within the state due to its expertise, institutional power,
and potential to pursue interests that may diverge from those of the political elite. However, the
extent of this competition is influenced by factors like the strength of democratic institutions and
the presence of checks and balances.

Understanding this dynamic is crucial for ensuring effective governance. A healthy balance needs
to be maintained: leveraging bureaucratic expertise while ensuring political accountability and
preventing the undue influence of bureaucratic elites.

3. Political elite:
Political elites, individuals or groups wielding significant power within a state, often exhibit
characteristics of competition amongst themselves.
Here’s a breakdown of this phenomenon:

• Competing Interests: Different elite groups may represent varying ideologies, economic
sectors, or social classes. This leads to clashes over policy decisions, resource allocation,
and overall direction of the state.
• Power Struggles: Elite groups engage in a continuous struggle to maintain or expand
their influence. This can involve:
• Electoral Politics: Competing parties vie for control of government institutions, using
elections and political maneuvering.
• Lobbying: Elites attempt to influence policy-making through targeted campaigns
directed at decision-makers.
• Media Control: Shaping public opinion through media ownership or affiliation can be a
powerful tool for gaining an edge.
 • Limited Scope of Competition: While competition exists, it’s crucial to understand it
often occurs within a specific elite circle. The common people might have limited
influence on this power struggle.

Examples:

• Industrialists vs. Environmentalists: These groups have fundamentally different

stances on environmental regulations, leading to policy clashes.
• Ruling Party vs. Opposition: Competition focuses on gaining or retaining control of the
government, often overshadowing broader societal concerns.

Potential Outcomes:

• Stalemate: Intense competition can lead to political gridlock, hindering progress on

crucial issues.
• Compromise: Finding common ground can lead to balanced policies addressing the
concerns of various elite groups.
• Erosion of Public Trust: When elite competition prioritizes self-interest over public
good, it can breed public cynicism and disengagement from the political process.

Mitigating Factors:

• Strong Institutions: A robust legal and judicial framework can ensure fair competition
and prevent undue influence by any single elite group.
• Transparency and Accountability: Mechanisms promoting openness in decision-
making and holding elites responsible for their actions can foster public trust.
• An Engaged Citizenry: An active and informed citizenry can hold elites accountable
and push for policies that benefit society as a whole.

In conclusion, competition among political elites is a prevalent dynamic within states. While it
can lead to diverse perspectives and policy debates, it’s crucial to ensure this competition serves
the greater good and doesn’t overshadow the needs of the general public.

Forms of Government:
1. Monarchy
A monarchy is a system of government where a single person, the monarch, reigns as the head of
state. Here’s a breakdown of its key aspects:

Ruler:

• The monarch, often a king or queen, holds the highest position and embodies the nation’s
sovereignty.
 • The position is typically hereditary, meaning it passes down through generations within a
family lineage.

Power:

The level of power wielded by the monarch varies:

• Absolute Monarchy: The monarch holds unlimited power, acting as an autocrat with
complete control over the government and state. (e.g. Historical examples: King Louis
XIV of France)
• Constitutional Monarchy: The monarch’s power is restricted by a constitution. They
often act as a symbolic figurehead, representing national unity and continuity. (e.g.
Modern examples: Queen Elizabeth II of Britain)

Historical Context:

• Monarchies were once the dominant form of government throughout the world.
• The concept of the “divine right of kings” justified a monarch’s absolute rule, believing
their authority came directly from God.
• Over time, democracies and republics gained prominence, and today, many monarchies
have transitioned into constitutional forms with limited monarchical power.

Here are some additional points to note:

• The monarch’s title can vary depending on the nation, such as emperor, empress, sultan,
or prince.
• Some monarchies have specific rules regarding succession, often prioritizing male heirs.
• Modern constitutional monarchs typically focus on ceremonial duties and promoting
national unity rather than actively governing.

In essence, a monarchy concentrates power in the hands of a singular hereditary figure, though
the degree of that power can significantly differ based on the type of monarchy.

2. Democracy:
Democracy, literally translated from Greek, means “rule by the people.” It signifies a system of
governance where the power ultimately resides with the citizens, who shape the laws, policies,
and leadership through various mechanisms.

Here’s a breakdown of the core aspects of democracy:

• Popular Rule: Citizens have the authority to influence government decisions.

This can be achieved through:

 a) Direct Democracy: In smaller communities, citizens directly vote on laws and policies.
(Example: Town hall meetings)
b) Representative Democracy: Citizens elect representatives who make decisions on their
behalf. (Example: Voting for legislators in a country)
c) Elections: Competitive elections are a cornerstone of democracy. Citizens choose their
representatives through periodic free and fair voting.
d) Civil Liberties: Democratic societies uphold fundamental rights like freedom of speech,
assembly, and the press. This enables informed participation and open discourse.
Important points to note:

• Evolving Definition: The concept of “the people” has expanded over time. In ancient
Athens, only a limited segment (free adult males) held voting rights. Today, most
democracies strive for universal adult suffrage (right to vote).
• Not just about voting: While elections are crucial, a healthy democracy requires
additional elements:
• Rule of Law: Everyone, including the government, is subject to the law.
• Accountability: Elected officials are answerable to the people they represent.
• Protection of Minorities: The rights and interests of minority groups are safeguarded.

In essence, democracy empowers citizens to collectively shape their government and hold it
accountable. However, it’s an ongoing process that requires active participation from the
populace to function effectively.

3. Dictatorship
A dictatorship is a form of government where one person or a small group holds absolute power.
This means they have complete control over the country’s laws, military, and media without any
checks and balances.
Here are some key characteristics of a dictatorship:

• Absolute Power: The dictator(s) have no limitations on their power and can make
decisions without any legal or public opposition.
• Limited Individual Rights: Citizens have fewer fundamental rights, such as freedom of
speech, press, or assembly.
• Control of Information: The media is often censored or controlled by the government,
limiting the free flow of information.
• Use of Force: Dictators often use intimidation, violence, and repression to maintain
control.
There are different ways dictators come to power:
 • Military Coup: The military overthrows the existing government and establishes a
military dictatorship.
• Self-Coup: An elected leader may seize additional powers and abolish elections.
• Inheritance: In some cases, power is passed down through family members.

Examples of historical dictators include:

• Adolf Hitler (Nazi Germany)

• Benito Mussolini (Fascist Italy)
• Joseph Stalin (Soviet Union)

Dictatorships are generally considered oppressive and harmful to citizens’ well-being. They often
restrict individual freedoms and hinder economic and social development.

4. Unitary form of Government

In a unitary form of government, the central authority reigns supreme.
Here’s a breakdown of its key characteristics:

• Centralized Power: The core principle is the concentration of power with the national
government. This government holds the ultimate decision-making authority on all
matters.
• Subnational Units: While the central government holds overarching power, there might
be subnational units like provinces or states. However, their existence and any authority
they wield stem from the central government’s delegation.
• Limited Autonomy: Subnational units have limited autonomy. Any powers they
exercise are granted by the central government and can be revoked or altered at its
discretion.
• Devolution vs. Federalism: It’s crucial to distinguish between devolution in a unitary
system and federalism. In devolution, the central government grants power, but it can
take it back. In federalism, power is constitutionally shared between the central and
regional governments, and amendments require the consent of both.

Examples:

• France: A classic example with a highly centralized administrative system. Local

governments often have limited self-governing power.
• United Kingdom: While the UK has devolved some powers to regions like Scotland and
Wales, the central Parliament in London retains ultimate authority.

Analogy:
 • Think of a unitary government like a large company with a strong central leadership
making all the crucial decisions. Branch offices might have some delegated authority for
daily operations, but the central leadership can always intervene and overrule.

Additional points to consider:

• Unitary states can vary in the degree of power they delegate to subnational units.
• Some unitary states, like the UK, practice devolution, granting a measure of autonomy to
specific regions.

Overall, a unitary system concentrates power in the hands of the central government, while
subnational units have limited independent authority.

5. Federation:
A federation, also known as a federal state, is a unique structure where power is shared between
a central governing body and various regional governments.

Here’s a breakdown of its key features:

• Division of Power:Sovereign authority is constitutionally divided: Unlike a unitary state

where power resides primarily with the central government, a federation distributes
power between the central (federal) government and individual states/regions. This
division is enshrined in a written constitution, ensuring its stability.
• Shared Governance:Two levels of government: Federal systems have a central
government responsible for nationwide matters like defense, foreign policy, and interstate
commerce.

Additionally, each state possesses its own governing body that addresses local issues like
education, healthcare, and infrastructure within its jurisdiction.
Balancing Act:

• Constant negotiation: The success of a federation hinges on the ability of the federal
government and the regional states to collaborate and find common ground. This often
involves negotiation and compromise to ensure all parties have a say in national matters
while addressing regional needs.
Examples:

• Well-known federations: The United States, Canada, India, Australia, and Germany are
all examples of successful federal states.
Analogy:
 • Imagine a federation like a large pizza. The base represents the central government,
responsible for the overall structure and foundation. The toppings symbolize the
individual states, each with the freedom to choose what goes on their portion (within
certain parameters).

Key Points to Remember:

• Distinct from confederation: While both involve multiple governing entities, a

confederation is looser, with the central government holding less power compared to a
true federation.
• Dynamic equilibrium: Federalism is an ongoing process of balancing the power
between the central and regional governments.

In conclusion, a federation offers a unique approach to governance, allowing for a sense of

shared identity while acknowledging regional diversities. It fosters a system where national unity
coexists with the autonomy of individual states.

6. Confederation:
A confederation is a unique form of government where sovereign states come together for
limited cooperation under a central body.

Here’s a breakdown of its key features:

• Independent States: The core principle is the autonomy of individual states. Each state
retains its own government, laws, and identity.
• Weak Central Authority: The central government established by the confederation
holds limited power.
Its primary function is to facilitate cooperation in areas of mutual interest, such as:
a) Defense: Member states might collaborate on military matters to ensure collective
security.
b) Trade: Confederations may establish common trade regulations or a single currency.
c) Foreign Policy: Member states might present a united front in international relations.
d) Decision Making: Since individual states prioritize their sovereignty, reaching
agreements often requires unanimity or a high threshold of consensus. This can make
decision-making slow and cumbersome.

Examples of Confederations:

• The United States under the Articles of Confederation (1781-1789): This early
attempt at uniting the former American colonies proved inefficient due to the weak
central government.
 • The European Union (EU): While often referred to as a confederation, the EU exhibits
characteristics of both a confederation and a federation due to its evolving structure with
an increasingly powerful central body.

Confederation vs. Federation:

• Confederations are often compared to federations, which establish a stronger central

government with the power to directly enact laws and enforce them upon individual
states. The United States under the current Constitution serves as a prime example of a
federation.

In essence, a confederation represents a loose alliance of independent states for specific

purposes, with a central authority that lacks the extensive powers of a federal government.

7. The parliamentary system of Government

A parliamentary system, also known as a parliamentary democracy, is a system of government
where the legislative body, also known as the parliament, holds the supreme power.

Here's a breakdown of the key features of a parliamentary government:

• Executive power: The real executive power lies with the cabinet, which is a group of
ministers chosen from the members of the parliament. The head of the cabinet, typically
the Prime Minister or Chancellor, is the head of government and holds the most
significant political authority.
• Accountability: The executive branch (the cabinet) is directly accountable to the
legislature (parliament). This means the parliament can remove the government from
power if it loses its confidence.
• Head of state: The head of state, such as a king, queen, or president, is usually a
symbolic figure with little to no direct political power.
• Parliament: The parliament is the main legislative body and is responsible for making
laws. It can be unicameral (one house) or bicameral (two houses).

Analogy:

• Imagine the parliament as the board of directors of a company. They set the overall
direction and goals (laws) for the company. The executive branch, led by the CEO
(Prime Minister), is responsible for carrying out those decisions and managing the day-
to-day operations of the company (government).

Examples:
Some well-known examples of countries with parliamentary governments include:
 • United Kingdom
• Canada
• India
• Germany
• Australia

Advantages of a parliamentary system:

• Strong leadership: The close relationship between the executive and legislature allows
for decisive decision-making.
• Accountability: The government is directly answerable to the people's representatives in
parliament.
Disadvantages of a parliamentary system:

• Instability: Governments can collapse if they lose the confidence of the parliament,
leading to frequent elections.
• Limited opposition role: The opposition party may have little power to influence
policy.Here’s a simplified analogy to understand how a parliamentary system works:
Imagine the parliament as the board of directors of a company. They set the overall
direction and goals (laws) for the company. The executive branch, led by the CEO (Prime
Minister), is responsible for carrying out those decisions and managing the day-to-day
operations of the company (government).

8. The presidential system of Government:

A presidential system of government is characterized by a clear separation of powers between the
following branches:

• Executive Branch: Led by a President, who acts as both the head of state and head of
government. The President is directly elected by the people (or through a body of
electors) and has a fixed term in office.
• Legislative Branch: This branch, often a bicameral parliament, is responsible for making
laws. Legislators are also elected by the people and serve independent terms.
• Judiciary Branch: This branch, consisting of a court system, interprets laws and ensures
their adherence to the constitution. Judges are typically appointed and serve for extended
terms.

Features:

Here are some key features of a presidential system:

 • Separation of Powers: The executive and legislative branches operate independently.
The President cannot dissolve the legislature, and the legislature cannot remove the
President through a vote of no confidence (except in extreme circumstances through
impeachment).
• Directly Elected President: The President holds a powerful position with a direct
mandate from the people. This fosters strong leadership and stability as the President’s
term is not reliant on maintaining a majority in the legislature.
• Unified Executive: The President appoints a cabinet to assist in governing, but these
individuals are not members of the legislature and are solely responsible to the President.

Example:

Some examples of countries with a presidential system include:

• United States
• Brazil
• Mexico.

This system aims to create checks and balances between the branches, preventing any one branch
from becoming too powerful.

9. Authoritarian form of Government

An authoritarian government stands in stark contrast to a democracy.

Features:

Here’s a breakdown of its key features:

• Concentration of Power: Unlike democracies where power is distributed, authoritarian

regimes concentrate it in the hands of a single leader or a small elite group. This group
wields immense control with minimal accountability to the people.

• Restricted Elections: While elections might exist, they are often rigged or lack genuine
competition. Opposition parties are suppressed, and a fair chance to gain power through
elections is absent.
• Limited Civil Liberties: Fundamental rights like freedom of speech, assembly, and
religion are restricted. Authoritarian governments often control the media and suppress
dissenting voices.
• Weaker Rule of Law: The legal system is bent to serve the regime’s interests. An
independent judiciary is often absent, and the law can be arbitrarily applied.
 • Maintaining Control: Authoritarian regimes use various tactics to maintain their grip on
power:
• Repression: Fear is instilled through intimidation, violence, and imprisonment of those
who oppose the regime.
• Propaganda: State-controlled media and education systems are used to promote the
regime’s ideology and control the narrative.
• Economic Control: The government might hold significant control over key industries
and resources, limiting economic freedoms.

It’s important to note:

• Authoritarian states can vary in their degree of control. Some might allow a limited
degree of social or economic freedom while tightly restricting political freedoms.
• The line between authoritarianism and totalitarianism can be blurry. Totalitarian regimes
like Nazi Germany take these characteristics to the extreme, seeking complete control
over every aspect of people’s lives.

In essence, authoritarian governments prioritize maintaining power and order over individual
liberties and democratic processes.
 Part A: Political Theory
Western political Thoughts:
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

• 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.
 • Plato fails to condemn the institution of slavery and regard it as fundamental evil.
• Plato’s system of communism of women and temporary marriage is detestable and
unethical.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

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
II. 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.”
 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.”

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.

4. 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.

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.

5. 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)
 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. Thomas 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.

5. John Lock
“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.

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.

6. Jean Jacques 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.

__________________

7. Karl 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.” (Wayper)
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.

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.

8. Leninism
Leninism is a political ideology built upon the foundations of Marxism, developed by Vladimir
Lenin, the revolutionary leader of the Soviet Union. Here’s a breakdown of its core tenets:

Centralized Leadership: The Vanguard Party

Unlike orthodox Marxism, which envisioned a spontaneous working-class revolution, Lenin

believed in a vanguard party. This highly disciplined group of professional revolutionaries would
act as the guiding force for the proletariat (working class).

• The party would possess a scientific understanding of history and societal transformation
based on Marxist principles.
• This elite group would be responsible for educating and organizing the working class,
preparing them for the overthrow of the existing capitalist system.
• Revolution and the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”

• Lenin saw violent revolution as a necessary tool to dismantle the capitalist state and
establish a “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
• This dictatorship wouldn’t be a literal one-man rule, but a state governed in the interests
of the working class following the revolution.
 • The vanguard party would hold power temporarily, overseeing the transition towards a
socialist society and eventually a classless, communist state.

Other Key Aspects:

• Imperialism: Lenin believed imperialism (expansion by powerful nations) was the final
stage of capitalism. He saw it as an opportunity to incite global revolution as exploited
workers in colonies would rise against their oppressors.
• The State: Lenin viewed the state as a tool for the ruling class (bourgeoisie) to maintain
control. After the revolution, the proletariat would use the state apparatus to suppress the
former ruling class and build a socialist society.

Criticisms and Legacy:

• Leninism has been criticized for establishing authoritarian one-party states under the
guise of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
• The suppression of dissent and the lack of individual liberties are seen as major
drawbacks of this ideology.

Understanding Leninism is crucial in political science for several reasons:

• It provides insight into the theoretical underpinnings of the first communist state and its
subsequent impact on global politics.
• It sheds light on the concept of revolutionary movements and the justifications used for
their actions.
• It serves as a cautionary tale regarding the potential pitfalls of unchecked power
concentrated in the hands of a single party.

Further Exploration:

• To delve deeper, explore the concept of Marxism-Leninism, which combines Lenin’s

ideas with core Marxist principles.
• Research the historical context of the early 20th century, including the rise of socialist
movements and the opposition they faced.

Understanding Leninism requires a nuanced approach, acknowledging its theoretical

contributions while critically examining its implementation and historical consequences.

9. Stalin
Attributing a fully formed theory of political science solely to Joseph Stalin is inaccurate. Stalin
wasn’t primarily a political theorist but rather implemented policies based on a twisted
interpretation of existing communist ideology.
Foundation: Stalin’s rule relied heavily on Marxism-Leninism, a communist ideology
emphasizing:

• Class struggle between the proletariat (working class) and the bourgeoisie (capitalist
class).
• Eventual establishment of a classless, communist society.

Stalin’s Distortions: Stalin significantly deviated from core aspects:

• Socialism in one country: He believed achieving communism within the Soviet Union
was possible without global revolution (contradicting the Marxist vision of international
worker uprising).
• Totalitarian Control: He established a one-party state with absolute power, suppressing
dissent and utilizing brutal purges to eliminate rivals and perceived threats.

Key elements of Stalin’s rule:

• Rapid industrialization: Emphasis on heavy industry at the expense of agriculture and

individual freedoms.
• Collectivization: Forcibly merging independent farms into large state-controlled entities,
leading to widespread famine.
• Cult of personality: Extensive propaganda portraying Stalin as an infallible leader.

Therefore, instead of a singular “Stalin theory,” it’s more accurate to view his era as Stalinism:
the application of Marxist-Leninist ideology with significant distortions to consolidate power and
achieve rapid industrialization through brutal means.

Here are some additional points to consider:

• Scholars debate the extent to which Stalinism stemmed from Lenin’s groundwork or
represented a radical shift.
• Stalinism’s legacy is marred by mass repression, suppression of human rights, and
famines.

10. Maoism
Maoism is a communist ideology developed by Mao Zedong, chairman of the Communist Party
of China, as an adaptation of Marxism-Leninism to the specific conditions of 20th century China.

• Peasant Power: Maoism deviated from the traditional Marxist-Leninist view of the
proletariat (urban working class) as the driving force of revolution. Instead, Mao
identified the peasantry, the vast majority in China, as the revolutionary class.
 • Protracted People’s War: This theory emphasizes guerilla warfare and rural
mobilization to encircle and defeat the urban-based ruling class.
• Continuous Revolution: Mao believed that class struggle would persist even after the
establishment of a socialist state. This led to the implementation of the Cultural
Revolution, a sociopolitical movement aimed at purging remnants of capitalist and
traditional elements from Chinese society.
Maoism had a significant impact on 20th century communist movements, influencing
revolutionary groups in various parts of the world. However, it is also heavily criticized for its
authoritarian tendencies, association with famines like the Great Leap Forward, and the human
rights abuses during the Cultural Revolution.

Muslim Political thought:

1. Ali-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.

6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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. Imam Al-Gahazali
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)
9.

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)

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?”
Best of luck !