UNDERSTANDING POLITICAL THEORY

MODULE- 1-POLITICAL THEORY

(Meaning, Nature and Scope of Political Theory, Positivism, Empiricism, Political Modernization and
Development, Political Socialization, Political Culture)

As human beings we live in society. Society includes many institutions like family, school, religious
organization, polity, etc. Every institution serves some specific purpose. It involves some organization and use of
authority. Authority denotes a relationship of command and obedience where the command is generally regarded
to be reasonable. Mild protests, if any, would not upset the authority. When an organization is designed to
regulate the whole community, it takes the character of polity. Polity, therefore, denotes an organization where
rules are made and decisions are taken for the whole community, and authority is exercised over each member of
the community. The term 'political' refers to something that is 'public', as distinguished from private or
something applicable to a limited number of persons. Thus polity or the state enjoys a unique position among
social institutions. It is so important that Aristotle (an ancient Greek philosopher) described man by nature a
'political animal'. Living in a state was so natural for a person that he who lived outside the state or who did not
need a state was either a beast or an angel.
The terms 'polity', 'politics' and 'political' are derived from the Greek word 'polis' which denoted ancient
Greek city-state. The Greek city-states were relatively small communities which were separated from each other
by geographical barriers, like forests, mountains and seas. Each city-state had evolved a compact social life and
culture where all institutions and activities were knit together. These institutions and activities which were aimed
at securing 'good life' for the community were regarded to be the part of 'polities'. However, in the present day
society the scope of politics is not regarded to be so comprehensive.
Meaning
Political theory is not only a theory of/about politics; it is also the science of politics, the philosophy of
politics at that. As a theory, Bluhm explains, ―political theory stands for an abstract model of the political order a
guide to the systematic collection and analysis of political data‖ (theory of political system). Andrew Haker,
enlarging the point of view, says that political theory as a ―theory, in ideal terms, is dispassionate and
disinterested. As science, it will describe political reality without trying to pass judgment on what is being
depicted, either implicitly or explicitly. As philosophy, it will describe rules of conduct which will secure good
life for all in the society‖
Political theory is all about politics. It is an overview of what the political order is about. It is a symbolic
representation of what is ―political ―. In its nature, it is formal, logical, and systematic analysis of processes and
consequences of political activity. It is, in its objective, an attempt to give order, coherence, and meaning to what
may be referred to as ―political‖.
Theory implies both science as well as philosophy. It is, against this background, that one may say a
theorist is both a scientist and philosopher; a theorist is more than a scientist; he is more than a philosopher. To
understand theory when applied to politics would, thus, explain political theory as ―an explanation of what
politics is all about, a general understanding of the political world, a frame of reference. Without one we should
be unable to recognize an event as political, decide anything about why it happened, judge whether it was good
or bad, or decide what was likely to happen next. A theory help as identify what is happening a particular case of
politics…… It helps us to explain why an event occurred and to predict future events ….. Theory also is a tool
for evaluating what is happening and for guiding our political choices…‖
The job of the political theorist is really important. Brecht (political theory) makes a note of it saying ― it
is the function of the political theorist to see, sooner than others, and to analyse, more profoundly than others,
the immediate and the potential problems of the political life of society; to supply the practical politicians, well
in advance, with alternative courses of action, the foreseeable consequences which have been fully thought
through; and to supply him not only with brilliant ideas, but solid block knowledge on which to build.‖ When
political theory performs its function well, he continues, ―it is one of the most important in our struggle for the
advance of humanity‖.

SJ-CSICLS
Some of the definitions of Political Theory may be given as under:
 Broadly, it means ―as anything about politics or relevant to politics‖ and narrowly,‖ as the disciplined
investigation of political problems.‖ (Sabine)
 ―Political theory is an explanation of what politics is all about, a general understanding of the political
world, a frame of reference. It is one without which we should be able to recognize an event as political,
decided anything about why it happened, judge whether it was good or bad or decide what is likely to
happened next.‖ (Bluhm)
 Political theory is ―a combination of disinterested search for the principles good stat and good society on
the one hand, and disinterested search for knowledge of political or social reality on the other.‖ ( Andrew
Hacker)
 Political theory is ―a network of concept and generalization of political life involving ideas, assumptions
and statements about the nature, purpose and key features of government, state, and society and about the
political capabilities of human-beings.‖ (David Held).
 ―A body of thought that seeks to evaluate, explain, and predict political phenomena. As a sub-field of
political science, it is concerned with political ideas, values, and concepts, and the explanation of
prediction of political behavior. In this broad sense, it has two main branches: One is political philosophy
or normative theory, with it values, analytic, historical, and speculative concerns. The other is empirical
theory, with its effort to explain, predict, guide, research, and organize knowledge through the
formulation of abstract models and scientifically testable propositions.‖ (Political science dictionary).
Today we draw a distinction between public and private spheres of human life, and confine the usage of
the term 'politics' to the institutions and activities falling in the public sphere. Thus the decisions of cabinet and
parliament, election campaigns and other activities of political parties, people's movements seeking change in
law and public policy, etc. belong to politics but the object of our faith and worship, the content of our education,
art and culture, etc. do not properly belong to the sphere of politics until some regulation thereof is required to
maintain public order and safety!

Scope of Political Theory

After identifying the nature and scope of the 'political', we are now ready to understand the nature of
political theory. The term 'theory' stands for a systematic knowledge. Thus 'political theory' denotes a systematic
knowledge of political phenomena.
Broadly speaking, political theory is concerned with three types of statements:
(1) Empirical statement, which is based on observation, through sense-experience alone;
(2) Logical statement, which is based on reasoning (e.g. 'two plus two is four'); and
(3) Evaluative statement, which is based on value-judgment (e.g. ‗men are born free and equal').
Political science relies only on empirical and logical statements. It is argued that correct observation and
correct reasoning by different persons would lead to the similar conclusion; hence empirical and logical
statements are capable of verification. On the other hand, it is alleged that evaluative statements are based on
individual or group preferences which differ from individual to individual or group to group; there is no reliable
method of determining what is right or wrong, good or bad; one cannot scientifically discover the purpose of the
universe or human life. Exponents of 'Logical Positivism' argue that evaluative statements have no empirical
content or logical structure; they are expressions of subjective reflection or emotional preference. Likewise,
champions of scientific method for the study of politics insist on a 'value-free' or 'value-neutral' approach.
In any case, political theory cannot be confined to the so-called scientific knowledge. It is equally
concerned with determining values which come within the scope of philosophy. We cannot accept the view that
values are based on individual or group preferences. On the contrary, values do have a sound logical structure
unless we mistake them for biased statements. Upholders of different values can be invited to have a dialogue, to
have an opportunity to understand each other's point of view, to convince each other and probably to agree on
certain universal principles to judge the validity of values. Determination of values is the basis of a sound public
policy or decision. If we abdicate this responsibility, it may fall in irresponsible hands, with disastrous
consequences. Hence political theory must comprehend both political science and political philosophy.

SJ-CSICLS
Nature of Political Theory
To know clearly as to what political theory really is, is to known its nature. Political theory is said to be
political thought and that is why there are some who describe political theory as denoting the work of numerous
thinkers. But it is not what political thought is. There are others who equate political theory with political
philosophy. It is true that political theory constitutes a part of political philosophy, but it is only a part; a part can
never be a whole, and as a part, it remains only a part, a part of the whole. There are still others who are
incorporating science in politics and who prefer to call it political science. But those who insist science of
politics refuse to admit if there ever has been a history of politics or a culture of politics. Brecht, therefore, would
say: ―Political philosophy, political theory, and political science are no longer interchangeable terms…… With
the emphasizes placed on science and a distinction from political philosophy, political science now refers to
efforts limited by the use of scientific methods, in contrast to political philosophy, which is free to transcend
these limits. Likewise political ‗theory‘ when opposed to political ‗philosophy‘ now is usually meant to refer
scientific theory only in distinction from political human-beings. Any speculative thesis that is proposed by
political philosophy can be part of (scientific) political theory only as a ‗working hypothesis‘ an auxiliary in the
scientific kit, and no… or not yet ….. as a piece of scientific knowledge‖.
Political theory is not all history but it is history in the limited sense; it is not all philosophy
but it is philosophy in some degree; it is not all science but it is science in so far as it response to reason. A
political theorist has to be a part historian, a part philosopher, and a part scientist.
Political Theory as History- That political theory is history has been empathetically advocated by
scholars like George Sabine, but all history is not political theory just as all political theory is not history.
Political theory without history is a structure without a base. In studying and analyzing politics, what we learn to
understand is a political tradition, and a concrete way of behavior. It is, there for, proper that the study of politics
should essentially be a historical study. History, we should know, is more than the tail of the dead and the buried;
it is a storehouse of experience and wisdom; success and failures; of what has been achieved and what has been
lost. It is the sum-total and simultaneously the formation- head of a few development, something, as Professor
L.S. Rathore says, ―Eternally significant and instructive, inseparably liked with contemporaneity in the perpetual
progress of mankind‖. ―Ignore History‖ he warns, ―and the delight of political theory is never too retrieved‖.
Political theory as history defines what has lost its value. No one cries now that the state has been a
divine creation or the result of contract in the state of nature. As history, political theory conserves what has
significant and helps posterity to cherish it for a long time to come. Concepts such as justice, liberty, equality,
obligation, as evolved through the annals of time, are being held high by political theory today and shall continue
to be so in future. Indeed, history seldom repeats itself but it can hardly be ignored. In the attempt to divorce
itself from history, political theory loses its own significance for there can be no fruits without the roots as
Seeley had said long ago. It is thought history that political theory explains what is what. One can never
understand a text without a context.
Political theory is history in the sense that it seeks to understand the time, the place, and the
circumstances in which it evolves. If it ignores it historical context, it loses its strength, its focus, and its
message. Any political theory has to have facts as the basis, circumstances in which it develops, and the
message, i.e., political theory. Political theory is not merely or only history, it it is a science in so far as it is not
understood in isolation and also a philosophy in so far as it motivates.
Political Theory as Philosophy-That political theory is a philosophy has been very well enunciated by
scholar like Leo Strauss but all philosophy is not political theory as all political theory is not philosophy.
Philosophy as an abstract study encompassing the whole universe in general and moral, norms, and values in
particular, is the sum total of general laws governing the whole world. It has served political theory well through
the ages as its valuation factor as Sabine has said. Philosophy, as Kant says, has answered three questions:

 ―What can I know?‖

SJ-CSICLS
  ―What must I do?, and
 ―What can I hope for?‖
And this is what makes philosophy a lodestar of life. With philosophy ,no political theory can ever hope to
exist ; without an eye on further, no present can ever afford sty as no present stands without its past.
Political theory is a philosophy for it not only seeks to know the nature of thinks but also attempt to explain
as to why things really exist. One understanding an action or a thought only by evaluating it. Evaluation is a part
of understanding. Philosophy as distinct from theory is a ― quest for wisdom‖ or as Strauss hold the view, ― quest
for universal knowledge , for knowledge of the whole ― Political theory as philosophy is‖ attempt truly to know
both the nature of political things and the right, or the good , political theorist is expected to possess more than an
assumes or opines . In fact, a political theorist is expected to possess more than an assumption or an opinion; he
has to have knowledge, and that is what exactly the task of political theory is. Political theory as philosophy is an
―attempt to replace opinion about the nature of political things by knowledge of the nature of political things ―.
Values, Strauss believes, are an indispensable part of political theory as they are of philosophy. Every
political philosopher has to be a teacher in his own right: he must profess; he must teach; he must persuade.
Professor Varma , therefore , writes that the object of persuasion is always there before the political theorist.
―What some of the modern writers have described as ‗folk-lore of political philosophy‘, or more specifically
‗ideology ‗, is vital for the understanding of political theory.‖ political theory not only explains, but also
influences, favorable or adversely. Evaluation aspects of a political activity are as important as its factual aspects.
It is, in this sense, that values and facts an integral part of any political theory.
Political Theory as Science That political theory is a science has been forcefully emphasized by
scholars from Arthur Bentley to George Catlin David Easton to Robert Dahl; but all science is not political
theory just as all political theory is not science .Political theory is not science in the sense Chemistry or physics
or mathematics is a science .It is not as exact a science as these natural or physical science are not because there
are no universally recognized principals, no clear cause effect relationships, no laboratories and no prediction are
made in political theory the way these are found natural and exact sciences.
It is a science in so far as it admits concepts and norms which are both observable and testable, and in
so far as it responds to the requirements of reason and rationalism. The American social science researchers in
general and the behaviouralists in particular, sought to create a science of political and in the process, indulged in
what may be called reductionism. Political theory is a science in so far as it can, and in fact, is applied to a social
gathering and the definite rules of the exact science are applicable within the limitations as in any social science.
Political theory as a science is only a social science. It is a science ,a prime science as conclusion are drawn after
study, observation, experiments, features which go along with any normal definitions of science. There is no
need to go a long way to make a science of politics and to find techniques, and tools to make politics and exact
politics, no matter whether there remains, in the process, any political theory or not .The role of science in
political theory should be limited to the extent that it helps understand a political phenomenon, and to that
extend, science should have an entry in the realms of political theory. Political theory admits objectivity in
association with subjectivity, facts together with values, research with theory. Political theory as generates
neutral, dispassionate, and objective knowledge.
There are limits social science. In contrast, the rule of the game does not change with the
time. The laws of physics, for instance, can be assumed to pertain to all situations at all times-past, present, and
future. But this is not true of the social science. ―the nature of the ‗economy‘ and the ‗political‘ is,‖ Colin Hay
says, ―different after Keynes and Max in a way that the ‗physical‘ and the ‗natural‘ is not after Newton and
Einstein.‖ We must remember that

“Social structures, unlike natural structures, do not exist independently of the activities that govern”.
“Social structures, unlike natural structures, do not exist independently of the agents conventional of
what they are doing in their activity”.

SJ-CSICLS
 “Social structures, unlike natural structures, may be only relatively enduring.”
This is where the social science is different from the natural science .The limits of political theory are
worked out within the ethics of political analysis.

Significance of Political Theory

Political science and political philosophy play complementary roles in the realm of political theory.
Significance of political theory may, therefore, be sought in both of these areas.
 Control of social life
Scientific analysis of political life enables us to understand and solve the problems of our social life. Just
as the knowledge of geology helps us in understanding the causes of earthquake and gives us insights for
preventing the havoc caused by it, so political science enables us to understand the causes of conflict and
violence in society and gives us insights for preventing their outburst. Just as the knowledge of physics enables
us to generate electricity from our thermal and water resources, so the knowledge of political science enables us
to secure development of society from our human resources. Just as the knowledge of medical science enables us
to control and cure various diseases of human body, so political science guides us to find remedies of political
instability and various types of social crises.
 Social criticism and reconstruction
Political philosophy is primarily concerned with right and wrong, good and evil in social life. When we
find something wrong in our society and polity, we look for logical grounds for criticizing it and speculate about
the creation of a good society. A galaxy of political philosophers, like Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine,
Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Mill and Macpherson have pointed to the prevailing ills in
society and they have given their own schemes of social reconstruction. We cannot accept any of these proposals
as the final truth. But they give us ample insights into the possible ills of social life and their remedies. We can
draw our own scheme of social reconstruction on the basis of these insights. For example, Plato brilliantly
exposed the modus operandi of selfish and cunning politicians in a democracy. Machiavelli vividly described the
character of selfish and greedy people. Marx analysed the sources of conflict between the owners and non-
owners of property, and Macpherson pointed to the intricacies of power structure in contemporary society which
obstructs the way to creative freedom of individual. We can draw valuable insights from their thought for finding
remedies to the existing ills in the present-day society.
 Clarification of concepts
Political philosophy helps us a lot in the clarification of concepts used in the analysis of social and
political life. In fact the clarification of concepts in each area of study—whether science or philosophy—is
essential for the development of knowledge. This task is particularly difficult in the field of political theory. As
Sheldon S. Wolin has pointed out: "there is the widespread tendency to utilize the same words and notions in
describing non-political phenomena that we do in talking about political matters. In contrast to the restricted
technical usages of mathematics and the natural sciences, phrases like 'the authority of the father',
'the authority of the church', or 'the authority of Parliament' are evidence of the parallel usages prevailing in
social and political discussions." (Politics and Vision; 1960)
So when we use the terms of common parlance in political discourse, it is very important to determine
their technical meaning. Moreover, the terms like authority, social class, liberty, equality, justice, democracy, etc.
may be applied by different schools of thought to indicate different ideas. Political philosophy tries to determine
their precise meaning which should be acceptable to the upholders of different ideologies. Agreement on the
meaning of the terms of political discourse does not necessarily mean that they come to accept each other's
viewpoint. But it certainly paves the way for their dialogue. For example, if a liberal and a socialist accept the
same meaning of 'freedom' or 'equality', they are likely to appreciate each other's viewpoint.
As long as precise meanings of the terms of political discourse are not determined, some people may
apply them so cleverly as to conceal a weak point of their argument. Some selfish leaders and demagogues may
use these terms to mislead people by creating an emotional appeal and evading reason, and autocrats may apply
them to legitimize their oppressive regimes, as Mussolini (1883-1945) did in Italy. Again, a precise and widely
accepted definition of a term enables each thinker to build his argument on sound footing. As every innovative

SJ-CSICLS
mechanic need not invent a wheel to assemble a new machine, so every new thinker need not devise new
terminology to present his point of view.
 Encouragement to mutual respect and toleration
The tradition of political theory encourages a dignified debate between upholders of different points of
view. Most political philosophers from ancient times till the present-day have been dwelling on some common
problems and giving us new insights. As Andrew Hacker has significantly observed: "Political theory is a never-
ending conversation among theorists. And while the greatest of the debates are never resolved, the criticisms
which the writers make of each other are always most vivid and illuminating.... Politics is, after all, the most
democratic of sciences. The final judgments concerning political reality and the good life are the responsibility of
all who undertake the study of theory." (Political Theory: Philosophy, Ideology, Science) When we follow the
tradition of political philosophers, it inspires us to understand each other's viewpoint. It gives us an opportunity
to identify the strengths and weaknesses of our thought, to convince others and be convinced by others when
truth is discovered. In short, political theory generates mutual respect and toleration among us and prompts us to
resolve our differences peacefully.

Scope of Political Theory

Political Theory

Focus on Study Method of Study

Political Concepts Political Institutions & Behavior

&
Ideas

Descriptive Scientific Method Normative Philosophical

Method

Positivism
The view that relies on scientific method as the only source of true knowledge. It rejects superstition,
religion and metaphysics as pre-scientific forms of thought. It holds that all knowledge is ultimately based on
sense-experience. Hence empirical method must be adopted for any genuine inquiry in the field of social
sciences as well as physical sciences.
Commenting on this debate Dante Germino in his Beyond Ideology: The Revival of Political Theory
(1967) argued that in most of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century there were two major causes of
the decline of political theory: (a) the rise of positivism which led to the craze for science; and (b) the prevalence
of political ideologies culminating in Marxism. But now it was again in ascendancy, particularly in the political
thought of Michael Oakeshott, Hannah Arendt, Bertrand de Jouvenal, Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin. This list
was expanded by Germino in a subsequent paper (1975) so as to include John Rawls, C.B. Macpherson,
Christian Bay, Robert Nozick, Herbert Marcuse, Jurgen Habermas, Alasdaire Maclntyre and Michael Walzer.
The works of these writers had revived the grand tradition of political philosophy. Germino suggested that in
order to understand the new role of political theory it was imperative to identify it with political philosophy.
Political philosophy is a critical study of the principles of right order in human social existence, involving
inquiry into right and wrong. It is neither reductionist behavioural science where everything is reduced to sense-
experience, nor opinionated ideology which accepts some principles to be true without inquiring into their
SJ-CSICLS
validity. It comprehends both the knowledge of facts and the insight with which that knowledge is
comprehended.
According to Germino, political philosophy deals with perennial problems confronting man in his social
existence. Detachment is not ethical neutrality. A political philosopher cannot remain indifferent to the political
struggle of his times as a behaviouralist would claim. In short, behavioural political science concentrates on facts
and remains neutral to values. Political philosophy cannot grow along with positivism which abstains from a
critical examination of any social situation. The gulf between traditionalist and behaviouralist components of
political theory is so wide that they cannot be 'reunited'. Any theory separated from the perennial concerns of
political philosophy will prove to be irrelevant. Germino laments that the behavioural political theory has often
implicitly or uncritically endorsed the policies and practices of the established order instead of performing the
Socratic function of 'speaking truth to power.' He warns that full
recovery of critical political theory cannot be achieved within the positivist universe of discourse.
Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) has significantly pointed to the risk involved in the demand for scientific
study of society and politics. He has argued that when the language of social science attempts to conform to the
language of natural science, it tends to lend support to the status quo. In this context scientific terminology is
sought to be defined in terms of such operations and behavior that are capable of observation and measurement.
This leaves no scope for a critical vision in the scientific language. For instance, when people's participation is
sought to be estimated on the basis of the numbers of voters who turn up at elections, we do not question whether
the prevailing electoral system conforms to the spirit of democracy! When we adopt this method of study, social
science no longer remains an instrument of social inquiry; it becomes an instrument of social control.
In any case, since 1970s the dispute between political science and political philosophy has largely
subsided. While David Easton had shown a renewed concern with values in his post-behavioural approach, the
exponents of political philosophy did not hesitate in testing their assumptions by empirical method. Karl Popper
(1902-94), an eminent exponent of scientific method, proceeded to draw conclusions regarding social values.
John Rawls (1921-2002) adopted empirical method for arriving at his principles of justice. Then C.B.
Macpherson (1911-87) attacked the empirical theory of democracy propounded by Joseph Schumpeter (1883-
1950) and Robert Dahl (1915- ), and advanced his own radical theory of democracy. Herbert Marcuse and Jurgen
Habermas (1929- ) have shown a strong. Empirical insight in their critical analysis of the contemporary
capitalism. It is now held that political science, like other social and natural sciences, enables us to strengthen our
means but we will have to resort to political philosophy to determine our ends. Means and ends are
interdependent; hence political science and political philosophy play complementary roles in our social life.

Empiricism
The term empiricism has a dual etymology. It comes from the Greek word, the Latin translation of which
is experiential, from which we derive the word experience. It also derive from a more specific classical usage of
empiric, referring to a physician whose skills derives from practical experience as opposed to institution in
theory.
In philosophy, empiricism is a theory of knowledge that is practical rather than abstract, and asserts that
knowledge arises from experience rather than revelation.
Empiricism is one view held about how we know things, and so is part of the branch of philosophy called
epistemology, which means theory of knowledge. Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence,
especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas while discounting the notion of innate ideas.
In science, empiricism emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to
evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all
hypothesis and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a
priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.
The advocates of empiricism relate all knowledge to be derived from experience through the following
ways:

SJ-CSICLS
  Experience, the only basis of knowledge,
 All hypothesizes and theories to be tested by the process of observation,
 Facts to be examined objectively: collected, arranged, classified, categorized, and explained,
 Scientific and inductive method,
 Research to be related to theory, and theory, to the facts.
The empirical approach in its emphasis on experience becomes irrelevant in the face of varying
experiences where, therefore, objectivity is usually is not possible. It lays over emphasis on facts and scientific
methodology, it often boasts of: its rejection of values robs it of all basis of evaluation.

Political modernization

Modernization is an unavoidable process. Individuals may change from time to time and this change is
being influenced by the process of modernisation. There is craze for modern ways of life and the various
comforts and conveniences which go with the process of modernisation. Although there was modernisation in
every society at different stages of history, the process became highly accelerated after the industrial revolution
in Europe. Advancement of science and technology has been responsible to bring rapid modernization affecting
almost all walks of life in society.
The concept of ‗political modernisation‘ like political development is very vague. Different scholars have
defined it differently. Most of the western political scientists regarded modernisation as westernization. The term
‗Modernisation‘ is, however, said to be the current term for the old process, the process of social change,
whereby less developed societies acquire characteristics common to more developed society. It is a process
based upon the rational utilization of resources and aimed at the establishment of modern society. For some
persons, modernisation is a process of structural differentiation, functional specialization and adaptive upgrading.
Modernisation in the evolutionary perspective refers to transition from primitive to traditional, to industrialized
society; from religious to secular ideology, from particularism, ascription, diffuseness, self orientation to
universalism, achievement, specificity, and collective orientation from extended family to nuclear family and so
on.
A modern society has been identified as a society characterized by the application of technology and by
extensive social interdependence. Urbanization, literacy, social mobility and many other factors also go with the
concept of modern society. Modernisation implies the breakdown of traditional society. It refers to the
development of a new social order ―based on advanced technology and the spirit of science, a rational view of
life, a secular approach to social relations, a feeling for justice in public affairs and above all else on the
acceptance in the political realm of the belief that the prime unit of the polity should be the nation-state‖.
Modernisation is at present an irresistible force. It has spread to the different parts of the world. This
process has been described as ―a diffusion of world culture‖. Modernisation like the Industrial Revolution started
in Western Europe and has spread to other parts of the world. Thus, industrialization, urbanization, education and
media participation are the various aspects of modernisation. It refers to the change in political culture and
political institutions as a result of the process of modernisation- ―that is everything like economic growth,
increase of gross national product and per-capita income, economic planning, greater industrialization,
accumulation of capital, increasing urbanization and reduction of the proportion of those engaged in agriculture,
scientific advance, improved transport and a higher rate of literacy.
Definitions
Claud E.Welch, Jr. suggests, modernisation as ―the process based upon the rational utilization of
resources and aimed at the establishment of a modern society‖ Benjamin Schwartz describes modernisation as
―the systematic, sustained and powerful application of human energies to the rational control of man‘s physical
and social environment for various human purposes‖.
W.W.Rostow ―Modernisation implies an intellectual, technological and social revolution‖
A B. Smith points out ―modernisation is defined as man‘s increased knowledge and mastery of this
environment‖.
C E Black defines: The process by which historically evolved institutions are adapted to the rapidly
changing functions that represent the unprecedented increase in man‘s knowledge, pertaining to control is called
modernisation‖.

SJ-CSICLS
 Gabriel A Almond and G Bingham Powell jr. say ‗the political modernisation refers to those processes of
differentiation of political structures and secularization of political culture which enhance the capacity of
society‘s political system‖
Michael Curtis points out that ― modernisation implies economic growth , the increase of gross national
product and of per capita income, economic planning , greater industrialization, the accumulation of capital,
increasing urbanization and a reduction in the proportion of those engaged in agriculture scientific advance,
improved transport and a higher rate of literacy‖.
Karl Deutch ―modernisation is a process by which major cultures of old social, economic and
psychological commitments are eroaded or broken down the people become available for new pattern of
socialization and behavior.‖
Marxist scholars define modernisation in terms of consciousness as ideology or superstructure. They see
modernisation as the imposition of infrastructure of domination and exploitation and interpret elements of
consciousness as dependent variables i.e. an appendage of infrastructure.
According to Huntington ―Modernisation is multi-faceted process involving changes in all areas of human
thought and activity‖.
Modernisation is a multi-faceted process and, for this reason, political modernisation is a concept
having several dimensions as:
1. At the psychological level, modernisation involves a fundamental shift in the norms, values, attitudes and
orientations of the people.
2. At the intellectual level, it involves a tremendous expansion of man‘s knowledge about his environment and
the diffusion of this knowledge throughout the society through increased literacy, education and mass
communication.
3. At the demographical level, it implies improvements in the standards of living and progress towards the
mobility of people and urbanization.
4. At the social level, it has a tendency to replace the focus of an individual‘s loyalty to family and other primary
groups to voluntarily organised secondary associations.
5. At the economic level, it involves the growth of market agriculture, improvement in commerce at the expense
of agriculture, development of industrialization and widening of the economic activity.
Thus, modernisation ―is regarded as a comprehensive phenomenon which brings about radical changes in
the field of economic development, mainly in the direction of industrialization and material advancement,
political systems and also changes in the social and psychological spheres of life‖.
Basic characteristics of Modernisation
1. Application of technology and mechanization
2. Industrialization
3. Urbanization
4. Rise in national income and per-capita income
5. Increasing literacy
6. Political participation
7. Development of mass media techniques
8. Social mobility
9. Cultivation of national identity
Stages of political modernisation
The subject of political modernisation has its special relevance in the case of the developing countries of
the Third World which ―are damned if they do, and damned if they don‘t‖. Such is the dilemma before the Third
World countries. The reason for this may be traced in their perennial quest for the way they should adopt to
achieve the goal. The fact stands out that no country desires to relinquish the path of development or
modernisation and, at the same time, most of the Third World countries fail to choose the option between liberal
and socialist courses. Apter is of the view that while the liberal capitalist solution poses the problem of
inequality, the Marxian socialist requires coercion. And yet the struggle for political modernisation persists
because ‗development embodies hope‘.
Like political development, political modernisation also takes place where it is most easily accepted or
wanted. Thus, it signifies the ‗transfer of roles from metropolis to periphery‘. Moreover, it has its stages, each
having its own predicaments. According to Apter, four stages may be earmarked in this regard:
SJ-CSICLS
 1. Stage of contact and control: It began with a few hardy and enterprising individuals with a particular
strong sense of mission, or greed, or zeal, or desire for adventure. They paved the way for innovation. The first
stage of development represented a process by means of which the then new wealth of Europe and new
technologies, by creating opportunities for trade, effected not only the settlement of trade centers but the
acquisition of territory as well. It was accompanied by the belief condition of dependent peoples must be
changed. A poet like Kipling Shrewdly termed it ‗Whiteman‘s burden. It was marked by the consolidation of the
alien rule erection of a stable system of authority and the being of urbanization, health and schooling for and elite
occurring at the end of this stage.
2. Stage of reaction and counter-action: it showed the effects of Western colonialism. Innovative
foreign elites of the bureaucrats, missionaries, traders and the like created new urban centers or renovated the old
ones and the native persons drew closer to them. The notable feature of this stage was that local and foreign
elements interacted; new forms of association developed; and new interests arose. At the same time,
nationalization led by elite grew. The nationalist leaders demanded more and more participation in public affairs.
The colonial masters played the strategy of winning over the nationalist elites to their side and repressing those
who could not be tamed for their purpose.
3. Stage of contradiction and emancipation: With the growth of new elites, more complex associations
in politics arose. The base of the nationalist movement widened. Elites developed in the rural and semi-urban
areas and the nationalist leaders sharpened the pace of their struggle. To face the challenge of the growing
nationalism, the colonial powers devised the strategy of introducing their own democratic systems in degrees.
Such responses, in turn, stimulated political organizations, mass movements, demands for greater independence,
and other forerunners of the impending break with the colonizing power. Intellectuals fomented rebellion,
providing ideological arguments and alternatives. Charismatic or near-charismatic leaders promised a new unity
with independence.
4. Stage of search for a New Generative Solution: It occurred after the advent of independence and, as
such, it was marked by the inauguration of the second revolution in the social, economic and technological
spheres. Thus, the main problem before the developing countries is to use political independence to produce
more viable and effective communities without becoming ensnared in ‗neo-colonialism‘. This is partly a matter
of prompting economic growth, partly an awakening to the predicaments or uneven change. One striking point in
this stage is that the nationalist leadership of the well-known nationalist figures loses its charismatic hold and the
‗imported democratic system‘ is replaced by some authoritarian model provided by the only ruling party or
military junta.
Agents of modernisation
1. Colonialism
2. Elites
3. Revolutionary leaders
4. Political parties
5. Military
6. Bureaucracy
The political aspects of modernisation refer to the ensemble of structural and cultural changes in the
political systems of modernizing societies. Political modernisation, therefore, refers to those processes of
differentiation of political structure and secularization of political cultures which enhance the capability- the
effectiveness and efficiency of performance- of a society‘s political system.
Characteristics of modernisation:
S N Eisenstadt sums up the characteristics of modernisation as follows:
1. Social mobilization: The indices of social mobilization are exposure to aspects of modernisation life
such as machinery and mass media; change of residence i. e‘ urbanization; change from agriculture occupation
and literacy and the growth of per capital income.
2. Social differentiation: This implies the specialization of institutional structures and recruitment based
on universal achievement. Criteria and separatism between the different roles held by an individual and the
disposal of rules.
3. Economic change: Which means changes with reference to technology and development of secondary
and tertiary occupation and mass consumption

SJ-CSICLS
 4. Political change: which includes the extension of territorial scope and the intensification of the power
of the centre; the continued spreading political power to wider groups, populist and democratic politics and
participation; fluidity of political support; interest oriented politics, and political institutions like political parties
and pressure groups.
Factors influencing modernisation in developing states
Modernisation is creating a dilemma for developing states and they could not attain modernisation to a
maximum degree. So there are few factors which are responsible for influencing the process of modernisation in
developing states:
Love for tradition: The people love their own traditions, customs, usages and conventions in developing
countries which have acted as a stumbling block in the process of modernisation. Their acceptance for the new
social change is quite low because of their long-cherished traditions, but they wanted both modernisation and
tradition on their terms.
Conflict over method of modernisation: In developing states, there is always a conflict regarding the
methods of modernisation. There are two methods of modernisation-revolution method and evolution method.
The revolution method says that to achieve modernization well-established old institutions have to be challenged,
where changes are supposed to be drastic or revolutionary instead of being instrumental and gradual. On the
other hand, liberals think that change should always be gradual and slow instead of being drastic. This would
help the people to achieve the fruits (both modernisation and traditional norms and values through evolution
methods. Due to this conflict, developing countries stand at crossroad where they neither give up their old
traditional values nor fully adopt or accept sudden changes in societies; therefore, these developing countries
pose in standstill postures.
Social political equality: The modern concept of social political equality and justice is not acceptable to
the people because they believe in perpetual inequality. The discrimination of the elite over the masses and that
of higher caste or class over the lower class uproot the modernisation in these societies: So, the concept of high
and low persist strongly in developing countries which create a problem towards modernisation.
Ideology: In developing states, modernisation is very much influenced by ideology It is that ideology
which bonds and holds the people tightly within a political stratum on the basis of some commonly agreed
principles. An ideological conflict always exists in the modern political system and traditional political system
where modernisation stands for the progressive ideology but it is constantly opposed by the existing form of
ideology in developing countries.
Absence of strong political party: In the developing countries, modernisation is seriously affected by the
existence of a variety of political parties where there are no particular single political parties which have the
command over the people of a particular state. The traditional social systems are authoritarian systems (the
elites) in nature; they wish to continue in power in developing countries and they want to have control over the
masses and where the peoples are not allowed to participate in the process of decision-malting. Even though
some measures have been taken regarding people's participation in the administration in some countries, their
degree of involvement is not so high when compared to developed countries. It is necessary to have a strong
political party which helps in bringing people close to the political system,
Un-continuous development process: Modernisation is also affected severely by the uncontinious
development process which is a -regular feature of developing states. Political instability, illiteracy, ignorance of
the people, heterogeneous group character and continuous clash among people are the main causes which do not
yield for their developments in developing nations. As such, the national integration is affected and there occurs
a breakdown in political development.
Growing disparity over socio-economic values: There is a high growing disparity over the socio-
economic values which influence the process of political modernisation. There is always a wide gap between
gross national product (GNP) and the population growth. Thus, high-population nations suffer from poverty.
Illiteracy, alienation and economic disparities, so this has directly affected the developing countries for -their
political modernisation
Conclusion
The concept of political modernisation as a companion to the concept of political development has
provided better tools for the new generations of political scientists to make a taxonomic study of the modern
political systems. Once again, the link of political science with sociology comes into the picture as a study of
political modernisation is obviously a different form of a Lucian Pye presents the case of political development
SJ-CSICLS
elaborately his aspect of political development. Before trying to furnish his own interpretation of the term
‗political development‘, he discussed diverse stand point and goes ahead after accepting some and rejecting some
other parts of each definition in the following manner.

Political Development

The concept of political development that, in quite large measures, was spoken about first by the
statesmen and policy makers and then by the scholars of economics and sociology has a very important place in
the field of political sociology. What prompted the modern political scientists, particularly those belonging to
United States, is the emergence of a large number of independent nation states in the Afro- Asian and Latin
American regions which showed change from one position to another in a very rapid manner and thus
information them to refashion their tools of social investigation. The new generation of political scientist came to
realize that the non western political process, even though they were different from the western political process,
could be successfully studied by them against the socio – economic and cultural background they themselves had
inherited throughout the centuries in the west, and under the influence of which they had been operating now.
The fact that there were different from the western political process, being rooted in, and drawing their
sustenance from, different cultural backgrounds ―induced them to widen their studies to the total context of the
cultural and historical setting of the developing states‖. In modern times the concept of political development is
being used in the explanation of development in so many nations in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Lucian Pye should be regarded as the leading writer ―to analyse the concept of development in depth.
And has kept on evolving his ideas on the subject and has left an abiding impression on the entire literature of
political development‖. Lucian Pye called political development as the adjustment between old patterns of life
and the new demands. He emphasized that the first step towards the political development was the evolution of
the nation state system which he treated as a ―basic concept supporting the gradual diffusion throughout all
societies of what we might call a world culture‖.
At this stage, he told us that the signs of political development could be traced at three different levels –
with respect to the population as a whole, on the governmental levels and in the organization of political system.
Lucian Pye presents the case of political development elaborately his aspect of political development.
Before trying to furnish his own interpretation of the term ‗political development‘, he discussed diverse stand
point and goes ahead after accepting some and rejecting some other parts of each definition in the following
manner.
1. Political development as the political prerequisite of economic development: Political development
should be taken as a result of the economic development. Political and social conditions can play a quite decisive
role in impeding or facilitating the economic growth. According to this view political development is the
political perquisite of economic development. Pye found following weakness in this concept of political
development:
It has a negative character that is easier to know the ways in which performance of political system may
impend or prevent economic growth and development that about how it can facilitate economic growth and
development.
Such a concept of political development does not focus on a common set of theoretical considerations. In
some cases it means that the government is not following rational economic policies, while in other situations it
may be concerned about the political system and the social structure.
The prospects for rapid economic development do not depend so much on political development as on
economic factors.
Most of the under developed countries are concerned with political development rather than economic
growth. Therefore, political development cannot be linked to economic events.
2. Political development as the politics typical of industrial society: Some scholars like W W Rostow try
to identify the process of political development as the politics of typical industrial society. Industrial life
produces a common and generic type of political life. The industrial societies set certain standards of political
behavior and performance. These constitute the status and determine the goals of political development. This
view makes specific qualities of political development, the pattern of rational and responsible state behavior. Pye
rejects it also on the ground that it ignores that it ignores the role of several other factors like forces that threaten

SJ-CSICLS
the hold of the vested interests, an appreciation of the values of ordinary legal and administrative procedures, a
stress on welfare programmes and finally an acceptance of some form of mass participation.
3. Political development as political modernisation: The scholars like James S. Coleman, Karal Deutsch
and S M Lipset defined political development as the crucial character of political modernisation, characteristics
of modern societies. Political development includes various aspects of economic, social and political life of the
industrial nations. It means that a study of developed western and modern countries and of their ways that the
developing countries are trying to emulate. It means that the advanced western and modern countries are the pace
setters of political development. This view fails to distinguish between the ‗western‘ and the ‗modern‘ and that it
ignores the fact that the backward or developing countries may have their historical traditions that they may not
like to give up for the sake of merely emulating everything that is western or modern.
4. Political development as the operations of nation state: A good number of social theorists like K H
Silvert , Edward A Shils and Willam Mccord have pointed out that political development consists of the
organization of political life and the performance of political functions in accordance with the standards expected
of a modern nation state. Political development is thus identified with the politics of nationalism within the
context of social and political institutions that a modern nation state must possess. Rejecting this view, Pye says
that nationalism is only a necessary but far from being sufficient conditions to ensure political development.
Political development is identifiable with nation building and not with merely a nation state.
5. Political development as administrative and legal development: Scholars and thinkers like Max
Weber, Talcott Parsons and Joseph La Palombara have laid stress on the point that political development is
intricately linked to the legal and administrative order of a community. Thus the establishment of an effective
bureaucracy is essential for the process of development. Administrative development is associated with the
growth of nationality, the strengthening of secular legal concepts and the evaluation of technical and specialized
knowledge in the direction of human affairs. Thus political development improves the administrative and legal
development .Pye finds some weakness in this view point‘s also. It is quite possible that if administrative is over
stressed, it can create imbalances in the polity that may impede political
development.
6. Political development as mobilization and participation: Political development has been defined as
mass mobilization and participation. It involves new standards of loyalties and the involvement of the citizens.
This is found in the case of widening of suffrage in western democracies. It inducts new elements of population
into the political process. It diffuses decision making and participation. However, it has been pointed out that
mass participation in decision – making is never fully realized nor is desirable since it causes emotional
influence.
7. Political development as the building of democracy: The thinkers like Joseph la Palombara and J
Ronald Pennock are of the view that political development is the building of democracy and inculcating values
of democratic order in the minds of people. Pye criticizes of this view, on the other hand, pointed out that while
democracy is a value laden concept development is more value neutral. Therefore, taking the building of
democracy as the key to political development in fact means an effort to push western values upon others.
8. Political development as mobilization and power: James S Coleman, G A Almond and Talcott
Parsons have taken the view that the concept of political development can be evaluated in terms of the level or
degree of absolute power which the system is able to mobilize. Pye is critical of this view also on the plea that
such an explanation is applicable to the case of a democratic political system and thus it ignores the case of
development in others where the mobilization of power is deliberating kept limited.
9. Political development as stability or orderly change: Karal Deutish and F W Riggs have laid stress on
the point that political development is a process that ensures stability and orderly change. Political stability is
based on a capacity for purposeful and orderly change. Any form of economic and social advancement generally
depends upon reduced uncertainty and the possibility of planning. Pye differs from this approach and says that,
this view however, leaves the questions unanswered and for what purpose the change should be directed.
10. Political development as one aspect of a multi dimensional process of social change: Max F
Millikan, Donald L M Blackmer and Daniel Lerner argued that it is unnecessary and inappropriate to try to
isolate completely political development from other forms of development. They further add that for sustained
political development to take place it can only be within the context of multi dimensional process of social
change in which no segment or dimension of the society can long lag behind. Pye appreciates this view on the
plea that here all forms of development is much the same as modernisation and it takes place within a historical
SJ-CSICLS
context in which influences from outside the society impinge on the process of social change just as changes in
the different aspects of a society the economy, the polity and the social order all impinge on each other.
11. Political development as a sense of national respect in international affairs: Some writers point out
that development means a sense of national respect and dignity in international sphere or refers to post
nationalism era when nation state will no longer be regarded as the basic unit of political life. Pye says nothing
about this view. He neither accepts it nor rejects it.
Implications of political development
According to Nettle, the concept of political development involves the following implications.
Definitional priorities: These change according to the industrial diversities and culture constraints of
different societies. They may be revolutionary or democratic in character. They may be western or oriental.
Set of values: These include terms like traditionalist or modernity, free or closed societies, developed and
developing social systems, which are confused and perplexing as the models are not definite.
Connection between the developed and less developed world: According to Nettle, ―what this amount
to be a rewriting of European, American and even Asiatic history for developmental purposes. The modern
world is no longer so much a goal or a process model but a historical abstraction of functional, events which, one
way or another must happens and be coped with by all countries aspiring to modernity.
Rank order for development: this implies economic order. It does not throw light upon capabilities of
the political system. According to Nettle, ―if development is indeed, a highly differential process according to
particular societies and their goals, then rank ordering comparisons become meaningless‖.
Requirements of political development
After discussing the implication of political development, Nettle points out the following requirements.
Inter related world: in order to understand the meaning of political development one should remember
that the world as a whole is inter related. Thus development study is an interdisciplinary problem
Stability and instability: Political development involves both stability and instability. Therefore, in
defining it one should consider not only integrating factors such as nation building national integration etc., but
also disintegrating factors such as wars inflation etc.
Population: population has a direct influence upon the political system. Therefore, political development
cannot be explained without reference to population.
Race: political development must include the role of race in political system.
Characteristic change: The above discussion shows the complexity and range of the concept of political
development. David M Wood includes the following broad ganged changes as characteristics of political
development.
 Industrialization
 Urbanization
 Spread of education and literacy
 Increasing exposure of mass media
 Expansion of secular state
 Growth of modern bureaucracies
 Development of a sense of nationhood
 Advent of political parties
 Expansion of popular political participation
 Increased capacity of the political system to mobilize resources for the accomplishment of its ends
in the most of modern politics
 Decline in the missionary fervor of the political development

Critical Appraisal
The concept of political development, as discussed in the preceding sections , may be subjected to these
lines of criticism. 1. This concept lacks a precise definition. Even after studying the enormous literature on this
subject, one wonders as to what it really includes and what it really excludes it becomes, like the very subject of
comparative politics, either everything or nothing.
2. Studies of the subject of political development suffer from the absence of any coherent political model of the
development process and that the entire analysis is left at the point where extra political change.

SJ-CSICLS
3. Likewise, the Marxian approach to political development may criticize for offering a deterministic course of
social evolution. The Marxists look like faced with a traditional ity that confuses them and they find it very
difficult to fit traditional societies into the rather rigid Marxian framework.
Although most of political scientists have studies and written about political development, yet there is no
universally accepted theory of political development or any pre- determined law of development. No society in
the world can claim to be its model to which others may move. The theorists, however, helped in join attention of
the world to the problem of political development of Third world nations. Moreover, the scope of empirical
political investigations has also widened and made broader based. Thus, the study of political development has
helped considerably in orientation of several new theories in the field of investigations.

Political Culture

The concept of ‗Political Culture‘ is somewhat new in the discipline of Political Science. One version is
that it was in 1960‘s that this concept became a part of modern political analysis. Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney
Verba have pointed out that the concept of Political Culture, like other concepts in the field of Political Science,
was originated between two world wars. It was first introduced by Gabriel A. Almond in one of his paper titled
―Comparative Political System,‖ published in 1956. In his early attempts to offer a classification for comparing
Political Systems.
Political Culture, however, has been popularized by some of the leading American writers like
Samuel Beer, Admulams and Gabriel A. Almond. Political culture is, however, closely linked with ‗Political
System‘ and in fact the formal regulates the latter. Moreover, political culture is not static but changes with
changing times. This concept has therefore, offered a new method of having knowledge of Political Sociology.
One political system may be different from other in respect of Political culture. It is political culture which
explains why in some political systems democratic or parliamentary democracy failed and replaced by military
dictatorship and in others it was replaced by civilian totalitarianism. It is not only the legal framework that
matters but there are something more which affects this development.
Each society, however, imparts its own characteristic set of norms and values to its people, and the
people in turn have distinct sets of idea about how the Political System to work, about what the Government may
do them, and about their own claims on the system and their obligation to it. This set of beliefs, symbols, and
values about the Political System forms the Political culture of a nation. In the simplest words, Political culture is
the Psychology of the nation in regard to Politics.
According to Sidney Verba, Political culture is the empirical beliefs, expressive symbols and values
which defined the situation in which political action takes place. By empirical beliefs he means the ways people
perceive and interpret the nature of political relationship. By expressive symbols, he means the ways of people
feel towards political institutions and leaders; patterns of by values he means the standards used to set the general
goals of the political system; standards used to evaluate political demands, processes and products. A political
culture can, thus, be characterized by relative, empirically determinable levels of consensus in the sharing among
people of these beliefs, symbols and values. In other words, political culture is defined in terms of political
orientations and attitudes held by individual, in relation to their political system.
Meaning and interpretations of political culture
There has been a substantial effort to view culture in a political context in Political Science in general and
in Political Sociology in particular. For a political scientist ―the shared values of a communities or group are
embodied in its political culture, which in the reflection of its attitudes towards politics and which conditions the
manner in which functions are exercised and the nature of the persons which perform those functions‖.
According to Dogan and Rose, the concept of ―political culture is a conventional shorthand way of referring to
the values, beliefs, emotions, that give meaning to political life. Rose points out that the political culture of a
nation consists of the characteristic attitudes of its population towards basic features of the political system‖.
Waler A. Rosenbaum defines it as ―The collective orientation of people towards the basic elements in the
political system‖. S.P. Verma points out that ―Political culture includes not only the attitudes to politics, political
values, ideologies, nation‘s character and culture ethos but also the style, manner and substantive form of
politics‖.
The concept of political cultural owes its genesis to the post second world war phase where political
scientists attempted to develop a number of new approaches to detach political science from tentacles of
SJ-CSICLS
traditional approaches. It seeks to study politics by integragating outputs from psychology and sociology political
culture refers to beliefs attitudes and orientation that people have towards political objects.
Definitions
Almond and Powell define, political culture as the ―sum total of individual‘s attitudes, orientations,
beliefs towards politics among the members of a political system‖.
According to Dennis Kavanagh, ―A political culture composed of the attitudes beliefs, emotions and
values of society‖.
Lucian W.Pye viewed ‗Political Culture‘ as providing ―an ordered subjective relam of Politics, which is
found on two levels. For the individual the political culture produces controlling guidelines for effective political
behavior, and for the collectivity it gives a systematic structure of values and rational considerations which
insures coherence in the performance of institutions and origanisations.‖
In the opinion of Roy Macridis, ―Political Culture means commonly shared goals and commonly shared
accepted rules‖.
Smauel Beer defines political culture as the ―Values, beliefs and emotional attitudes about new
government ought to be conducted and what it should do‖.
Components of Political Culture
As political culture is the pattern of individual attitudes orientations towards politics among the members
of a political system, it is the subjective realm which underlines and gives meaning to political actions. Political
culture is composed of attitudes and orientations which people in a given society develop towards objects within
their political system. These orientations may have three distinct dimensions which are cognitive, affective and
evaluative.
Cognitive Orientation-Cognitive orientation refers to people‘s knowledge, accurate or otherwise, of
political objects and beliefs. In other words cognitive orientation involves knowledge about political objects and
familiarity with the way the political system actually works. Thus, an individual may have relatively high degree
of accurate knowledge about how his political system works, who are leading figures and what are the current
problems faced by the country. In developing countries majority of people are more or less ignorant as to how
political system is run and about the role of the Prime Minister, President and the Courts. Majority of them have
limited contact with the political system also.
Affective Orientation-Affective orientation refers to emotional feelings of the people towards their
political system. In other words it stands for subjective feelings of attachment to alienation from the political
system. It also refers to the standard of criteria with the help of which the people judge their political system.
Affective orientation, therefore, includes the feelings of attachment, involvement, rejection and the like, about
political objects. These emotional feelings are very important because they affect the activities of the people as
well as of the government.
Evaluative Orientation-Evaluative orientation refers to judgments and opinions about political objects,
which usually involve applying value standards to political objects and events. These three orientations are
closely interrelated and would be found in the psyche of a single individual in different combinations. Almond
and Powell have rightly observed that the orientation patterns ‗constitute the latent political tendencies, the
propensities for political behavior, which are of crucial importance in explaining and predicting action in a
political system.
Political Objects
Orientations of the people are directed towards ‗Political Objects‘. According to Almond and Powell,
political objects include the political system as a whole; Particular Political structures- Parties, interest groups,
legislature, executive, Judiciary – Individual or group roles President, Prime Minister, Cabinet, Ministry and
specific Public Politics and issues. They also include the self as a political actor. Since the number of Political
objects is very large, they can be classified under four categories.
1. System as a whole: It includes the Political System, its history, it size, location of power, constitution
etc. People have knowledge of, feelings about and judgments on the political system and it is these orientations
that condition the development of national identity. To develop these orientations people must not only be
physically and legally members of a political system but as well are physiologically members of that system.
2. Input Processes: It includes those organizations and institutions which channel the flow of demands
and supports into the political system. They affect the decision making process like Political parties, Pressure
groups, Media etc.
SJ-CSICLS
 3. Output Process: It includes the work of the bureaucracy, the courts and other institutions concerned
with applying and enforcing authoritative decisions.
4. The Self: It includes the individual‘s role in the Political System as perceived by individual himself. As
he plays a role in the political system he certainly has knowledge of, attachment to, and also his own evaluation
of their role.
Types of Political Culture
Almond and Powell, in order to characterize political culture in terms of distribution of general attitudes
toward the political system and toward the input and the output processes; have classified political culture into
the following three ideal or pure types, namely
i. Parochial political culture,
ii. Subject political culture, and
iii. Participant political culture.

Parochial political culture

People who exhibit little or no awareness of the political system fall in this category. In other words it
includes people who have no inclination to participate in input process and not aware of the output process. They
are, thus, not interested to play any role. According to Michael Curtis, ―a parochial orientation is that when the
individual is not aware of nor has opinions about the system as a whole but only of the local community‖.
Such type of people is found in every society. Their number is, however more in traditional societies and
rare in western developed societies. There is, therefore, no specialization and no special political roles in the
society which ahs parochial political culture. In such a society the headman or chieftain alone assesses political,
economic and religious role as in African chiefdoms.
Thus, from parochial culture we mean a system in which there is low cognition of political objects. The
people by and large have no awareness of national political system. The society is, therefore, by and large
traditional and backward.
Subject political culture
People, who have high frequency of orientation towards a differentiated political system and toward the
out-put aspects of the system but their orientation towards input objects and toward self as an active participant is
zero, are included in this category. In other words, this category includes all those individuals who are oriented to
the political system or aware of various governmental roles such as collection of taxes, law making etc., and of
the government good or bad, legitimate or illegitimate.
But they were not oriented to take part in output structure as they do not have any clear knowledge of the
way in which they can influence the political system. They have, therefore, no inclination to play any role.
According to Michael Curtis a subject orientation is that when the individual is aware of the system but is
essentially passive and accepts decisions. Such type of culture is generally found in monarchical system of
government. Subject political culture most prominent in the East European states and also in many of the newly
independent states of Asia and Africa.
Participant political culture
Participant political culture is one in which the members of the society tend to be explicitly oriented to
the system as a whole i.e. to both the political and administrative structures and processes. In other words
members of the society of this category are oriented to both the input and output aspects of the political system.
It may further said that individuals of this category may be favorable or unfavorable oriented to the various
classes of political objects. They also tend to be oriented towards an ‗activist‘ role of the self in the polity.
However, their feelings and evaluations of such a role may vary from acceptance to rejection, people of this
category are always engaged in the articulation demands on the political system and are also participating or
involved in the making of public decisions. According to Michael Curtis, participant orientation is that when the
individual is an active member of the polity.
This type of culture exists in highly developed societies where people take active part in the political
activities by considering themselves as the active members of the polity and are well conscious of their rights
and duties. Participant political culture is clearly noticeable in the British, American and Scandinavian political
system.
But all the above mentioned three types of political culture are inter-dependent and one cannot replace
the other. Usually all the three get mixed and combined with each other. It has also pointed out that the political
SJ-CSICLS
cultures in different communities can be classified according to the combination of these three types of political
cultures.
These three types of political culture are, however, only the ideal type; no one of them can be found in its
pure form in any society since all the individuals expected to be oriented is the same way and to some extent.
Accordingly Almond and Verba list out of the following unmixed type of Political Culture: (1) The parochial –
Subject Political Culture (2) the subject participant Political Culture, (3) The Parochial participant political
culture, lastly. (4) The civil Culture.
Parochial – Subject Political Culture
In Parochial – Subject Culture an individual has knowledge about a variety of governmental roles
although he is mostly aware of the ways in which they can influence the political system. Further, in this cultural
system the sense of self as a political force is very much vague and undeveloped and the input structure of the
society relatively poorly defined.
Subject – Participant Political Culture
The subject participant type is represented by a society where some of the citizens are very much
politically aware and also active and the rest are relatively passive. The former are naturally found to develop
positive orientations to all types of Political objects. Here average citizen knows that he must be active and be a
participant, but is given, in fact, little opportunity for sharing in decisions.
Parochial – Participant Political Culture
In the Parochial – Participant type the input institutions are relatively local like tribal or caste associations
although the national out-put institutions are quite well developed. But, in any case, both the input and the output
institutions are so much under the pressure of parochial interests that their performance as national participatory
organs is greatly affected.
Civic Culture
Almond and Verba deal with political culture as it is found in five different nations- the USA, Britain,
West Germany, Italy and Mexico. They identify the peoples orientations towards the political life as basically
falling into three categories-allegiance, apathy, and alienation. On the basis of these ideas, Almond and Verba
put forward their concept of the ‗civic culture‘. According to them, the civic culture is an allegiant participant
political culture. The civic culture is a participant political culture in which the political culture and political
structure are congruent. In the civic culture participant political orientations combine with and do not replace
subject and parochial political orientations. Individuals become participants in the political process but they do
not give up their orientations as subjects nor as parochial. Furthermore, not only are these earlier orientations
maintained, alongside the participant political orientations, but the subject and parochial orientations are
congruent with participant political orientations. The concept of civic culture as comprising citizen participation,
subject beneficiary and parochial roots, is a wholesome one that does away with dichotomous thinking in terms
of traditional-modern or any other pure type of political culture.
The Civil Culture combines all the characteristics of the three ideal types of political culture. It represents
a synthesis of directive and acquiescent, participant and passive attitudes. Here the subject orientations and the
participant orientations are equally strong. The former allow the elites to function with sufficient initiative and
freedom while the latter force those elites to remain subject to popular preferences. According to Almond and
Verba, Great Britain and the United States reveal the closest approximation to this civic culture. Civic Culture
guarantees stable democracy. People feel involved in the affairs of governance but not too involved in the issues.
The decision making powers are vested in particular elite and the people do not participate directly. They express
their sentiments only through their representatives who are responsible to them.
Political Sub-Culture
In addition to the above mentioned types of political culture, some of the writers talk of a few other types
of political culture. One of them is political-sub-culture. They are of the view that entire population of a political
system may not have the same culture. Some sections of the society may have developed participant Political
culture while others may not. Political sub cultures may grow on the basis of region, religion, social class, caste,
language, ethnic membership, occupation and like. When a particular set of political orientation is distinguished
from the other in the same Political System, we speak of Political ‗Sub-Culture‘. In developing nations, for
example, Political Sub-Culture due to differences of language, religion,
class, caste etc. There sub cultures sometimes play a very significant role and in case of some nations it is
impossible to understand the character of political system without a thorough knowledge of these sub cultures.
SJ-CSICLS
Role Culture
Again, within a Political Culture one often notices a particular kind of sub culture which is styled by
Almond and Verba as the ‗role culture‘. In the more complex Political System there are various specialized
structures of roles like bureaucracy, military, Political executive, Party, interest group, media of communication
etc. These different specialized roles may represent political club cultures, giving a heterogeneous character to
the political culture of the system.
Mass Culture
In every society a distinction may be drawn between the culture of rulers or power holders and the
masses. In other words those who deal with power and have responsibilities for taking decision of the
government, develop outlook on politics different from those of people who simply remain observer or perform
marginal activities. The formal group of people exhibit elite Political-culture whereas latter group of people
reflects Mass political Culture.
Elite Culture
As already pointed out that the political culture reflected in the ruler or power holder or decision maker is
Elite culture. So far as Indian is concerned, it is reflected in national planners, leaders and senior beau crates it is
widespread in the army also and among the English speaking intelligentsia.
Factors Responsible for the Development of Political Culture
The Political Culture of people of political system is determined by various factors. They are:
History or Historical factors Historical facts and truths do have their impacts on the general attitude,
beliefs, values and behaviours of the people of a Country. For example political continuity of Great Britain is due
to the fact that the old values of its people have been allowed to emerge with modern attitudes without any
disturbance. Unlike France, there has been no revolution in Britain. That is why the English people are more
conservative and the French more radicals. The historical fact that the English people continued their association
with India has made India to learn the values of Parliamentary democracy. Whereas people of Algeria and
Vietnam have learnt from their French masters the lesson of revolutionary struggle.
Geography or Geographical factors Geographical factors also help to fashion political culture of the
people of a nation. For example Britain being an island, has been since time past from foreign invasion. In other
words it political Culture has not been disturbed by the foreigners. That is why British people have as well as
harmonious political culture. Whereas Indian geographical situation is such that foreign invasions and
annexations were followed one after the others. As a result there was massive influx of foreign races that stayed
and settled here permanently. That was why there developed the values of secularism or secular political culture.
Socio-Economic Factors The socio-economic structure of a society is another determinant of its Political
Culture. For example a predominantly urban industrialized society is a complex society. With emergence of a
rapid communication, higher educational standard, group consciousness and participating in decision making
process. All these may provoke a change in political values and believes with subsequent strains on political
system. In this way there may be continuous development in Political Culture. But the rural society with
predominantly peasant population tends to be more conservative in attitudes, beliefs and values it may not geared
to the changes.
Political Continuity It is an important determinant of political culture. In British the political culture we
see today would not have been there, there been no political continuity for many countries. It has been possible
for Britain to evolve in the course of several countries an unbroken set of attitudes and beliefs. Now Britain
could easily adopt themselves with the changing conditions. Therefore, political continuity is necessary for
merging the older values with new attitudes.
Colonial domination and imperialistic control Colonial domination gave a particular shape to the
political cultures in Africa, India, Sri Lanka, Japan, China and other countries. The political culture of India
today is the result of British imperialist domination and the introduction of parliamentary institutions of the west
minister variety. The political culture that emerged among the people of Congo under the short sighted Belgian
imperialists was quite different from the political culture that arose in India under the comparatively broad
minded and enlightened British imperialists.
Symbols In the development of political culture symbols often play an important role. National flag and
national anthem, old institutions like monarchy in Britain, political rituals like ceremonial opening of parliament
, religious rituals like coronation ceremonies as in Britain, social rituals like observance of different martyrs‘

SJ-CSICLS
days as in India-these and many other symbols are constantly made use of to evoke people‘s emotional
attachment to and reverence for the political system.
Critical Appraisal
Being the derivative of the political development approach, it suffers from stigma of conservation and
reaction; it is not progressive but reactionary in character. The political culture approach can‘t be described as
very precise variable for presenting a morphological study of political system. If the political culture is nothing
else than a set of beliefs and sentiments about politics as embodies in the verbal and non-verbal behaviours of the
people and depending upon the specific content of the notion of political development it is bound to be
conductive or antagonistic to it.
The idea of political culture, since it is a follow-up discovery of the system analysis, remaining only in
theory with regard to the political concept of the Afro-Asian nations. This inherent flow is inevitable because
most of the modern approaches are studied to only western democracies.
The concept of political culture possesses comprehensiveness which other concepts lack.
A political culture is not static; it changes as a result of its responses to new ideas industralisation, the
impact of new leaders, population changes and many other factors. Incorporating these changes continuous from
generation to generation is made possible is known as political socialization. Hence a study of political culture is
incomplete without a proper understanding of the process of political socialization.

Political Socialisation
‗Political Socialisation‘ is one of the key concepts in contemporary political analysis. It is primarily a
psychological concept which deals with orientation of individuals towards political objects. As it is a process by
which political cultures are maintained and changed, it plays a vital role in the study of political sociology. It is
an important means of inter-generational and intercontinental transmission of culture. It is the way a society
transmits its political culture from generation to generation and from one continent to another. This process helps
societies to achieve cohesion through a shared understanding of values, norms and symbols. It also helps in the
process of establishment and development of attitudes and beliefs about political system. It may encourage
loyalty to the nation, the fostering of particular values, and may increase either support for or alienation from the
system. It is also particularly important in the degree of participation in political life that is expected of groups
and individuals. Almond and Powell point out that the study of Political socialisation seems to be one of the most
promising approaches to the patterns of political stability and development. Moreover, changes in the patterns of
political culture also come about through political socialisation. Thus, process by which individuals in political
system learn their political orientations and dispositions is called political socialisation. It is process, however,
not confined to the impressionable years of childhood but one that continues throughout life. The need for the
study of the subject political socialisation specially felt by the newly emerging countries to instill among their
citizens the support for the political community, the regime and the occupants of political roles.
While studying a political culture one would naturally like to enquire as to how this political culture
comes to be what it is, that is, how do a people develop their political beliefs and attitudes and how, further, this
set of beliefs and orientations is continued from one generation to another. The process by which political culture
is shaped at the individual level and, at the community level is passed on from one generation to generation is
called political socialisation. Indeed, one of the salient features culture is it's inter-generational continuity. The
culture of a social group does not die with the extinction of existing member of the group. It continues on the
strength of a willingness on the part of the new members of the group to embrace the ideas and beliefs of which
such culture made. This willingness, however, is not a matter of rational choice on the part of the individuals, but
is rather a matter of learnt behaviour. This learning process involving an internalisation of the existing cultural
pattern is called socialization and whenever this process has clearly a political context it is known as political
socialisation. The concept of socialization related to learning, at the same time it also distinguished from mere
learning. Learning as much not always has a social relevance. For example, we all learn that the earth moves and
the sun does not, but this learning is no part of the process of socialization. A person understand his various
obligations and roles not through any conscious effort by the ordinary course of interaction with his family and
secondary groups. Learning is the result of short term actions and experience by the people. On the other hand
socialization is life long process. It begins from the cradle and continues till his death. Political socialisation is,
of course, a matter of learnt behaviour, but not necessarily a conscious process.
Meaning of Political socialization
SJ-CSICLS
 Political socialisation is a lifelong process by which individuals learns political attitudes and beahaviours.
It is part of broader socialization process whereby an individual become a member of a particular society and
takes on its values and behaviours. Social and cultural conditions mediate political socialisation. Political
socialisation is defined as the process by which individuals acquire beliefs, values and habits of thought and
action related to government, politics, and society. It goes beyond the learning ''facts'' about how the world
operates in practice, instead involving the development of a ''worldwide'' of how people and institutions ideally
should operate.
According to Gabriel A. Almond and G.B. Powell political socialisation ―is the process by which
political cultures are maintained and changed. Through the performance of this function individual are inducted
into the political culture, their orientations towards political objects are formed.‖ Thus, Political socialisation is
the process by which the ethos and behaviour of a political system is communicated from one generation to
another generation. Therefore, political socialisation is a continuous unconscious process.
According to Robert Sigel ―It is the gradual learning of the norms, attitudes and behaviorur acceptable to
an on-going political system.‖
Michale Curtis defines ―Political socialisation as the transmitting of political values and norms of the
society‖. Allan R. Ball regards ―political socialisation as the establishment and development of attitudes to and
beliefs about the political system and development of attitudes to and beliefs about the political system‖. ―It
seeks to inculcate values, norms and orientations in the mind of individuals so that they trust in their political
system and thereby keep themselves like well functioning citizens and also leave their indelible imprints on the
mind of their successors‖.
Easton and Dennis define ―political socialisation as those developing processes through which
persons acquire political orientation and pattern of behavior‖.
According to Robert Lewin, ―Political socialisation is the means by which individuals acquire motives,
habits and values, relevant to participation in a political system‖.
In the opinion of Peter H. Merkl, ―Political socialisation refers to acquisition of political attitudes and
behavior patterns by members of a political system of sub-system‖.
Political socialisation, therefore, includes all formal, informal, deliberate, unplanned learning at every
stage of life. Political socialisation which means learning of political attitudes and social preferences is crucial to
stable government.
Types of Political socialization
Almond and Powell has classified Political socialisation into two types, namely Direct or Manifest
socialization and Indirect or Latent socialization.
1. Direct or Manifest Socialization
Direct or manifest socialization refers to the process in which the content of the transmitted information,
values or feelings in clearly political. Thus an individual, under the influence of his family, teachers or other
some agencies learn explicitly about the pattern and functions of the the views of political party or gets
convinced of the superiority of particular ideology. The objects of his orientations being specifically political,
these are instances of direct or manifest political socialisation. It is manifest when it involves the explicit
communication of information, values or feelings toward political objects. In other words Political socialisation
is manifest when certain values or feelings or feelings towards political system are put into the minds of others
directly, clearly and manifestly. It includes the process of formal instruction given in schools or colleges about
the political objects.
Manifest socialization operates through imitation, anticipatory behavior, political education or political
experiences. Imitation being important way of learning, naturally, is a vital component of political socialisation.
Thus a rural migrant to an urban area may deliberately imitate political orientations of the urbanites just because
by means of this imitation he may wish to make himself acceptable to his new associations. Or, a child may
unconsciously imitate the party preferences of his parents. Again political socialisation may start through the
anticipatory behviour. Thus a student with a political ambition already begin to prepare himself for political
offices even before he reaches the level of legal competence for these offices; in anticipation of holding an office
he may develop mannerisms and styles associated with this office. Political socialisation comes through direct
political education. Instructions in politics are given by the family; the school, the government and other political
agencies and also by various groups and organizations. Manifest socialization may also result from political
experiences. An individual‘s political ideas and beliefs are, no doubt, substantially shaped by his observations of
SJ-CSICLS
and experiences in political process. His ideas mature through his continue interactions with political
personalities, structures and events.
Indirect or Latent Socialization
Political socialisation is latent when attitude to non-political things becomes as attitude towards political
things. In other words latent political socialisation is the transmission of nonpolitical attitudes which affect
attitudes toward analogous roles and objects in political system. For example the attitude of submission to the
authority of the father in a family makes us to submit to the authority in one political system. It is deep rooted
and usually it works unnoticed and more or less automatically. Latent political socialisation, therefore, involves
many of the most fundamental characteristics of the general culture, which may, in turn, have great effect on the
political sphere.
Functions of Political socialisation
(1) Maintaining Political Culture: This function is performed by communicating political culture from
one generation to another generation. Under stable conditions this is an important function. But since the
political field, is generally disturbed, the political socialisation does not act for maintaining political culture.
(2) Modification of Political Culture: Therefore, an important function of political socialisation is the
modification of political culture. This aspect is clear from its relationships to change.
(3) Creating Political Culture: With the establishment of new political system every society needs the
creation of political culture. This function is performed by the process of political socialisation.
(4) Continuity and Change: The above discussion shows that the political socialisation works in the
directions of both continuity and change. In it change and modification is a permanent feature. In it change and
modification is a permanent feature. However this change too has stability. Sometimes this process is fast and
sometimes slow. Clear result in the political field may be seen by too fast or too slow political socialisation. This
is also influence the policy of the state. In some states the government clearly makes efforts in this direction
while in other states it is not so.
(5) Foundation of present pattern of political system: In open societies there are sufficient
opportunities for difference of opinion and opposition. On the other hand, the totalitarian states do not accept
difference of opinion and opposition. They are continually propagating in their favour. On the other hand, in
democratic societies it is not so difficult to maintain traditions. Therefore, political socialisation can be imposed
strictly according to the rigidity of the social systems.
Agents of Political Socialisation
Political socialisation is the process by which political culture is transmitted in a given society. It occurs
at both the individual and community level, and it extends beyond the acquisition of political culture to
encompass the learning of more sophisticated political ideas and orientations. Political socialisation is a lifelong
process and variety of individuals and institutions contribute to its shaping effect. For example, individuals are
politically socialized by such groups as their family, peers, and social class. Furthermore, they are socialized by
existing laws, media, religion, education, their own gender, and more. Basically, the process is never ending and
the factors which shape it are all encompassing. Those groups and institutions which contribute to the process of
political socialization are known as the agents of socialization. On the basis of the operational period of these
agents on individual life, they divided into primary agents and secondary agents of political socialisation. The
primary agents of socialization are those that directly develop specific political orientations. Family, peer groups,
educational institutions etc. come under the category of primary socializing agents. Whereas the secondary
agents of socialization tend to be less personal and involved in the process of socialization in more indirect
manner. Mass media, political parties, voluntary organizations, government etc. comes under the category of
secondary socializing agents.
On the basis of nature of their operation and impact they are again been classified into formal and
informal one. The formal agents are functioning with clear intentions such as schools, governments etc. The
political socialisation takes places through the informal agencies are more or less indirect generally these agents
do not the political ideas of views directly to the members of the society. They learn it indirectly through their
personal observation and experience such as family, peer groups etc. Some of the important agents of political
socialisation are:
(1) Family
(2) Peer groups
(3) Educational Institutions
SJ-CSICLS
(4) Secondary groups
(5) Mass Media
(6) Government
(7) Political Party

Family According to Allan R. Ball, the family should be described as the first window to the outer world
for the child, it is his first contact with the authority. Family plays a key role in transmitting political culture from
one generation to the next. Much of an individual‘s political personality is shaped at home in the first ten or
fifteen years of his life. The most of political personality of a person is determined in the family, years before his
actual participation in politics. The father symbolizes authority in the family and the child‘s attitude towards
authority in adult life. Large scale researchers in U.S.A have confirmed that more than three-forth children of a
generation follow political values of the parents through the social and economic environments of the two
generations may be widely different.
The importance of the family in political socialisation may be due to several reasons. In the first place,
family holds a crucial position in the life of the child. The child need‘s family love and approval, he draws from
it his material requirements and is also given a status by the family.
As a result, he follow the familiel political beliefs and attitudes just as readily accepts the parental version
of what is right and wrong, what is good and bad, what is proper and improper. Secondly children have a natural
tendency of imitating their parents. The mother and father present ideal patterns of behaviour for the daughter
and son respectively. With the increase of the age the importance of the parents diminishes and the child learns a
lot from outside the family. But the influence of the parents is never completely wiped off from the mind, this is
at least true about the less educated and less intelligent persons. Thirdly, members of a family usually live in the
same environment. All the family is influenced by the same neighbours and neighbour hood, by the same friends,
and the same economic forces of area and father‘s occupation. The family members read the same news papers,
attend to the same radio and TV programmes, listen to the same
preacher and other local opinion leaders, gather the same gossip and hear the same stories. So all the members of
the family should naturally carry similar political ideas, values and behavior due to residing in the same
environment.
Peer groups Besides family, there may be other groups in a society which like family, are based on
primary relationships and yet differ from family in their structure and in the character of their intrarelationships.
Childhood play groups, friend ship cliques, small work groups, brothers and sisters, married couples are some of
the examples of these groups which are known as peer groups. Inter course among the members of a family, of
course, is based on highly intimate and personal relationship ; yet the members of a family do not all enjoy an
equal status. The parent-child relationships are always hierarchic and each family contains at least two separate
generations. In such conditions members of a family- the child and the parent-naturally claim to enjoy the same
status. Peer groups on the other hand, comprise members about the same age. Hence peer groups can afford to be
non-hierarchic and their members can manage to enjoy an equal status in their relation with each other. This
equality is characteristic of equal age, equal functions and equal economic status. This does not mean that peer
groups have no leaders, but these leaders do not enjoy authority, characteristic of the parents in the family.
Just as in the socialization of the child influence of the family is maximum, similarly the adolescent is
influenced by the peer group and friend circle. In this age he needs explanation of political changes and
participates in them. He attains political experience due to socialization in the upper group. This requires
complex and impersonal relationships not found in the family. The family and the peer groups however, do not
conflict but cooperate. As has been pointed out by Robert S. Sigel, ―The more stratified or the more static the
society, the less the peer group will probably conflict politically with the family.‖ The main reason of the
importance of peer groups in political socialisation is the fact that interactions of members of upper group are
spontaneous and not formal. The members naturally influence each other. They have most intimate and
emotional relationships leading to socialization as it is in the case of family. However, the societies in which the
control of the family upon the individual is comprehensive and durable exhibit little and less durable contribution
of the peer group. According to Martin Levy, there is a tendency of accepting the majority of opinion among the
members of peer groups.
Educational Institutions As a person grows older and begins undertaking his formal education, the
educational institutions- schools, colleges and universities- start working as another important agent of
SJ-CSICLS
socialization. Schools, in fact, are close rivals to the family as the major agent of the political socialisation.
Indeed, one of the main reasons why modern governments set up schools or help in founding them is that
governments find in it an excellent medium through which they can hope to grow values highly congenial for
their operation.
The schools socialize both directly and indirectly. Direct socialization takes place when the school
curriculum, much as it is invariably imbued with nationalistic values, teachers about a country‘s past, its heros
and traditions and glorifies the achievements of the state, thereby helping the students develop a sense of pride
about and a feeling of loyalty to their country and their governmental system.
The teachers also help in this process. The students are taught to surrender before the authority in the
name of discipline in the school, a phenomenon helpful in later civic life. It goes without saying that repression
in the political field will be possible only as much as will be the strictness of discipline in educational
institutions. On the other hand, if the students are allowed to oppose the orders of the authorities, they do not
shirk from the criticism of government in due course.
College and university education, for some students, may bring in new values and the formation of more
radical political attitudes. In recent times in some western countries and, of course, in India, colleges and
universities have been found to have fostered among certain students a militant political attitude and a love for
confrontation with authorities.
Secondary groups Secondary groups also work as an agent of political socialisation, however varies
with the nature of societies. The more highly developed and complex society is, the greater will be the number of
secondary groups and more important role they will play in the process of socialization. As the complexity and
development increases in society so does increase the value of secondary groups. It is possible to identify three
types of secondary groups which socialize politically in different ways. Firstly, there may be secondary groups
with a distinctly political character. Political parties and political youth groups fall in this category.
They are established clearly for the purpose of disseminating political values, mobilising political action
and recruiting the political leaders. A second type represents those groups which are instituted for non-political
purposes, but which are found to carry on political education and mobilisation along with their other activities. A
labour union, students union illustrates these types. These groups aim at collective bargain in their particular
field. But even these groups are led by the leaders following particular political ideologies. Some of them even
active members of particular political party. They impart political education their followers and take part in
active politics from time to time. The third type of secondary groups does not have any political character, nor do
they ever try to impart political education to their members. But mere participation in their routine affairs gives
their members opportunities to develop orientations that have political relevance. Thus a cricket club is not
directly an agent of political socialisation, but a process of unintentional latent political socialisation is evident in
its activities in as far as its members, while participating in its matters, very much undergo an apprenticeship for
participation in the political sphere.
Mass Media Radio, television, newspaper, and other forms of mass media also provide information
about political happenings. That is why manipulation of media is often resorted to in different countries to
influence, and change the political orientation of citizens. A controlled system of mass media, can, therefore, be
a powerful force, in shaping political beliefs, and also can provide bases of support as important to a totalitarian
status its police forces. It is necessary to remember that mass media in most cases are not the actual originator of
the messages they transmit. These messages, in fact, originate at the level of governmental officials and political
leaders, secondary groups, etc. and the mass media just channelize these messages to the people. Viewed from
this angle, mass media, strictly speaking, are not themselves an agent of political socialisation. Further, the mass
media messages go through go through what Klapper calls a ―two-step flow‖. That is, mass media do not
generally influence the people directly. The messages they transmit, at the first instance, reach a smaller number
of ―opinion leaders‖ like parents, teachers, community activities, etc., who then retransmit these messages to
those over whom they have influence. Mass media reinforce the already established orientations.
Government An individual‘s continuous experiences of government through his direct contact with
governmental functions and governmental personnel and his direct knowledge of what the government stands
and works for is likely either to reinforce his ideas and attitudes acquired through the early political socialisation
process or to alter them quite substantially. In some cases government directly intervenes to carry on a process of
political indoctrination.

SJ-CSICLS
 Political Parties The political party is an important instrument through which people get a regular
opportunity to be involved in political actions of the society. It is by way of this involvement that people are
politically socialized by the political party. The political party may either reinforce the established political
culture or may bring in significant changes in the pattern of existing political culture. Indeed, when a nation is
aiming at radical social and political changes the political party may serve as a very useful agency for effectively
disseminating ideas congruent with this change and thus may play a very great role in the process of political
socialisation.
Conclusion
Political socialisation is, thus, a relatively new area of study, but they performs functions which are vital
to the political system no less than to the individuals. This is when even a totalitarian regime is keen to
monopolize the socialization process so that people develop positive attitudes towards it however, deplorable it
may be from the larger humanistic stand point. But the study of political socialisation, like political culture, has
special and vital significance for the third world countries where the political culture is in flux and change and is
yet to take a definite shape. The great issues of politics in the emerging nations such as political stability,
political development and change can be much more meaningfully studied and discussed with the help of the
concepts like political culture and political socialisation.

SJ-CSICLS
 Module II
(State & Sovereignty-Theories of origin of State: Evolutionary Theory, Sovereignty-Attributes and Types
Monism and Pluralism)
Various attempts have been made to explain in a speculative manner the method by which the state
came into existence. These theories were concerned, not primarily with the actual historical process of state
origin, but rather with a rational explanation of the way in which the state may have been supposed to originate.
These theories were put forward for the purpose of explaining and justifying the existence and the authority of
the state. They were attempts to give rational answers to the questions of why men lived in political
organisation, or why they should submit to political authority, and of what limits should be placed to such
authority.

EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
Obviously no definite period in the history of civilization can be pointed out as the origin of the state.
The state was neither the gift of divine power not the deliberate work of man. Its beginnings are lost in the
shadowy past in which social institutions were unconsciously arising, and its development has followed the
general laws of evolutionary growth.

Forces in State-building
The exact origin of political life cannot be historically determined, since the first subjection of man to
some sort of authority must have existed in the earliest beginnings of social life. The human race is highly
gregarious, and its evolution was made possible by the formation of social units of various types. Like other
social institutions, the state arose from many sources and under various conditions, and it emerged almost
imperceptibly. No clear-cut division can be made between earlier forms of social organizations that were not
states and later forms that were states, the one shading off gradually into the other. However, in the light of
facts presented by the earliest archeological and literary records some conclusions concerning the origin of the
state may be reached.
The most important forces that have contributed to the origin of the state are (1) kinship, (2) religion,
(3) industry, (4) war. These factors are all fundamental and permanent in human life. They arose from the
nature of man and his needs. The existence of all those forces in early social groups explains, in part, both the
reasons for state origin and the form in which it first emerged.

Kinship
The early history of mankind indicates that social organization was closely connected with kinship. Not
individuals, but groups of individuals who considered themselves of the same blood, formed the units. The
primitive family took various forms in the beginning. Descent was traced through the mothers only. At later
stages of development, usually associated with the domestication of animals and the adoption of pastoral life,
the patriarchal family appears. In this form descent is traced through males, and authority is vested in the oldest
living male ancestor of the group. Many matters now regulated by law were in the hands of the head of the
family. Combined families, tracing their descent to a common ancestor, formed a clan, over which a chief
kinsman exercised authority. The main function of the group was to perpetuate the worship of deceased
ancestors.
The state developed more directly from the tribe, a large unit composed of many families, and governed
by a chief, whose right to command was based largely on personal prowess. Moreover, the tribe was based, not
on kinship, but on the need for the protection of common interests and the settlement of disputes that arose
concerning them, and especially on the need for concerted action for offense and defense in case of war.
Nevertheless, the earliest states retained many traces of the patriarchal family and incorporated some of its
principles and forms of organization into their political life. The tie of kinship strengthened the feeling of unity
and solidarity which is essential to political life. The principle of heredity, by which authority passed from
father to son, has played an important part in political life. Likewise, the principle that age, which gives
experience and wisdom, gives also the right to rule, is based on the patriarchal principle, and has frequently
SJ-CSICLS
appeared in political organization. Kinship, therefore, both strengthened the bond of unity and contributed to
the form of political organization early states.

Religion
Closely connected with kinship as a force in state-building stood religion. Early man, surrounded by
phenomena which his limited intelligence could not understand, interpreted them as manifestations of
supernatural beings, whose wrath must be averted by gifts or sacrifices and by acts of ceremony and worship.
The chief mysteries were the phenomena of nature and of man himself. The former led to the worship of
inanimate objects or of the unseen spirits that were supposed to manifest themselves in objects or natural
phenomena. This primitive form of religion, called animism, was accompanied by fetishism, a superstitious
belief in the effectiveness of material objects, and later took the form of nature worship, often developing into a
beautiful mythology.
Tribal solidarity and the inviolability of custom and discipline were enforced by a religion common to
all members of the group and by the authority of long line of divine ancestors. The authority of the patriarchal
over the property, conduct, and lives of his people was strengthened by his position as high priest of a family
religion in which outsiders were allowed no share. In course of time a class of medicine men or priests grew up,
charged with the special care of the sacred rites, and their authority was placed behind the observance of
customary rules of law.
Kinship and religion were therefore two aspects of the same thing, and the unity and obligations of the
group were given religious sanction. Early religion, however, was narrow and local. As tribes expanded by
incorporation or conquest, the bonds of kinship and of ancestor worship necessarily weakened.
The value of religion in the evolution of the state can scarcely be overestimated. In the earliest and most
difficult periods of political development, religion could subordinate barbaric anarchy and teach reverence and
obedience. Thousands of years were needed to create that discipline and submission to authority on which all
successful government must rest, and the chief means in the early part of the process were theocracies and
despotisms, based mainly on the supernatural sanctions of religion. The importance of religion as a force in
state evolution was not limited to the earliest state alone. The priestly class has been powerful in government
and politics throughout all history.

Industry
In addition to the bonds kinship and religion, the economic activities by which men secured food and
shelter, and later accumulated property and wealth, were important factors in state-building. Even the crudest
forms of economic life demanded a certain amount of co-operation under recognized rules. Organized hunts
were undertaken by hunting groups, with the proceeds shared according to generally understood arrangements.
Pastoral life made possible an increased accumulation of property, a greater division of labor, and a greater
differentiation of social classes based on wealth. Laws concerning theft and inheritance appeared, and the
predominance of males over females was given a marked impetus. Agriculture made possible an increased
population in a given area, bound men to soil in a fixed place of abode, made land the chief form of wealth, and
increased the economic value of a slave class. It increased social distinctions based on wealth, and necessitated
a growing body of law to settle disputes over property. The exchange of goods gave a stimulus to craftsmanship
and developed commerce. It further differentiated occupations and classes, necessitated standards of value,
created new forms of wealth, broke down the isolation of early groups, and substituted peaceful for warlike
intercourse. New forms of organization and an increasing body of regulation resulted from this process and
from the concentration of population in villages and cities.
The economic activities of early peoples, therefore, contributed to the origin of the state in several ways.
Differences in occupation and in wealth created social classes or castes, and the dominance of one class by
another for purposes of economic exploitation was an important factor in the rise of government. As wealth
increased and the idea of private property developed, laws were needed for the protection and regulation of
property rights and the settlement of property disputes.

SJ-CSICLS
 War
The development of political institutions, as distinguished from earlier family, religious, and economic
groups, was largely the result of migration and conquest; and the new form of organization was essentially
military in character. An association was created which united the population within a given area into an
aggregate which functioned as a unit, regardless of other social affiliations or subordinate types of social
groups. The tie of kinship was thereby weakened and the territorial bond of union was strengthened. Earlier
local and family relations were replaced by more general forms of worship in which larger and more diverse
groups could be united. A coercive force, exercised by a person or a group of persons, sometimes temporarily
in case of necessity, but gradually growing stronger and more permanent, developed into political sovereignty;
and the sentiment of loyalty to the rulers and to the group was established and sanctified.
The form or organization that resulted from this process was the tribe. The tribe existed for the purpose
of offense and defense against other tribes. Community of religion in the tribe was rather an outward symbol of
its unity than the basis upon which it was founded. The chief of the tribe was selected voluntarily by its
members, or at least derived his right to rule from the agreement and acquiescence of his subjects. His ruler
ship was based on personal qualifications, especially ability as a leader in war; and his duties were mainly
direction in time of war and judgment of disputes in time of peace.
In its beginnings political organizations was simple, and the extent to which it controlled the acts of
individual members was comparatively slight. But once established, by elaborating its governmental
organization and extending its control over a wider field of human interests and activities; its executive and
judicial functions were expanded; finally the exercise of direct legislative authority enabled it to develop into
the sovereign political unit which practically monopolizes the legal right to employ physical coercion.
Concerted action for defense or aggression strengthened the solidarity of the group and increased the
authority of its organization. The result of conflict demanded regulation concerning the relation of conqueror to
conquer and the division of spoils. Successful leadership in war created a ruling military class, and elevated the
military head to position of political supremacy.

Conclusion
The transition from ethnic to political organization did not take place uniformly or reach everywhere identical
results. The time required for the process varied in different times and places.

SOVEREIGNTY
Sovereignty is regarded as an essential element of the state. The term 'sovereignty' is derived from the
Latin word superanus meaning supreme. Thus sovereignty denotes supremacy or supreme power of the state.
In fact, sovereignty arms the state with supreme legal authority in both internal and external spheres. Internally,
it establishes supremacy of the state over all individuals and associations; externally it upholds independence of
the state from the control or interference of any other state in the conduct of its international relations.
Theoretically, each sovereign state is equal to every other in international law, regardless of its population, area
or economic wealth. The United Nations Charter states that the United Nations 'is based on the principle of the
sovereign equality of all its Members' and recognizes a sphere of 'domestic jurisdiction' which is to be reserved
to each member state.
Nature of Sovereignty
The concept of sovereignty is associated with the state system. It may be briefly outlined as follows.
The state comes into being when an independent group of people are organized by means of a government
which creates and enforces laws. Within this group there must be supremacy of will and power. It must contain
some person or body of persons whose commands receive obedience and who can, if necessary, execute those
commands by means of force. Such person or body of persons exercises sovereignty, and such commands are
called laws. Evidently there can be no legal limit to sovereignty. The state is legally sovereign. There can be no
legal limit to the lawmaking power of the supreme lawmaking association.

SJ-CSICLS
 Since sovereignty is a legal concept, the facts set forth above result inevitably from the definition of the
state. Other associations may formulate opinions and lay down rules, but it is the peculiar characteristic of the
state that it will overrides, in case of conflict, all other wills, either of persons or of associations within it. Its
law is the final word on such matters as it chooses to bring under its control. While possessing unlimited legal
power, the state usually exercises but a small part of its authority. Its grants certain rights and privileges to
individuals, and it voluntarily set bound to its own activities. All these have, however, no legal force against the
state, since it may change or destroy them at its will. There have always been certain activities which the state
has permitted freely to individuals, not because the state could not interfere, but because it did not deem it
expedient to.
Sovereignty rests upon either force or consent, or a combination of force and consent. Men obey
because they must or because they agree that it is desirable to do so. In despotic states authority rests upon
force or the threat of force. Men obey through fear, either of bodily punishment or of divine wrath of the gods,
whose authority is believed to support the power of the rulers. In democratic states the majority of men obey
through consent, since they believe that the government is created by themselves and that the laws represent the
general will of the people. Force is necessary only for the few who refuse to obey. For this purpose the state
maintains a police force to coerce the criminal, and a military force to put down riots or rebellions if a
considerable number refuses to give voluntary obedience.

Characteristics of sovereignty
The characteristics of sovereignty may be summarized as follows:
1. Absoluteness - There can be no legal power within the state superior to it, and there can be no legal
limit to the supreme law-making power to the state.
2. Universality-The sovereignty of the state extends over every person and every association of persons in
the state. The apparent exception in the case of diplomatic representatives is an international courtesy
which the state may at any time remove.
3. Permanence- The sovereignty of the state continues as long as the state itself exists. Those who
exercise it may change, and the whole state may be reorganized; but sovereignty, wherever located,
persists. Only by the destruction of the state itself can sovereignty be destroyed.
4. Indivisibility- There can be but one sovereignty in a state. To divide sovereignty is to destroy it. The
exercise of its powers may be distributed among various governmental organs, but sovereignty is a unit,
just as the state is unit. A divided sovereignty is a contradiction in terms.
Development of the idea of Sovereignty
While the term “sovereignty” was not used until the fifteenth century, the idea can be traced back to
Aristotle, who wrote as the “supreme power” of the state. Ancient and medieval writers, however, had a
somewhat vague and confused idea of the nature of sovereignty. In the middle Ages the state in the modern
sense did not exist.
It was the struggle between the rising national state and its various internal and external rivals- the
feudal lords, the Pepacy, and the Holy Roman Empire- that gave rise to the modern doctrine of sovereignty.
This struggle assumed fiercest proportions in France, and the French jurists came to the aid of their king with a
legal theory to justify the unity of the state and the royal claim to supremacy. Jean Bodin, in the sixteenth
century, was the first writer to discuss at length the nature and characteristics of sovereignty. The state was
recognized as supreme over all it citizens and free from external compulsion. Sovereignty was defined as the
absolute and perpetual power of the state. Its chief function was the making of law, but the sovereign was not
bound by the laws thus made. The idea of sovereignty was further developed by Hobbes, who justified its
absolute power on the basis of an original and irrevocable agreement of the people to surrender their natural
rights to its authority. Rousseau agreed that sovereignty was absolute and unlimited, although he located it in
the general will of all the people, rather than in the ruler. Finally, in the writings of John Austin, the legal
theory of sovereign power, that its authority is indivisible and legally unlimited, and that its commands alone

SJ-CSICLS
create law. The fundamental principles of the theory, though attacked by many writers, still serve as the basis
for modern jurisprudence.
5 Different Kinds of Sovereignty-The five different kinds of sovereignty are as follows: (1) Nominal arid Real
Sovereignty (2) Legal Sovereignty (3) Political Sovereignty (4) Popular Sovereignty (5) Deo Facto and De Jure
Sovereignty (6) Titular Sovereignty.

(1) Nominal arid Real Sovereignty:

In ancient times many states had monarchies and their rulers were monarchs. They wielded absolute
power and their senates and parliaments were quite powerless. At that time they exercised real sovereignty.
Therefore, they are regarded as real sovereigns. For example, Kings were sovereigns and hence they were all
powerful in England before fifteenth century, in U.S.S.R. before eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and in
France before 1789. The state of affairs changed in England after the Glorious Revolution in 1688. Now the
King is like a rubber- stamp. The British king has a right to encourage, warn and advise his Ministers or seek
any information about the administration. Except these ordinary powers, all other powers of the British king are
wielded by his Ministers.

Lowell has summed up the position of the British Sovereign in these words: “According to the early
history of the constitution, the ministers were the counselors of the king. It was for them to advice and for him
to decide. Now the parts are almost reversed. The king is consulted but the ministers decide”.

(2) Legal Sovereignty:

Legal sovereignty is that authority of the state which has the legal power to issue final commands. It is
the authority of the state to whose directions the law of the State attributes final legal force. In every
independent and ordered state there are some laws which must be obeyed by the people and there must be a
power to issue and enforce these laws. The power which has the legal authority to issue and enforce these laws‟
is legal sovereignty. In England, the King-in-Parliament is sovereign. According to Dicey, “The British
Parliament is so omnipotent legally speaking…. that it can adjudge an infant of full age, it may attain a man of
treason after death; it may legitimize an illegitimate child or if it sees fit, make a man a judge in his own case”.

The authority of the legal sovereign is absolute and law is simply the will of the sovereign. Since the
authority of the sovereign is unrestrained, reserves the legal right to do whatever he desires. It is the legal
sovereign who grants and enforces all the rights enjoyed by the citizens and, therefore, there cannot be any
right against him. The legal sovereign is, thus, always definite and determinate. Only the legal sovereign has
the power to declare in legal terms the will of the stale. The authority of the sovereign is absolute and supreme.
This authority may reside either in the monarch or in an absolute monarchy or it may reside in the body of
persons.

(3) Political Sovereignty:

Dicey believes that “behind the sovereign whom the lawyer recognises, there is another sovereign to
whom the legal sovereign must bow. Such sovereign to whom the legal sovereign must bow is called political
sovereign. In every Ordered state the legal sovereign has to pay due attention to the political sovereign.
According to Professor Gilchrist, “The political sovereign means the sum-total of influences in a State which
lie behind the law. In modern representative government we might define it roughly as the power of the
people”. In other words by political sovereign in the representative democracies, we mean the whole mass of
the people or the electorate or the public opinion. But at the same time, it cannot be emphatically asserted that
political sovereignty can definitely be identified with the whole mass of the people, the electorate or the public
opinion. Political sovereignty is a vague and indeterminate term.

Political sovereignty rests in that class of people under whose influence the mass of the people is or the
people are. Political sovereignty rests in the electorate, in the public opinion and in all other influences in the
state which mould and shape the public opinion. In the words of Professor R.N. Gilchrist, “Political sovereign
manifests itself by voting, by the press, by speeches, and in many other ways not easy to describe or define. It
SJ-CSICLS
is, however, not organised and it can becom6 effective only when organised. But the organisations of political
sovereignty lead to legal sovereignty. The two are aspects of the one sovereignty of the state”. As a matter of
fact, legal and political sovereignty are the two aspects of the one sovereignty of the state. But at the same time
both the aspects stands poles apart.

Legal sovereign is a law-making authority in legal terms, whereas political sovereignty is behind the
legal sovereign. The legal sovereign can express his will in legal terms. But the political sovereign cannot do
so. Legal sovereign is determinate, definite and visible whereas political sovereign is not determinate and clear.
It is recognised. Legal sovereignty is vested in the electorate, public opinion and other influences of the state
which mould or shape the public opinion. Legal sovereign is recognised by lawyers while political sovereign is
not. Legal sovereign cannot go against the will of the political sovereign whereas political sovereign, though
not legally powerful, controls over the legal sovereign. The concept of legal sovereign is clear whereas the
concept of political sovereign is vague. Legal sovereign is elected by the political sovereign whereas political
sovereign is the electorate or the people. These are the points of difference between the legal sovereign and the
political sovereign.

(4) Popular Sovereignty:

Popular sovereignty roughly means the power of the masses as contrasted with the Power of the
individual ruler of the class. It implies manhood, suffrage, with each individual having only one vote and the
control of the legislature by the representatives of the people. In popular sovereignty public is regarded as
supreme. In the ancient times many writers on Political Science used popular sovereignty as a weapon to refute
absolutism of the monarchs.

According to Dr. Garner, “Sovereignty of the people, therefore, can mean nothing more than the power
of the majority of the electorate, in a country where a system of approximate universal suffrage prevails, acting
through legally established channels to express their will and make it prevail”.

(5) Deo Facto and De Jure Sovereignty:

Sometimes a distinction is made between the De Facto (actual) sovereignty and De Jure (legal)
sovereignty. A de jure sovereign is the legal sovereign whereas a de factor sovereign is a sovereign which is
actually obeyed. In the words of Lord Bryce, de facto sovereign “is the person or a body of persons who can
make his or their will prevail whether with the law or against the law; he or they, is the de facto ruler, the
person to whom obedience is actually paid”. Thus, it is quite clear, that de jure is the legal sovereignty founded
on law whereas dc facto is the actual sovereignty.

The person or the body of persons who actually exercise power is called the de facto sovereign. The de
facto sovereign may not be a legal sovereign or he may be a usurping king, a dictator, a priest or a prophet, in
either case sovereignty rests upon physical power or spiritual influence rather than legal right. History abounds
in examples of de facto sovereignties. For example, Oliver Cromwell became de facto sovereign after he had
dismissed the Long Parliament. Napoleon became the de facto sovereign after he had overthrown the Directory.
Likewise, Franco became the de facto sovereign after he had dislodged the legal sovereign in Spain. On
October 28, 1922 Mussolini‟s Black Shirts marched on Rome. At that time, Parliament was the legal sovereign.
Mussolini became the Prime Minister in the legal manner. He ruled parliament and ruled the country through
parliament.

Parliament remained the legal sovereign but he was the actual or de facto sovereign. Hitler also did the
same in Germany. He too became the de factor sovereign. He controlled the legal sovereign and became the de
facto sovereign. Similarly, Stalin remained the actual sovereign in U.S.S.R. for about three decades. After the
Second World War and before the Egyptian Revolution King Farouk was the legal sovereign. General Naguib‟s
„coup de‟etat‟ in Egypt and the abdication of King Farouk is another example of de facto sovereignty. Nazib
was expelled and Nasser succeeded him in de facto sovereign.

SJ-CSICLS
 After the death of Nasser, Mr. Sadat succeeded him. After the assassination, Hosni Mubarak became the
President of Egypt. Similarly, Ayub became the de facto sovereign after he had staged the military coup in
Pakistan. When Ayub was overthrown Yahya Khan Rose to power with the help of the army and became the fe
facto sovereign.

After his defeat in 1971 at the hands of Indian army he handed power to Bhutto, who was thrown in
July, 1977 by Zia-ul-Haq, who first of all became de facto and later on de jure sovereign. Thus, it is quite clear
that the actual or de facto sovereign is the strongest active force in the State and it is capable of making his will
prevail. But sometimes, it happens that de facto and de jure sovereignty ultimately coincides.

China and Pakistan are the glaring examples. In Soviet Union, the Communist Government became the
de facto government of the successful Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. But in course of time, it became the de
jure government also.

Titular Sovereignty:
When sovereign powers are vested theoretically, apparently, or in black and white in an individual or
state institution, it is titular or nominal sovereignty. In such conditions, real state powers belong to some one
other person or institution. This type of sovereignty appeared because of the parliamentary form of government.
The best example of this is England where the king or Queen is the Titular sovereign and parliament is the
actual sovereign.

Austin’s Monistic Theory of Sovereignty

The monistic or legal theory of sovereignty found its finest exposition in John Austin, the renowned
English jurist of the 19th century. His theory is well explained in his famous book Lectures on Jurisprudence.
His views are influenced by Hobbes and Bentham. Yet, his theory is distinct. Austin‟s theory of sovereignty is
conditioned by his notion of law. He drew a clear distinction between law and morality. He defined law as a
“command given by a superior to an inferior.” Austin defined sovereignty thus: “If a determinate human
superior, not in the habit of obedience to a like superior, receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given
society, and that society (including the superior) is a society political and independent.”
In every state there is certain person or persons who can compel obedience. The test of sovereignty is
habitual obedience to a superior who obeys not a like superior. The human superior is determinate. The subjects
obey the sovereign not because he is just but because he possesses power. The following propositions can be
picked up from his theory. (1) Sovereignty is the essential attribute of every state. (2) Sovereignty is
determinate; it cannot be an indefinite body or vague concept. (3) Sovereignty is legally unlimited. (4)
Obedience to the sovereign is habitual, viz, continuous, regular and usual. Obedience from the bulk of society
is enough. (5) Sovereignty is indivisible. (6) Command alone is law.

Pluralist Theory of Sovereignty

The pluralist theory of sovereignty was a reaction against the absolute theory of state sovereignty. The
theory of pluralism in its present form was originated in the writings of Qtto Von Gierke in Germany and Prof.
FW Maitland in England in the last quarters of the 19th century. The theory of pluralism was strengthened by
writers like J.N. Figgis, Leon Duguit, G.D.H. Cole, Mac Iver, Ernst Barker, M Paul Boneour, Durkheim, Miss
Follett, Prof. H.J. Laski and Robert Dahl.

Basic principles of Pluralism

The state is but one the numerous, social, economic political and other groupings through which men
and society must seek to satisfy their interests and promote their welfare.
These different groupings are not mere creatures of the state but arise independently and acquire power
and authority independent of the state.

SJ-CSICLS
 The functions of such voluntary associations – churches, labour unions, trade organizations,
professional societies etc. are as necessary and important as those of the state.
The monistic state is not only incapable of wielding absolute authority over such bodies but is incapable
of regulating their affairs intelligently or administering them efficiently.
The monistic concept of sovereignty is a mere legal fiction which not only misses the truth but does
incalculable harm in obstructing the evolution of society along more beneficial lines.
The pluralists condemn and criticize the sovereignty of the state on three grounds. (1) in relation to the
groups, (2) in relation to law, and (3) in relation to other states.
State versus groups: Gierke and Maitland approached pluralism from the
point of view of groups. These thinkers consider the groups as very important instrument of social life. They
are, perhaps,as important as the state its self. These groups and associations, according to them, have a will and
a personality of their own apart from the will and personality of their members. They should have their own
rights and powers and the state has no business to ride roughshod over these groups. The groups should have
power in the making of laws. Sovereignty of the state should be shared amongst them. Their importance and
independent existence should be recognized by the state. Sovereignty, thus according to these thinkers, is
limited internally by the rights of these groups and associations.
State versus Law: According to Duguit, a leading writer of pluralism, attacked the old and obsolete view of
law. According to Duguit, law is neither a command of a sovereign nor will of the state. It is in fact, an
outcome of social solidarity. Infact people realise the utility and necessity of laws, while they live in society.
Laws are created by the people themselves and they are expressions of that sort of life which people wish to
live a life of universal substance in which everyone realise their individual aspirations
State versus other states: The pluralists attacked the absolute sovereignty of the state in the external sphere
also. Prof. H.J.Laski was a great critic of the absolute sovereignty of the state in the external sphere. According
him, the doctrine of absolute, unlimited and irresponsible sovereign state is incompatible with the interests of
humanity. It is a barren and futile doctrine which is bound to disappear from the field of communication caused
by the inventions of science, has brought the political theory like the divine right of kings. A revolution in the
different countries of the world closer to each other. The world has shirked to a single family. The international
public opinion itself is a great check to prevent a reckless state from doing whatever it likes. Hence, the state
cannot claim absolute and unlimited power in the external sphere. Its power shall always be limited by the
rights of other state. Laski held the view that it is impossible to make the legal theory of sovereignty valid for
Political Science if the whole concept of sovereignty where surrendered.

SJ-CSICLS
 UNDERSTANDING POLITICAL THEORY- MODULE-III
{Concepts and Theories of Democracy, Meaning and Definition of democracy, Forms of Democracy,
Contemporary and Recent theories of Democracy- Elitist Theory: Mosca, Pareto, Civil Society}

DEMOCRACY: Meaning and Definitions

The political aspect of democracy emphasises everyone's share in the government; its economic
aspect demands abolition of exploitation; and its social aspect seeks elimination of all distinctions. A rather
conservative definition of democracy is good given by Professor Dicey: "Democracy is a form of
government in which the governing body is comparatively a large fraction of the entire nation." Profferser
Bryce hints at a more liberalised definition of democracy: ―Democracy is that form of government in which
the ruling power of the State is vested not in a particular class or classes but in the members of the
community as a whole." Maclver`s definition of democracy; highlighting the representative system; says
that it is not as much the way of governing as is" a way of determining who shall rule and how."

Summaries the following major characteristics in a democratic polity:

1. That all should govern in the sense that all should be involved in legislating; in deciding on general
policy; in applying laws; and in governmental administration.

2. That there is a need for people's participation in crucial decision-making; that is to say; in deciding
general laws and matter of general laws and matters of general policy.

3. That the rulers should be accountable to the ruled; they should; in other words; be obligated to justify their
actions to the ruled and be removed by the ruled.

4. That the rulers should be accountable to the representative of the ruled.

5. That the rulers should be chosen by the ruled.

6. That the rulers should be chosen by the representative of the ruled.

7. That the rulers should act in the interests of the ruled.

It is possible to give a few general indicators which sum up the totality of the meaning of
democracy:

(a) Democracy is community; it is more than "one person; one vote‖; it is the sense of awareness which
allows a consensus to be maintained. Democracy is not majority; and if it is so; it become the tyranny of
majority. Consensus makes the out-voted feel that they are part of the whole; the community.

(b) Democracy is empowering; for it enabled the individual to exercise control over his. Individual life; and
acting together with others; it enables the community to exercise control over the decision of its collective
life.

(c) Democracy is accountability. Where accountability lacks; the elected system becomes Nothing short of
an elected dictatorship. Those elected; as rulers; must be accountable to their electorable.

(d) Democracy is the effective representative of the electorate. It is not only the people's will; it is also their
concerns in the corridors of power. It is not simply to delegate for the political party; slavishly following its
policy; it is the expression of the policy of the people.[

The features that distinguish democracy from other forms of government ( monarchy; oligarchy;
military regime ; dictatorship; etc.) are the consent of the people; control over the rulers; and the
accountability of the rulers towards the ruled; only democracy had these characteristics which are missing in
the other forms of government. Neither monarchy nor oligarchy and nor any form of dictatorship admit the
democratic values of equality; Liberty and fraternity. The attitudes of flexibility and openness; of tolerance
and of accommodation are the virtue of democratic polity and no other forms of government has even a
shade of these virtues. Democracy is no dogma like dictatorship; it is no hereditary rule like monarchy; it is
no hierarchical system like any oligarchy. Democracy is a belief that the Human Nature is essentially good;
that a human being is a master of his/her destiny; and that human power is capable of attaining all possible
heights. Democracy is (while other forms of governments are not) self-corrective; self-educative; and-
always- evolving.

Characteristics

Democracy is more than just a set of specific government institutions; it rests upon a well -
understood group of values, attitudes, and practices - all of which may take different forms and expressions
among cultures and societies around the world. Democracies rest upon fundamental principles, not uniform
practices.
Core Democratic Characteristics
Democracy is government in which power and civic responsibility are exercised by all adult citizens,
directly, or through their freely elected representatives.
Democracy rests upon the principles of majority rule and individual rights.
Democracies guard against all-powerful central governments and decentralize government to
regional and local levels, understanding that all levels of government must be as accessible and responsive
to the people as possible.
Democracies understand that one of their prime functions is to protect such basic human rights as
freedom of speech and religion; the right to equal protection under law; and the opportunity to organize and
participate fully in the political, economic, and cultural life of society.
Democracies conduct regular free and fair elections open to citizens of voting age. Citizens in a
democracy have not only rights, but also the responsibility to participate in the political system that, in turn,
protects their rights and freedoms.
Democratic societies are committed to the values of tolerance, cooperation, and compromise. In the
words of Mahatma Gandhi, Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true
democratic spirit.
Democracy – {Models/Forms}

In order to have a clearer idea of the growth of democracy, it would be instructive, if not informative, to
give a summary of different models of democracy as stated by David Held (Models of Democracy).

1. Classical Democracy; In a small city- state and in slave economy, citizen, though limited, enjoy
equality among themselves and participate directly in legislative and judicial functions. There is a
provision for open assemblies with executives directly elected, by lot or by rotation -assembly’s
powers include all common affairs.
2. Protective Democracy; Politically better organized and existing in a society of patriarchal chiefs, in
this model of democracy, citizens need protection from the rulers and from one another. It is a
system where the rulers rule in the interests of the citizens only in name; in actuality they interfere in
total governance. The model is protective because it protects
 The ruled from the arbitrariness of the rulers,
 The rulers from the infringement in one-another’s sphere,
 The whole legal system from those who violate the rules.
3. Radical Model of Developmental Democracy
 (i) Radical Model of Developmental Democracy; The system visualizes small, non-industrial
communities with a society of independent producers where men are made free from work
and politics. The citizens in this model enjoy political and economic equality; no one masters
the other; all enjoy equal freedoms, legislative powers with directly elected legislative bodies,
and executive with ―magistrates‖, either appointed or elected directly or chosen by lot.
(ii) Developmental Democracy; The system visualizes an independent civil society with a laissez
faire state supported by competitive market economy; private ownership of means of
production existing alongside the community or cooperative forms of ownership. In this
model, participation in political life is regarded necessary for protection of individual
interests, and development of informed, committed, and developing citizenry. There is
popular sovereignty with universal franchise along with proportional system of
representation; the government is representative; the system of checks and balances exist in
order to avoid absolutism.
4. Direct Democracy and the End of Politics; This system visualizes classless society with the working
class coming victorious against the bourgeoisie and where private property is abolished and market
economy is destroyed. It aims at achieving freedom and free development for all, ensuring complete
political and economic equality and providing equal opportunities for all according to their abilities.
Public affairs are regulated by communes; all officials are elected and, therefore, can be recalled;
economy is planned; and public affairs are collectively governed.
5. Competitive Elitist Democracy; The system visualizes industrial society with competitive groups
competing with one another for power and benefit. The electorate is poorly informed and therefore,
is politically almost apathetic. In this model, the elite is reelected because it is skilled and is,
therefore, capable of making decisions: political and non- political. The essential features of such
model of democracy are:
(a) Parliamentary government with a strong executive or presidential government with an alert
legislature:
(b) Competition between groups and political parties
(c) Dominance of party politics; and
(d) Well- trained bureaucracy.
6. Pluralist Democracy; It visualises the existence of numerous communities in the society with their
own culture, basis, strength, and objectives and each attempting to achieve something for its own
group. There exist active citizenry along with numerous passive bodies of citizens with full political
participation. This model encourages government by minorities generally, prevents the development
of powerful factions and hence, has almost unresponsive state. The essential features of such a
model are:
(a) freedoms and liberties are available;
(b) The device of checks and balances is put in place in order to keep legislature, executive, and
judiciary in their respective domains;
(c) The presence of competitive electoral system is ensured
(d) The coexistence of diverse range and sometimes overlapping interest groups seeking political
influence is ensured
(e) The law and the Constitution are respected
(f) The state, instead of being impartial, seeks to attain its own sectional interests.
7. Legal Democracy; The system visualises effective political leadership, guided by liberal principles:
role of bureaucracy and interest groups is minimised. The essential features of such a model are:
(a) A state that works on the basis of Constitution;
(b) Rule of law prevails over those of men;
(c) Free-market society is ensured;
 (d) A state with minimal functions and maximal individual autonomy is created.
8. Participatory Democracy; The system visualises a perfect and just society with material resources
available to everyone and also an open order where informed decisions are ensured to each. This
model ensures:
(i) An equal right to self-development;
(ii) Developing a sense of political efficacy;
(iii) Concern for collective problems; and
(iv) Contribution to the formation of a knowledgeable citizenry.

The essential features of such a model are:

(a) Direct people’s participation in each institution of society;

(b) Party leadership is made accountable to party membership;
(c) An open institutional system is maintained to ensure the possibility of experimenting with all
political forms.
9. Democratic Autonomy; The system visualises the availability of an open information, ensuring
informed decisions in all public affairs, setting of the government’s priorities with extensive market
regulation of goods and labour, and minimizing of unaccountable power centres in public and private
life. This model expects individuals to be free and equal in the determination of the conditions of
their own life; guarantees equal rights and demands equal obligations. The essential features of this
model in respect of the institution of state are:
(a) Autonomy enshrined in the Constitution;
(b) Competitive party system;
(c) Central and local administrative services internally organized according to the principle of direct
participation.

In respect of society, the key features of such a model are:

(a) Existence of diverse institutions and groups;

(b) Self-managing enterprise;
(c) Community services( education, health, etc.) internally organized on the principle of direct
participation;
(d) Private and voluntary enterprises to help promote diversity and innovation.

The Elitist Theory of Democracy

The background of the theory

The elitist theory of democracy is an amalgamation of two opposing, rather conflicting strands:
elitism and democracy. Elitism implies the rule of the few, whereas democracy, in its direct form, means the
rule of all. The elitist theory of democracy is not elitist in so far as it claims to be democratic; it is not
democratic in so far as it traces its roots in elitism. The elitists, notably Vilfredo Pareto (1848- 1927) and
Gaetano Mosca (1858- 1941), both Italians, and Robert Michels (1876-1936), a German, never found
democracy as a viable proposition. Their arguments are democracy in the sense of popular exercise of power
and peoples’ participation in society’s public affairs cannot in practice, be realized; power is, and has always
remained the privilege of the dominating few; democratic system is impossible and impracticable. The
elitist, therefore, accept the view that democracy is a device that marks the harsh reality of elite rule and that
history is nothing but the graveyard of oligarchies – or what Michels declared as ―the iron law of oligarchy‖.
The classical elite theorists such as Pareto, Mosca, Michels together with the present-day elitists such
as C. Wright Mills(1916-62), Schumpeter, Mannheim, Sartori oppose the classical form of democracy as the
direct rule of the people themselves. Mosca’s words still serve an authoritative statement of the elite theory.
―In all societies- two classes of people appear: a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class,
always the less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolises power, and enjoys the advantages
that power brings, whereas the second, the numerous class, is directed and controlled by the first…‖ In other
words, the elitists hold the view that it is always the few who have ruled the many; the elite that rules the
masses. Michels puts forth the elite argument by talking about ―the political immaturity of the mass‖, ―the
organic weakness of the mass‖, ―the need which the mass feels the guidance‖, ―the apathy of the masses and
their need for guidance‖. The elitist conclusion is : as the masses are incompetent, so there arises the need of
the leaders; as the masses are politically immature, so the idea of mass sovereignty is always a myth; as the
masses are apathetic, so they are not political; as the masses are disorganized, so they are irrational; and as
the masses are irrational and manipulable, so there are possibilities of demagogic leaders destroying
democracy and then turning it to fascism.
The ―democracy‖ theorists have been skeptical about elitism as have been the elitists about classical
democracy. Each knows its merits as also its weaknesses. The elitists know how practical they are, and how
undemocratic they are at the same time. Similarly, the ―democracy‖ theorists know how great servants of the
people they are, and how impracticable they are at the same time. The fusion of one into the other produces
a form of government which is called ―elitist theory of democracy‖, ―democratic elitism‖, ―competitive
theory of democracy‖, ―plebiscitary elitism‖ as Max Weber would have called it. The necessity of the
growing industrial society during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries necessitated the need of one by the
other. Summing up the idea of democratic elitism, Schwarzmantel (Structure of Power,1987) says: ― The
fact that masses have a choice between different elites, satisfies all the requirements of a democratic system.
Organization implies oligarchy, as Michels asserted; democracy needs leadership. In this sense, the elite-
mass distinction is preserved and the analysis remains in the elitist tradition. On the other hand, it is a
necessary and sufficient condition for a democratic system that, at stated intervals, the masses decide which
elite is to rule‖.

The Theory Explained-

Joseph schumpeter( capitalism; socialisam and Democracy; 1943) may rightly be called the most
influential proponent of the elistist theory of democracy. He attacks democracy by saying that there is no
Such thing as "the will of the people"; that the masses being ill-informed do not formulated the agneda of
politics; that the masses being ill-informed do not formulate the agenda of politics; that the political issues
are always raised; articulated; and debated by the leaders; and that initiative in politics issues are always
raised; articulated; and bottom to top. When the masses elect the leaders or a particular Elite; the
government is formed. In Such a situation; schumpeter says; the leaders should be free and autonomous to
formulate and Carry out policies of the government as composed by the people. The democratic elements;
in a situation like this; is preserved in

(a) periodic elections of the leaders by the masses and

(b) in the accountability of the leaders towards the electorate.
The elistist element is preserved in
(a) enough autonomy of the leaders to formulate the policies and
(b) enough freedom to execute them.
The elistist View of democracy may be summed up as Weber once described in a situation like this: "
In a democracy; people choose a leader in whom they trust. Then the chosen leaders says; ' now shut up
and obey me.' people and party are then no longer free to interfere with his business... Later the people can
sit in judgement. If thr leaders has made mistakes- to the gallows with him".For an order of democratic
elitism; schumpeter insists on the following conditions:

(i) The caliber of politicians must be high.

(ii) competition between rival leaders ( and parties) must take place but within the prescribed
norms.
(iii) There has to be a well- trained independent bureaucracy to aid and advise politicians.
(iv) Excessive criticism of government on all issues be permitted.
(V) A political culture capable of tolerating differences of opinion is guaranteed.

In a democratic elitism; the following features should constitute a border framework of the elistist
theory of democracy:

(i) The elite's unflinching faith in democratic Norms. It needs to realise that it possesses power as long
as the electorate wants it.
(ii) The establishment of the Elite-masses contact is the only basis of the elistist democracy.
(iii) Non-interference of the masses ij elite's business: in the formulation of policies and in the conduct of
administration.
(iv) The elite's capabilities and experience in political and public issues are a matter beyond any doubt.
(v) Effective and active competition among the groups- constant and always continuing.
(vi) circulation of elite from among the masses
(iii) The Theory’s Evaluation

The elite theory of democracy has the following inherent limitations:

1. The theory is no longer democratic if by democracy we mean a system where there is a substantial
amount of popular power and involvement of the citizens. In this sort of democracy the masses only
produce a government, they do not sustain it.
2. The elite theory of democracy does ensure a measure of responsiveness by the leaders to the led, but
democracy, in its essence, is not just confined to responsiveness, nor is it limited to checking and
controlling the executive. Democracy implies people’s participation at each level of governance,
from initiating a legislative proposal to vetoing the other.
3. The elitist thesis that masses, in general, need not interfere in elite’s public affairs and insistence that
the politicians may keep ―get on with the job‖ attitude are not compatible with classical judgment on
their rulers. Real democracy is not only descriptive in the sense of being a way of electing the
governors, but is normative in the sense of being a way of judging the ruler and the existing power
system.
4. Democratic elitism cuts out from democratic theory its very heart-the idea of participation.
Schwarzmental writers: ―it (democratic elitism) take a purely static view accepting the features of
present day mass society fixed for ever instead of envisaging a process that would transcend the
elite-mass dichotomy. The stability of the existing order is , thus, made the chief value and
democratic involvement then appears to threaten that value‖
5. The democratic elitism alienates the ruled from the rulers. Despite the fact that the ruled can exercise
control over the rules, it does not imply that the ruled control the rulers. All the agencies and devices,
through which the masses can possibly control the rulers, remain under the control of the rule. The
distance between the ruled and the rulers keep widening.
6. Democratic elitism is more elastic than democratic. The fact remains that the rulers-the elite-remain
a class in themselves .As such, the theory is more elite-oriented and its democratic convictions are
both formal and imaginary.
7. The elitist theory of democracy is anti- liberal for it does not recognize the individual as a rational
being. It is anti-socialist for it has a theory of political democracy and his has, in fact, no theory of
socioeconomic democracy.
8. The elastic theory limits democracy only to ―governance‖ level.
 9. In terms of progress, the elite theory of democracy is a step backward. It has removed from its
essence, the moral content of democracy, a feature the classical theory of democracy—democratic
humanism—was replaced by the elitist with what they made-democratic mechanism. The elitist
theory of democracy is retrievessive. Macpherson writes: ―democracy is reduced from a humanistic
aspiration to a market equilibrium society‖

The strength of the elitist theory of democracy lies in fact that effective political power has always,
in all societies and in all ages, remained in the hands of the few – a select minority. It also lies in the fact
that much a system of democracy has, in reality, worked effectively well in western political system, that
any alternative of democracy could not and has, in fact, not worked, and that the socialist model as
against the elitist one, has proved infeasible.

Civil Society

In contemporary discourse, the term 'civil society' is used in two senses. In one sense, civil society
comprises the social institutions like school, church and peer groups of citizens which serve as structures of
legitimation of the state. These instituions largely lend support to the state. This meaning of civil society
corresponds to Gramsci's view of its role in sustaining the capitalist system. In the second sense, civil
society stands for a set of public interest organizations set up by some conscious citizens which make
various demands on the state or launch social movements to mobilize ordinary citizens on the way to social
reform. The state must respond promptly to their demands in order to ensure smooth functioning of society.
The role of civil society in this sense has assumed special significance in recent years.
Present-day concept of civil society closely corresponds to Tocqueville's view on the role of
'intermediate voluntary associations'. Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-59), a French philosopher, in his
celebrated work Democracy in America (1835- 40), argued that with the dissolution of aristocracy in Europe
an alternative for the pluralist dispersion of power was urgently needed. In the medieval Europe, there were
three centres of power : Clergy, Nobility and Commoners. Of these, Clergy and Nobility enjoyed substantial
powers in their respective fields.
Commoners could also make their voice heard at the decision-making level because of their large
numbers. But with the coming of democracy, old centres of power had been destroyed. Power was now
concentrating in the hands of majority. This led to the danger of tyranny of majority.
In order to protect the freedom of citizens, Tocqueville suggested that a vigorous system of voluntary
associations could act as counterweights to the state power. They could crystallize and publicize opinions
and interests which would otherwise go unheard. Moreover, these associations could stimulate collective
self-help rather than reliance on state initiative. They could draw people into cooperative ventures, breaking
down their social isolation and making them aware of their wider social responsibilities. They could function
as 'schools of democracy', instilling habits of civic virtue and public spirit into their members. In short, these
associations would serve as an effective instrument of defence of individual liberty and encourage close
cooperation between the citizens to solve their common problems. Tocqueville was an ardent champion of
freedom of association. He earnestly hoped that free political parties and a free press would prove to be most
effective among these voluntary associations. In the contemporary context, various interest groups and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) could be added to this list.
Civil society is now regarded as an important organ of democratic society. It includes a wide range
of associations and social movements which provide ample opportunities to the citizens to develop their
capacities and express their varying interests and diverse identities. It creates an atmosphere where the
citizens are able to enjoy some level of autonomy or independence from government control or influence. It
promotes a moral sense of obligation among the citizens and motivates them to participate in civic causes. It
discourages their dependence on the government for the solution of their common problems. Thus it serves
as the true source of democratization.
In recent political discourse, the concept of civil society has been further refined. Jean L. Cohen and
Andrew Arato, in their essay Civil Society and Political Theory (1992), have defined civil society as an area
of public activity distinct from both the state and the market. This area involves a range of groups and
associations, including families. In this sense, civil society is regarded to be essential for a healthy
democratic society. It permits participation and communicative interaction of individuals. Cohen and Arato
have argued that this field of social life is designed to supplement the political institutions of representative
democracy rather than serve as a replacement thereof.
Paul Hirst, a British academic, in Associative Democracy: New Forms of Economic and Social
Governance (1994), has visualized civil society as a set of voluntary associations which would be the
primary bases of democracy. He has evolved a model of democracy in which self-governing associations
would perform public functions. This arrangement would not only reduce the burden on the central state, but
also curtail its power. According to this scheme, the associations of civil society would only supplement the
representative democracy rather than replace it. However, the goals of democracy would be achieved
primarily through these associations rather than through a centralized state. The role of the state would be
reduced to supervising and regulating the voluntary associations of civil society.
Robert Putnam, an American social scientist, in his article 'Bowling Alone: America's Declining
Social Capital' in The Global Resurgence of Democracy, edited by Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner
(1998), has suggested that the associations of civil society can create 'social capital', i.e. a set of social
practices which involve civic engagement and ideas of reciprocity. Putnam firmly believes that such a
network of civic involvement is necessary for an effective democracy. However, he laments that in the past
two or three decades the Americans have forgotten 'the art of pursuing in common the objects of common
desires', which was recognized and admired by Alexis de Tocqueville. Putnam has pointed out that the
present-day American society is characterized by a reduction in citizens' activity in the associations of civil
society, with a consequent decline in the quality of American democracy.
In short, civil society is now regarded the central theme of democratic debate. It is also viewed as a
device of democratic action against the old-style communist systems that sought to monopolize all political
power in the hands of one-party state. Indeed the communist governments in Eastern Europe had
demobilized civil society so that rulers could directly control the individual. In 1960s and 1970s it was
realized that the institutions of civil society could not only be used to strengthen the authority of the ruling
class, but the opposition could also use this device to promote its own viewpoint. Where the authority of the
ruling class could not be challenged at the political level, there the hegemony of the rulers could be
undermined through manipulation of education and culture.
In late 1970s and 1980s the device of civil society was widely used in East European socialist
countries as a weapon against the all-encompassing claims of the totalitarian state. The Solidarity movement
in Poland sought to build up the institutions of civil society as a 'parallel society' with a view to safeguarding
the interests of workers. In Bulgaria, an environmental group called 'Ecoglasnost' raised the issue of the
wanton destruction of natural resources and the appalling pollution in industrial centres. Since these centres
were functioning under government control, Ecoglasnost proved to be an effective organ of civil society as
the anti-government movement in Bulgaria. After the successful revolutions of 1989 throughout the Eastern
Europe, the concept of civil society gained immense popularity. Western intellectuals also found the concept
of civil society as instrumental to the revival of citizen participation in public affairs in democratic societies
where it had recently declined. In fact, 'civil society movement' in the recent decades has emerged as an ally
of 'new social movements'.
 Feminism
Feminism stands for the concern with the status and role of women in society in relation to men. It
holds that women have suffered and are still suffering injustice because of their sex; hence it seeks effective
measures for the redressal of that injustice. In short, it implies a voice of protest against the inferior status
accorded to women in society, which is the product of the institution of 'patriarchy, and not based on reason.
Early feminism emerged in the wake of Enlightenment, which sought to enlarge the scope of 'rights
of man' so as to include equal rights to women therein. In Britain, free-thinking women like Mary
Wollstonecraft (1759-97) and Harriet Taylor (1807- 59) made a fervent appeal for equal rights of women.
Later, John Stuart Mill (1806- 73), in his essay on The Subjection of Women (1869) argued that women were
by no means less talented than men and hence deserved equal rights with men. In the contemporary world,
the issue concerning the status of women may be understood by drawing a distinction between sex and
gender.
In any case, relative dominance of man and relative submissiveness of woman represent almost
universal cultural traits, which are not directly based on biological differences. Broadly speaking, these are
the products of the social organization based on patriarchy and its institutions, the division of labour in the
family and the competitive and exploitative character of capitalism. From this perspective, the concepts of
masculinity and femininity serve as instruments of social control that reinforce male dominance. So if a
woman tends to behave in an authoritarian manner, particularly towards men, her behaviour is termed to be
indecent. In short, the expectations attached to differential roles of men and women serve as the foundation
of gender inequality in society. J.J. Rousseau (1712-78) in his essay A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality
(1755) had distinguished between natural inequality and conventional inequality.
Natural inequality describes the inequality of age, health, beauty, physical and intellectual capacities
of different people, which were created by nature. These inequalities are largely unalterable. On the other
hand, conventional inequalities represent disparities of wealth, prestige and power among different
individuals. These inequalities are the product of our social arrangements. We can undertake a critical
examination of these inequalities from the point of view of justice, and can reduce them by altering our
social arrangements. In other words, conventional inequalities are alterable. While the division of society
into two sexes—male and female—represents natural inequality, gender inequalities are the product of
convention and culture. These inequalities can be questioned and removed wherever they are found
objectionable.
In the contemporary world, further advancement in technology, diversification of business, industry,
administration, arts and professions, etc. and the increasing demand of new skills, talents, and professional
competence, have given women the opportunity of proving their abilities. They have also been encouraged
to acquire higher qualifications and training and to seek respectable careers. It is now realized that women
are fit to perform most of the jobs that men do, and for which they were not considered fit earlier. Equal
rights for women are no longer questioned in enlightened circles.
BROAD STREAMS OF FEMINISM
Feminist theory has evolved into various schools of thought. Of these three are particularly
important: (a) Liberal feminism, (b) Radical feminism, and (c) Socialist feminism.
LIBERAL FEMINISM
This aims at the revival of the conventional feminist movement. It insists on absolute equality of
opportunity for men and women in all walks of life and complete removal of gender-based discrimination in
society. Its programme includes equal pay for equal work, abortion laws reform, increasing representation of
women in parliaments, bureaucracy and dignified professions, etc. This is the most popular stream of
feminist movement, but it is not considered to be very influential.
RADICAL FEMINISM
Its chief spokesperson Shulamith Firestone (1945- ) in her celebrated work The Dialectic of Sex
(1970) argued that women's subordination could not be understood as a symptom or aspect of some deeper
or more comprehensive system of domination, such as racism or class-based division of society. Historically
women constituted the first oppressed group; their subordination could not be eliminated by the changes
such as the elimination of prejudice or even the abolition of class s>oc\ety.
Firestone claimed that the basis of women's subordination was ultimately biological. In other words,
human reproductive biology was responsible for considering women the weaker sex. Moreover, the survival
of women and children required that infants should depend on lactating women and women in turn, should
depend on men. Happily the material conditions for ending this hitherto inevitable dependence had finally
been achieved in the twentieth century with the advent of reliable contraceptives, baby foods and 'test-tube
babies'. These technological developments provided women the means of freeing themselves from the
tyranny of their reproductive biology and diffusing the child-bearing and child-rearing role to society as a
whole, men as well as women.
Kate Millett (1934- ) in Sexual Politics (1971) argued that the relationship between the sexes was
based on power and further sustained by an ideology. It was similar to the relationship between classes and
races. Hence it should be treated as political relationship. Basing her analysis of women's subordination on
Max Weber's theory of domination, Millet argued that men have exercised domination over women in two
forms: through social authority and economic force. Time had now come to smash these implements of
man's domination. Shulamith Firestone and Kate Millett are regarded to be the two pillars of radical
feminism, who exercised enormous influence on developing the Women's Liberation Movement in 1970s.
SOCIALIST FEMINISM
Socialist stream of feminism represents a combination of patriarchal analysis of radical feminim and
class analysis of Marxism. It implies that capitalists as well as men are the beneficiary of women's
subordination. Socialist feminists have particularly developed analysis of labour, both wage-labour and
domestic labour. They have also considered the role of culture and psycho-analytical aspects of sexuality.
Sheila Rowbatham the chief representative of this school advocated a participatory, decentralized
approach to social change that contemplates linking of the struggles of all oppressed groups. In her best-
known historical writings— Women, Resistance and Revolution (1972) and Hidden from History (1973)—
Rowbatham tried to reclaim the past for women as a source of knowledge and strength that could contribute
to their present struggle. She continued this approach in The Past is before Us (1989). As a Marxist, she
maintained that the struggle for women's liberation is essentially bound with the struggle against capitalism.
She has shown from historical evidence that class exploitation and women's oppression are closely linked
phenomena. She argued that the success in these spheres can be achieved only through combining these
struggles.
EMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN
A general awareness of the exploitation of women on various fronts like social, cultural, political and
economic fronts has led to strong protests manifested in Women's Liberation Movement, which emerged in
the United States since the early 1970s. Soon this movement also spread to Europe and other parts of the
world. The movement focused on equal rights and status for women in a maledominated society. Some
prominent organizations associated with this movement were : National Organization for Women (NOW),
Boston's Bread and Roses,
Berkley Women's Liberation Group, Women's Radical Action Project, Women's Equity Action
League (WEAL), National Women's Political Caucus (NWPC), etc. Broadly speaking, Women's Liberation
Movement demanded a truly equal treatment of men and women. It required that many of society's myths,
values and beliefs concerning status and role of women in society should be fundamentally reassessed and
changed. These changes must embrace the patterns of work and family life, social behaviour, decision-
making, politics, religion and education. Even the more personal and private domain of sexuality needed to
be redefined. These demands led to a widespread debate on diverse issues concerning women. These include
day-care facilities for children, the development of a non-sexist vocabulary (e.g. the term 'chairman' should
be replaced by 'chairperson'), and the representation of women and their roles in the mass media, including
advertising. These debates have not only led to the enactment of new laws in some countries, but also to the
worldwide acceptance of new norms protecting the dignity of women.
In India some important legislation concerning the protection of women includes: the Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Indecent Representation of Women
(Prohibition) Act, 1986; and the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987. Female foeticide was sought to
be prevented by the enactment of the Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse)
Act, 1994. The recent legislation concerning empowerment of women includes Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005 (which gives equal right to daughters in joint family property) and Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Feminists also assert that until the condition of equal participation of women in public life is
fulfilled, the concept of citizenship cannot be brought to its logical conclusion. In India a beginning in this
direction has been made by making reservation of one-third of the seats in panchayats for women. This will
encourage women to join politics at grass-root level. By and by their representation at this level can be
increased to one-half, and provision can also be made for their adequate representation in legislative
assemblies and parliament. The opening up of vast opportunities of higher education would also prove to be
instrumental to their larger representation in administration and high-profile professions. In this way the idea
of equal citizenship can be fully realized from the feminist point of view.
Feminists argue that even after getting full citizenship in law, women continue to suffer from
subjection in their social life. From 1960s and 1970s the status of women in society and politics has become
the centre of attention. Earlier it was usually thought that after establishing legal equality of men and
women, women were not left with any issue of complaint. After the extension of right-to-vote to women,
there were some studies on voting behaviour. It was found that women's participation in voting was lower in
comparison to men. To explain this situation it was argued that women were largely interested in private and
domestic affairs; they were less interested in politics and public affairs and probably they had no time to
attend to these matters.
However, when the size of the family began to shrink and more and more women took up jobs, the
above explanation regarding women's sphere of interest was no longer held to be valid. Again, it was noticed
that more and more women were taking part in voting, but their share at various levels of political authority
had remained insignificant. While the electorates of various countries of the world had nearly fifty per cent
women, their share at the level of political representation was far below that of men. Membership of women
in the legislatures of Western Europe was less than ten per cent. Women's share in British House of
Commons was less than five per cent. The situation in the United States House of Representatives was not
very different. But the situation in the Scandinavian countries was not that bad. In Sweden and Denmark
women's membership of legislatures amounted to twenty-six per cent; in Norway this figure was thirtyfour
per cent.
In the sphere of international politics the representation of women is still meagre. In November 1990
thirty-four Heads of Government of European countries gathered to sign the historic Charter of Paris for the
New Europe. The gathering marked the end of the Cold War. In newspaper headlines it was described as the
'end of an era'. But feminists ask: "Which era had come to an end?" In any case, it was not an end of the
patriarchal era. In the group-photo of these thirty-four heads of government, only two women could be
spotted after a thorough search. These were: Gro Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway, and Margaret
Thatcher, Prime Minister of Britain. Two days after this Conference, Mrs Thatcher also resigned, and a man
replaced her as Prime Minister. In this situation, what is the consequence of granting full political rights to
women if their representation in public life remains so negligible? Happily, however, by the end of 2005,
Germany had elected its first woman Chancellor. By the beginning of 2006, Chile and Liberia had elected
their women Presidents. Then in 2007 India and Argentina had the distinction of having women Presidents.
In the countries outside Europe and America, women's representation is very insignificant at the
level of political authority although some women have been successful in attaining top positions. Sri Lanka,
Israel, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have the record of having women Prime Ministers or Heads of
Government. But on the whole, the number of women holding high offices is very small. Some women have
excellent record of performance in various important positions, like those in legislatures, cabinets,
bureaucracy, diplomacy, journalism, legal profession, fine arts, academics and scientific research, etc. This
record is enough proof of the potential of women's power. But it is no proof of the opportunities open to
women as their share in these positions continues to be very meagre.
Currently there are two broad views concerning equal rights for women: (a) one view is that there is
no difference between men and women as regards their capabilities; hence they should be governed by the
same laws; and (b) another view is that women are essentially different from men—biologically, culturally
and socially; they should be given equal opportunities to develop and apply their distinctive capabilities
along with equal rights. Thus, women could be exempted from hazardous tasks, like underground mining
and working in night shifts.
Similarly, women should be entitled to maternity leave and related benefits, arrangements for
maintenance and custody of children after divorce, etc. Besides, in order to compensate women for their
under-representation in important positions, reservations for women should be made in the seats for higher
learning, appointments, seats in legislatures, etc. They should also be given tax concessions in order to
encourage them to work for additional income. This view seems to be more reasonable and is widely
endorsed.
 POST-MODERNISM
Post modernism stands for a late 20th century movement in philosophy. Art, and literary criticism. It extends to various
forms of social theory including political theory. The german philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) as
considered to be the intellectual god father of post modernism. According to Nietz there is no truth in this world, only
a plethora (many) of interpretations so there is no objective reality only a plurality of perspectives. Similarly there is
no genuine distinction below right and wrong only expressions of power relations. In other words, those who are in
power, determine what is right, good or beautiful. Anything not conforming to this standard is considered to be wrong
or sub standard.
Influential works on post modernism include Gean Francois Lyotar’s post modern
condition and Richard Rorty’s lontigeniu,Fronty and solidarity.
Broadly speaking, post modernism implies that the structure of privilege and power pervades
the entire social system. It operates in the field of language also. Its implications in a language have been brought out
by Jaques Derrida (1930-2004) in his celebrated ‘Work of Grammatology’ were he was outlined his ‘Concept of
Deconstruction’. It as a function in our social life has been amply almost ruled by Michael Foucault. Another French
philosopher , in his notable work, power and knowledge.

Michael Focault
Focault has made an important contribution to political theory by challenging many traditional assumptions. He has
argued that political theory continued to assume a paradigm (focus) of power. The old paradigm of power dating from
18th century conceived power as the repressive force. It is contained in the rules which prescribe as to what is allowed
and what is not allowed. However, the modern concept of power operates through the disciplinary norms established
by the various social institutions. These institutions set up disciplinary norms and make people behave according to
these norm. This is the modern way through which power operates.
The post-modernist perspective on power regards the prevalent norms of truth, and morality as unacceptable.
Because they simply reflect the mode of thinking of the power holders in society. No particular description of the real
can be treated as finally true.
However, Post-modernism tries to establish sociological linkages between higher and lower values with the
distribution of power in society. Accordingly, the power holders in society are held in high esteem and their culture is
regarded morally superior to that of the power less.
FEMINISM
Michael Focault starts from the point of social power structure. He believes in the natural equality of success. But
there is male domination, in other words, this is a patriarchal society. This again as rooted in capitation. The power
holders are men and women are subservient to men.
The male members of society dominate in all fields- cultural, financial and political fields.
Post-modernism rejects liberal feminism. If men and women are to be equals. There must be self moderation. It is ugly
for men to behave rudely towards women. Men must exercise self-control and they must act in self discipline , says
focault.
Even though women are subservient in society, it is useless to protest against this in this state of affairs. This
is because, we find the male members dominating in all walks of life.
DECONSTRUCTION
According to post modernist, the structures of privilege and power pervades all dept.s of human life. Even the
language of the society is determined by the power holders.
Deconstruction is an approach to understand the meaning of words. A word does not represent some concrete
realities or truth. We can understand the meaning of a word only, when we compare it or contrast it, with their
opposite context which it seeks to supress.
Jacques derrida, a French philosopher as regarded as the chief exponent of this approach. Accordingly the
word masculine does not does not denote some concrete reality. Its meaning can be understood only through an
intellectual process called deconstruction. That is by contrasting it with the word feminine, with refers to the
subordinate position. Similarly, the word transcendental would be meaningful only in relation to empirical; in each
case one category as regarded as culturally superior in relation to another.