BPS-1/OSOU

BPS-1/OSOU

BPS-1: Understanding Political Theory

Brief Contents
Block Block Unit Unit
No No
1 What is Politics: Theorizing the ‘Political’
INTRODUCING The tradition of Political Theory–I (Liberal,
2
1 POLITICAL THEORY Marxist):
3 The tradition of Political Theory–II (Anarchist,
Conservative)
4 Approaches to political theory-I: Normative,
Historical, Behavioral, and Postbehavioral:

Block Block Unit Unit

No No
5 Theories of Feminism
CRITICAL AND 6 Postmodern Feminism
2 CONTEMPORARY
7 The Feminist Understanding of Politics and
PERSPECTIVES IN
Power
POLITICAL THEORY
8 Eco-Feminism

Block Block Unit Unit

No No
9 Democracy: Liberal and Marxist
POLITICAL THEORY AND 10 Contemporary Theories of Democracy:
3 PRACTICE
11 Democracy and Citizenship
12 Procedural Democracy and Its Critique

Block Block Unit Unit

No No
13 Deliberative Democracy:

4 THE GRAMMAR OF 14 The Grammar of Democracy: Political

DEMOCRACY Participation
15 The Grammar of Democracy: Representation

16 Pluralist Theory of Democracy

 BPS-1/OSOU

This material has been developed by Odisha State Open University (OSOU), Sambalpur.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The University acknowledges the contributions made by the content developers, writers and editors
of this SLM.

Acknowledgement is also due to the following:

e-PG Pathshala, Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University, Guwahati,

MATERIAL PRODUCTION

Registrar
Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur
(cc) OSOU, 2022. Sociology of Development is made available under a Creative
Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
http://creativecommons.org/licences/by-sa/4.0
Printed by:
 BPS-1/OSOU

BPS-01 UNDERSTANDING POLITICAL THEORY

CONTENTS
Blocks/Units Pg. No.

BLOCK-1 INTRODUCING POLITICAL THEORY 1-43

Unit-1: What is Politics: Theorizing the ‘Political’: Introduction, Understanding Theory, What
is Political, Politics: An Inescapable Feature of the Human Condition, Nature of Politics
and Political Theory, What is Political Theory and why do we need this, Evolution of
Political Theory

Unit-2: The tradition of Political Theory–I (Liberal, Marxist): Introduction, the features of the
Liberal – Marxist Traditions, The difference between Liberal Tradition and Marxist
Tradition, Versions of the Liberal Tradition, Versions of the Marxist Tradition, Varieties
of anarchist traditions, Anarchism in Political Philosophy, Meaning and characteristics of
Conservatism

Unit-3: The tradition of Political Theory–II (Anarchist, Conservative): Introduction,

Approaches to Political Theory, Normative Approach to Political Theory, Empirical
Approach to Political Theory

Unit-4: Approaches to political theory-I: Normative, Historical, Behavioral, and Post

behavioral: Introduction, Modern Approaches to Political Analysis, The behavioural
approaches to political analysis, Salient features of behaviouralism, The Post-behavioural
approach or post behaviouralism :origin and meaning

BLOCK-2: CRITICAL AND CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES IN POLITICAL

THEORY 44-76

Unit-5: Theories of Feminism: Introduction, What is feminism and why do we need this, History
of feminism, First wave of feminism, Second wave of feminism, Third wave of feminism
First-wave feminism, The second wave feminism, The third wave feminism

Unit-6: Postmodern Feminism: Introduction, Defining and introducing postmodernism, defining

postmodern feminism, Judith Butler on postmodern feminism, Criticism

Unit-7: The Feminist Understanding of Politics and Power:,Introduction,The Need for a

Feminist Perspective on Politics,Sex and Gender,Feminist Understanding of Power and
Patriarchy,Public Private divine,Summary ,Exercise,Reference

Unit-8: Eco-Feminism :Introduction,Defining Eco-Feminism ,Different Variants of eco feminism

,Liberal Ecofeminism,Cultural Ecofeminism,Radical Ecofeminism ,Two Major
Approaches to Ecofeminism: Western and Indigenous ,Ecofeminism in India: Chipko
Movement ,Criticism of Ecofeminism
 BPS-1/OSOU

BLOCK-3: POLITICAL THEORY AND PRACTICE 78-119

Unit-9: Democracy: Liberal and Marxist:,Introduction,Democracy,Meaning, Definition and

types, Conditions for the success of Democracy, Merits and Demerits of democracy,
Democracy: Concept of Liberal Democracy, The mechanism for making Liberal
Democracy successful, Marxist views on Democracy

Unit-10: Contemporary Theories of Democracy:, Introduction, Meaning of the Elitist theory of

Democracy, Features of the Elitist theory of Democracy, Concept of Circulation of Elites,
Criticisms against the Elitist theory of Democracy, The Pluralist Theory of democracy,
Meaning of the Pluralist Theory of Democracy, Factors responsible for the development of
Pluralism, Importance of Pluralism, Features of the Pluralist Theory of democracy,
Criticisms against the Pluralist Theory of Democracy

Unit-11: Democracy and Citizenship:,Introduction,Democracy:Conceptual Analysis,

Characteristics ,Types of Democracy, Direct democracy ,Representative Democracy 11.6
Approaches to Democracy ,Classical Liberal Theory of Democracy, Elite Theory of
Democracy, The pluralist Theory of Democracy, Marxist Theory of Democracy
,Citizenship, How to acquire citizenship, Citizen and Democracy, Citizen Obligation to
state

Unit-12: Procedural Democracy and Its Critique: Introduction, Procedural Democracy, Aims and
Objectives of Procedural Democracy, Substantive Democracy: A critique of Procedural
Democracy, Summary

BLOCK-4 THE GRAMMAR OF DEMOCRACY 120-157

Unit-13:Deliberative Democracy:, Introduction ,Overview, Characteristics , Joshua Cohen's

Outline of Deliberative Democracy,Gutmann and Thompson's Model, Strengths and
Weaknesses of Deliberative Democracy ,History, Association with Political Movements

Unit-14: The Grammar of Democracy: Political Participation: Introduction, The concept of

Political Participation, Forms of Political Participation, Political Participation, Democracy
and Political Party, Theoretical Debate and Practical Variations, Political Participation and
Political Parties in India, Political Participation through an increasingly competitive party
System, Social nature of the party-led political participation ,Non-Party Institutions and
Political Participation, Political Participation and Indian Democracy

Unit-15: The Grammar of Democracy: Representation:, Introduction , Meaning of Political

Representation, Types of Representation

Unit-16: Pluralist Theory of Democracy:, Introduction ,The Pluralist theory of Democracy:

Meaning of the Pluralist theory of Democracy, Factors responsible for the development of
Pluralism ,Importance of Pluralism ,Features of the Pluralist theory of Democracy,
Criticisms against the Pluralist theory of Democracy
 BPS-1/OSOU

Block-1
INTRODUCING POLITICAL THEORY
Unit-1: What is Politics: Theorizing the ‘Political’
Unit-2: The Tradition of Political Theory–I (Liberal, Marxist)
Unit-3: The Tradition of Political Theory–II (Anarchist,
Conservative)
Unit-4: Approaches to Political Theory-Normative, Historical,
Behavioural, and Post-Behavioural
 BPS-1/OSOU

UNIT-1 WHAT IS POLITICS: THEORIZING THE ‘POLITICAL’

Structure

1.1 Objective

1.2 Introduction

1.3 Understanding Theory

1.4 What is Politics?

1.5 Politics: An Inescapable Feature of the Human Condition

1.6 Nature of Politics

1.7 What is Political Theory and why do we need this

1.8 Evolution of Political Theory

1.9 Summary

1.10 Exercise

1.11 Reference

1.1 OBJECTIVE

After studying this unit, you should be able to explain:

 Explain what is Politics

 Discuss about nature of Politics
 Describe evolution of political theory
 Explain what is Political

1.2 INTRODUCTION

The primary goal of this unit is to comprehend the concept of 'political.' The pursuit of
an order that person’s regard as good is at the heart of politics. The word politics comes
from the Greek word polis, which means both "city" and "state." Politics was a new
way of thinking, feeling, and, above all, being attached to one's fellows for the ancient
Greeks. They were all citizens, yet their statuses differed in terms of money,
intelligence, and other factors. Citizens become rational as a result of the political
concept. Politics is the activity that is unique to this new creature known as a citizen.
Politics may be studied because it follows predictable patterns, even if it is subject to
change. We cannot exist as humans without the support of a society that comprises

1
 BPS-1/OSOU

institutions such as the family, school, community organizations, religious institutions,

and so on. We are social beings due to the fact that we all need to live in a society.
Politics and the political arena are an important component of our social lives.

Politics is, after all, a part of everyday life, and one cannot avoid it.A result of it the
words "polity," "politics," and "political" all come from the Greek word polity. Ancient
Greek city-states were referred to as 'polis.' The city-states of antiquity were in
comparison to modern states, they are much smaller and natural boundaries were
drawn between them.

1.3 UNDERSTANDING THEORY

Theories are generally understood as statements that explain a particular event or act.In
this assumption, theory is an explanatory statement. This has however been contested
especially by political theorists. Rajeev Bhargava (2010: 5) contends that theory is an
explanatory statement but that this is not a sufficient understanding of theory.
Bhargava points out two issues with theory as a mere explanatory statement: first, an
explanatory statement does not constitute a theory, on its own; and second, all theories
are not explanations. For example, if we argue that honour killing exists in some parts
of India because the society is patriarchal, it is an explanation for honour killing but
not a theory of honour killing. Theory therefore delves deeper into the issue, and is
much more than an explanation. Secondly, a few theories may explain or justify
actions, but not all of them. In Bhargava ‘s view, there are larger evaluative questions
behind these justifications (ibid). For example, if we explain honour killing as a
manifestation of patriarchy, we may also have to justify why there should be gender
equality, or if there are other forms of equality that are required in conjunction with
gender equality.How do we define theory then? Theory is a very broad term that
implies ―an explanatory Proposition, an idea or set of ideas that in some way seeks
to impose order or meaning upon phenomena‖ (Heywood 2004: 10). In the nineteenth
century, the term theory‘ had a negative connotation, as it was used to refer to
speculations or untested facts‘ (Vincent 2007: 8). Theory has always been, however,
linked with philosophy and knowledge, the earliest evidences being the works of Plato
and Aristotle. However, in Greek philosophy, theoria‘however was a spectacle or an
event, and not something we build and apply as in the case of modern theories
especially after the hegemony of natural sciences (see Vincent 2007). Vincent however
argues that the nature of theory has always followed the broad contours of philosophy.
Rajeev Bhargava defines theory as ―a particular form of language dependent
systematic expression different from but related to other forms of systematic
reflections on the world‖ (Bhargava 2010: 9-10). This alludes to the fact that theory is
a product of reflections on certain events or experiences, and not mere explanations.
Theorising is the ability of human beings by virtue of their existence as concept-
bearing animals‘, who live the world through not only sensory experiences but also
through concepts, images and representations (Bhargava 2010: 6-7). Such lived

2
 BPS-1/OSOU

experience ‘distinguishes human life from the life of other species. However, all such
reflections do not constitute theory.

1.4 WHAT IS POLITICAL

Politics is a set of activities linked with group decision-making or other forms of power
relations between individuals, such as resource distribution or status. Political science
is the discipline of social science that investigates politics and governance. It can be
used constructively in the context of a nonviolent and compromising "political
solution." "We don't play politics," abolitionist Wendell Phillips said, "and anti-slavery
is no half-joke with us." Different methods have fundamentally differing ideas on
whether the term should be utilized widely or narrowly, empirically or normatively,
and if conflict or cooperation is more important to it. 'What is political?' has been the
basic topic or object of political philosophy (Hindess 1997; Dean 2006: 752; Bhargava
2010). The meaning, nature, and scope of political theory are thus dependent on
defining or, more accurately, revising the political boundaries (Held 1991; Farrelly
2003). "The discussion over what constitutes the 'political,'" as Held puts it, "is a debate
concerning the correct terms of reference for political thinking, as well as the
legitimate shape and scope of politics as a practical activity" (Held 1991: 7).Prior to
the 1970s, 'political' was primarily concerned with the nature and structure of
government; it was seen as a domain distinct from society and the individual,
according to David Held (1991). Political theory, in this sense, was defined as the study
of the essence of government, as well as the appropriate objectives of government—
the nature and boundaries of state action—while excluding, for example, the origins
of power in society (Held 1991). For example, secularism as a state policy would fall
under political theory, but civic or social relationships between two groups would fall
under sociology; the vulnerability felt in a community's psychology – the dread of the
other – would not be acknowledged in this phase as well. The focus of political theory
should be on this. To put it another way, previous to the 1970s, modern social studies
was built on clear disciplinary lines that distinguished ‘social,' 'political,'
'psychological,' and so on. However, the definition of 'political' is evolving, making
the subject of political theory more diverse and complex (Held 1991; Ball 1995;
Vincent 2007). "...politics is the location of variety of words," writes Andrew Vincent
(Vincent 2007: 9). This necessitates the interaction of political theory with a wider
range of topics. Surprisingly, the expansion of the term "political" also denotes a
change away from politics as a place of consensus toward politics as a place of
diversity of values, claims, experiences, and so on. The increasing proximity of
political theory to practise is exemplified by the following:Political science, then, came
to mean an empirical enquiry into the exercise of this power, and political theory, the
most general reflection on the processes, mechanisms, institutions, and practices by
which some people are excluded, by others from significant decision making
(Bhargava 2010: 22).

3
 BPS-1/OSOU

This however is also fraught with the problem that there is an end to the dialogue of
the polis; decisions are taken by the sovereign and political becomes the domain of the
sovereign In other words, this represents the transition to the notion of the political as
the domain of 8 the modern state and its institutions and processes; political science
and political theory therefore tended to study exclusively the what - the components
of the state and their existence, as well as the ‘how’ of decision making in these
institutions. Such notion of political represents a clear separation of political theory
from social theory. While state became the major object of study in political theory,
social theory studied the structures and processes outside the state The assumption was
that the key decision-making actor is the state, and hence a privileging of this narrow
definition of ‘political’. Both Held and Bhargava therefore agree that the early phase
of modern political theory is premised on the idea that political theory is exclusively
about the study of state action and its limits- a very narrow field. The narrow definition
of political as a realm of state has been challenged especially by most sections of
feminist theory that purport to dismantle the dichotomy between the public and private,
as well as the idea that the public domain is exclusively the state (Held 1991). The
state centrism in political science faced major challenges when the ‘embeddedness’ of
the state in society or social relations and structures of power was exposed by Marxists,
feminists, critical race theorists, postmodernists and others. For example, take the
argument of Gopal Guru (2001) that the Indian Constitution guarantees legal rights
against untouchability but lacks provisions for the moral goods of recognition, dignity
and a guarantee against humiliation. Guru thus concedes that the legal rights
recognised by the state are welcome; however, they do not change untouchability and
other forms of caste discrimination in the civil society. Thus, caste hierarchies, their
manifestations, personal relationships, civil society, the state- all are part of the
political in this example. Also, it implies that the state cannot be studied as an
independent actor. The state might be free of caste discrimination; but the social fabric
is characterized by casteism and the state may not be untouched by it, intentionally or
unintentionally. Similarly, the radical feminist slogan ‘personal is political’ once again
pushes the boundaries of the political by also including the intimate and the private as
political. Power is located in patriarchy as a total system that pervades every aspect of
life and society. The locus of the political is not the state; it is only one of the sites of
political, albeit a strong site of power. For socialist feminists, capitalism and patriarchy
were the real loci of power and not the state. This phase once again collapses the social
and political into a single entity.The postmodernists, especially, brought to the fore the
idea that power is not concentrated in the sovereign as a direct command or control
over others; on the contrary, power is more capillary and disciplinary and is located
more in social institutions and norms (see Foucault 1975). Political theory is not really
different from social theory in this perspective, though postmodernism questions
‘theory’ itself. In view of these new developments in the ‘political’, Bhargava (2010)
defines political theory as a ‘particular form of word-dependent systematic reflection’
with a wide range of objects of study. Its objects of study include the collective power
to take decisions ,about the good life of a political community, conflict over who
should take decisions and the competing visions of good life, mechanisms of power,

4
 BPS-1/OSOU

use of state power, as well as forms and manifestations of power in locations other
than the state (Bhargava 2010: 25-6).

1.5 POLITICSAN INESCAPABLE FEATURE OF THE HUMAN

CONDITION

So, although the fact that the term "politics" is sometimes used cynicthe ally to criticise
the pursuit of private gain in the name of public good, politics is an unavoidable
component of the human condition. Indeed, according to the Greek philosopher
Aristotle, "man is by nature a political animal." He meant not merely that politics is
necessary, but that it is the most fundamental human activity; political engagement is
the trait that most clearly distinguishes humans from other species. People can only
reveal their actual It's a battle of wills. However, a decision must be taken, one way or
the other, and once made, it will bind the entire group. Politics, then, is a set of methods
for allowing a variety of viewpoints to be voiced and then combining them into a final
conclusion. 'Political action may be seen as a way to logically work out the best
common answer to a common problem, or at least a way to work out a reasonable
common solution,' says Shively. That is, politics is made up of people's choices.

1.6 NATURE OF POLITICS AND POLITICAL THEORY

Political theory is a core component of the Political Science discipline. It mainly deals
with normative and theoretical questions and debates the issues like liberty, justice,
equality, democracy, etc. It has its roots in these twin aspects of the human self. It
analyzes certain basic questions such as how should society be organized? Why do we
need government? What is the best form of government? Does law limit our freedom?
Political theory is the study of the concepts and principles that people use to describe,
explain, and evaluate political events and institutions. According to David Held:
“Political Theory generally aims to explain things coming out of political life.” Karl
Popper says: “Theory is like net with the help of which one can catch the world to
understand it.” At the most general level, political theory is ‘a body of knowledge
related to the phenomenon of the state’.

 While ‘theory’ refers to ‘a systematic knowledge’, ‘political’ refers to ‘matters

of public concern’. Andrew Hacker defines it as ‘a combination of a
disinterested search for the principles of good state and good society on the
one hand, and a disinterested search for knowledge of political and social
reality on the other’. Political theory deals with the ideas and principles that
shape Constitutions, governments and social life in a systematic manner. It
clarifies the meaning of concepts such as freedom, equality, justice,
democracy, secularism and so on. It probes the significance of principles such
as rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review, etc. This is done by
examining the arguments advanced by different thinkers in defence of these
concepts. Political theory is basically a generalized statement of our political

5
 BPS-1/OSOU

life which outlines a conceptual framework for synthesizing knowledge. There

are different connotations of different theories and their concepts. There are
different views on political theory forwarded by various scholars at different
times. Some of them are Aristotle, Cobban, Germino, Held, Easton, Weber,
Hume, and so on. In common parlance, political theory is “…a body of
knowledge related to the phenomenon of the state.” While ‘political’ refers to
‘matters of public concern’, ‘theory’ refers to ‘a systematic knowledge’.
Political theory can be defined as the discipline which aims to explain, justify
or criticize the disposition of power in society. It delineates the balance of
power between states, groups and individuals. Different scholars have defined
it in the following ways:
 David Held opines that political theory is a “…network of concepts and
generalizations about 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.”
 According to Francis W. Coker, “…a branch of political science concerned
chiefly with the ideas of past and present political thinkers and the doctrines
and proposals of political movements and group discussion of the proper scope
of governmental action … has usually been regarded as a proper part of
political theory.”
 David Peritz considers political theory as “tradition of thinking about the
nature of political power; the conditions for its just and unjust use; the rights
of individuals, minorities, and majorities; and the nature and bounds of
political community. Rather than tackling pressing political problems one at a
time, political theorists seek systematic solutions in overall visions of just
societies or comprehensive diagnoses of the roots of oppression and
domination in existent political orders.”
 Andrew Hacker defines it as “…a combination of a disinterested search for
the principles of good state and good society on the one hand, and a
disinterested
search for knowledge of political and social reality on the other.” George
Catlin says, “political theory includes political science and political
philosophy.... It is concerned with means; political philosophy is concerned
with the end or final value, when man asks what is the national good or what
is good society.”
John Plamentaz defines it as “…the analysis and clarification of the
vocabulary of politics and the critical examination, verification and
justification of the concepts employed in political argument.”

In brief, political theory by referring to the comprehensive definition given by Gould

and Kolb who say that it is ‘a sub-field of political science which includes: political
philosophy – a moral theory of politics and a historical study of political ideas; a
scientific criterion; a linguistic analysis of political ideas, and; the discovery and
systematic development of generalizations about political behaviour. On the basis of

6
 BPS-1/OSOU

the above definitions, it can be concluded that political theory is concerned with the
study of the phenomena of the state both in philosophical as well as empirical terms.
It not only involves explanation, description and prescription regarding the state and
political institutions but also evaluation of their moral philosophical purpose. It is not
only concerned with what the state is but also what it ought to be.

Significance of Political Theory

The objective of political theory is to train citizens to think rationally about political
questions and assess correctly the political events of our time. The importance of
political theory lies in providing:

i) A description of the political phenomena,

ii) A non-scientific (based upon philosophy or religion) or a scientific (based
upon empirical studies) explanation,
iii) Proposals for the selection of political goals and political action, and
iv) Moral judgment. Examples of such a political theory can be found in
Plato’s “Republic”, or Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice” or Nozick’s “Anarchy,
State and Utopia”.

The significance of political theory may be discussed as follows:

 Helps us to explain various concepts

The significance of political theory lies in the clarification of various concepts used in
our day to day social and political life. The clarification of concepts is very much
necessary in each area of study, whether philosophy or science. Political theory
examines systematically and clarifies about the values that inform political life –
values such as freedom, equality and justice. It explains the meanings and significance
of these and other related concepts. It clarifies the existing definitions of these concepts
by focusing on some major political thinkers of the past as well as present.

 Helps us to understand and manage social life

Political theory helps in planning the future and maintaining peace and harmony in the
society. The various scientific analysis of our political life enables us to control our
social life by understanding and solving its various problems. The study of political
science facilitates the understanding of the causes of conflict and violence in society
and provide insights for preventing them. Political science helps us to live in a political
society by providing us ways to prevent political and social crises.

 Social criticism

Political theory engages itself with various political problems and provides solutions.
Primarily political philosophy is concerned with what is right and wrong in our social

7
 BPS-1/OSOU

life. Anything that occurs in the society is deliberated upon and addresses and analyses
normative concerns in the context of the basic norms of a particular society.

 Social reconstruction

Political philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau,
Machiavelli, Mill, Macpherson etc. have discussed about social reconstruction. The
proposals of the political thinkers gave insights of various social instabilities and their
possible solutions though their concepts cannot be taken as the absolute truth. These
insights from their thoughts are valuable in solving the problems of our society.

Political theory depicts the effort to attain knowledge through various goals
and processes in a political society. Its functions have now become very important in
the contemporary world as present day issues assume a global dimension.

1.7 WHAT IS POLITICAL THEORY AND WHY DO WE NEED THIS

Political theory has been an important component to understand political phenomena.

The subject matter, nature and scope of political theory however has been differently
perceived by different scholars and in different periods of time. Over the years,
political theory has made a transition from speculation and philosophical claims of
consensus to a more conflict-ridden and fragmented arena of the ‘political’ that has
considerably expanded from a narrow focus on the state and government to a more
fuzzy domain that transcends the narrow ‘regiments’ of political and social. The
relationship between the empirical and the normative has also undergone changes with
a broader agreement towards a mutual engagement between the two. This paper maps
the changing contours of political theory by engaging with the shifts in the notion of
the ‘political’ and how that impacts the role of political theory. Political theory
comprises of two words- ‘political’ and ‘theory’. The meaning, nature and scope of
political theory therefore depend on the changing notions of the two concepts. This
essay deals with an introduction to the domain of political theory. It deals with the
definitions/meanings that have been attributed to political theory as well as the changes
that have occurred over the past few years that have changed the idea of political
theory. The essay therefore proceeds in the following manner:

One of the contentious debates in political theory has also been its relationship with
political philosophy. Very often, the two are interchangeably used by virtue of the
normative underpinnings of political theory. The discipline of political theory, often
studied as a subset of political science, and more recently, the study of political life, is
by and large, regarded as a normative discipline (see Pettit 1991; Hindess 1997). Leo
Strauss (1988) argues, in a similar vein, that every political action has an end- either
preservation, or change of the existing social arrangement. Writing on political
philosophy, Strauss, defines the goal of the discipline as “the attempt truly to know

8
 BPS-1/OSOU

both the nature of political things and the right, or the good political order” (Strauss
1988: 345). As Strauss contends, political goal is necessarily about common good
though the latter is essentially controversial (ibid). These perspectives underscore the
primacy of normative and prescriptive tasks of political theory The normative essence
of political theory is reasserted by Philip Pettit in his work Contemporary Political
Theory (1991).

1.8 EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL THEORY

Political theory is a normative discipline, designed to let us evaluate rather than

explain; in this it resembles moral or ethical theory. What distinguishes it among
normative disciplines is that it is designed to facilitate in particular the evaluation of
government or, if that is something more general, the state (Pettit 1991: 1). Andrew
Vincent in his work The Nature of Political Theory (2007) offers another perspective
on the normative nature of political theory. Vincent contends that standard texts of
political theory are about a certain normative value- democracy, liberty, rights, justice,
etc. - and their promotion. Hence, theory, in this mould, is commonly seen as a form
of practical philosophy, orientated to, for example, certain kinds of substantive
conceptual, normative, and evaluative forms of analysis‖ (Vincent 2007: 1). Thus a
definitive goal of political theory, in Vincent‘s analysis is systematic self-critical
reflection‘ (ibid: 2). Vincent argues that all philosophy implies theorizing or theory,
but all political theory is not philosophy (Vincent 2007: 9). This implies that political
theory cannot be reduced to political philosophy. Others like Ruth Grant (2004) reduce
the different normative questions in political theory into two types: to seek the best
political option or to guard against the worst (Grant 2004: 179). As an example, Grant
suggests that Plato was looking for the former while Locke was concerned about the
latter in their respective engagements with the political.

That political theory is strictly not political philosophy has also been the claim of many
works of political theory (see Mion 1987; Ball 1995; Parekh 1996; Pocock 2006).
Mion argues that methodological frustration and philosophical uncertainty‘are
endemic to political theory (Mion 1987: 74). However, political philosophy, in this
perspective, is expected to be linked with and informing political practice and should
be in the service of the political processes. Similarly, J.G.A. Pocock defines political
theory as the construction of heuristic and normative statements, or systems of such
statements, about an area of human experience and activity called politics‘‘ or the
political‖‘‘ (Pocock 2006: 165). In this definition, political theory acknowledges
certain norms and procedures through which statements are constructed, validated and
critiqued (ibid: 166). However, Pocock distinguishes theory from political
philosophy‘in that the latter seeks to find out how these procedures have been arrived
at; in other words, political philosophy seeks to explore how the discipline of political

9
 BPS-1/OSOU

theory has been constructed (ibid). Elizabeth Frazer (2008) further makes a distinction
between theory of politics‘and political theory‘.

In Frazer‘s account, the former denotes a certain distancing between theorizing and
the object of theory, whereas political theory emphasizes the extent to which the theory
has political effect.(Frazer 2008: 171). The subject of political theory however has not
been an exclusive engagement with normativity. Indeed there are others who see the
expression political theory‘ itself as an oxymoron- while theory or theoria deals with
the realm of thinking or 22 contemplation, politics is about praxis (see Cavarero 2004).
Caverero therefore makes a case for expressing political theory as politicizing theory
‘rather than as theorisation of politics, for the latter implies the reduction of politics to
the principles of theoria‖ (ibid: 60, italics in original). Political theory has also raised
questions on methods to arrive at these norms or political statements. Vincent (2007)
iterates that the way one theorizes- the method- influences the substance of theory. He
thus calls for study of political theory as not only the conventional domain of internal
substantive matter ‘but also the processes of theorising (ibid: 2).

Methodological discussions have been dominant in the writings of the Cambridge

school ‘of historians of political thought, notably Quentin Skinner, John Dunn and
Geoffrey Hawthorn (see Leopold and Stears 2008). For Ruth Grant (2004), political
theory is not only about moral judgements but also their competing claims. As Grant
writes,Political theory as a discipline develops diagnostic tools to identify and to
understand what sort of political disagreement is involved in any given situation, and
theorists sometimes construct new alternatives that alter the nature of the conflict
(Grant 2004: 184-5). At another level, many writers underscore the limitations of this
division of labour between normative political theory and empirical political theory
(see Shapiro 2004; Swift and White 2008). Adam Swift and Stuart White (2008: 49)
argue that normative political theory can be limited in understanding the real
phenomenon of politics unless coordinated with empirical social science. As Swift and
White point out, Some theorists are interested less in evaluating policy options than in
questioning the basic assumptions that govern the way policies are discussed and
decided in systems like our own‖ (Swift and White 2008: 52). This in turn brings us
back to Pettit‘s idea that accords importance to the feasibility of values and moral
judgements. This also suggests possibility of conflict between the desirable and the
feasible. The statement suggests a division of labour between political theory and other
domains of political science. It presumes that political theory is more about basic
assumptions or moral arguments and not about policy options. For example, a political
theorist will be more occupied with reasons to justify the abolition of poverty or the
mitigation of climate change and not in fact choosing a better strategy to eradicate
poverty or address environmental issues. In Swift‘s and White‘s contention, this could
turn out to be a limit for the scope of political theory. Swift and White therefore
recommend collaboration between normative political theory and empirical social
science: For us, the political theorist is making a vital yet distinctive contribution to a
collaborative division of labour. She clarifies concepts, interrogates claims about how

10
 BPS-1/OSOU

the political community should organize its collective affairs (including claims about
what should count as that community‘s collective affairs‘), and argues for particular
principles (or conceptions of values, or balances of competing values). It is, typically,
only when combined with empirical knowledge, of the kind generated by social
science, that her analysis and justification of fundamental principles implies particular
policies (Swift and White 2008: 68). However, such collaboration is not new in the
study of politics. One cannot argue that political philosophy or theory have been
completely divorced from empirical reality (see Grant 2004). Aristotle‘s discussion of
regime types in Politics is an illustration (see Grant 2004: 176).Grant contends that
empirical political theories cannot be devoid of normative values. However, for Grant,
the unique contribution of political theory lies in its endeavour to engage in a
humanistic study of political life. This indicates the significance of historical and
philosophical dimensions of political theory (ibid: 187). There has been a wide variety
of reasons that justify the utility of political theory. Those like Michael Freeden (see
Freeden 2005) who want to differentiate between political theory and political
philosophy primarily underscore the role of theory in understanding and facilitating
the political processes. Some others are uncomfortable with what Ian Shapiro calls the
narcissistic ‘tendency of political theorists, wherein they treat political theory as a
specialised activity disengaged from the discipline of political science (see Shapiro
2004). Ruth Grant (2004) makes it a central task of political theory, albeit the tensions
with political science‘, for a mutual engagement with politics, without becoming a
science. Grant‘s argument is therefore on lines of mutual engagement between the
normative and the empirical All these works on political theory bring to focus the
mistake of separating the empirical and the normative. The mutual engagement of
philosophy and political theory is underlined by Bhargava as vital to understanding the
role of political theory.Contemporary theory, Bhargava argues, performs four
interrelated functions‘: It explains at the most general level possible, it evaluates and
tells us what we should do, and it speculates about our current and future condition. It
also tells us who we are‖ (Bhargava 2010: 28). Depending on the roles of theory,
Bhargava classifies them as explanatory, contemplative and normative theories
(Bhargava 2010). Bhargava alludes to two functions common to social and political
theory – interpretation and explanation, and secondly providing insights into social
phenomena that may not be completely explained by empirical inquiries- the
contemplative‘ role of political theory (Bhargava 2010: 35-6). Bhargava argues,
performs four interrelated functions‘: It explains at themost general level possible, it
evaluates and tells us what we should do, and it speculates about our current and future
condition. It also tells us who we are (Bhargava 2010: 28). Depending on the roles of
theory, Bhargava classifies them as explanatory, contemplative and normative theories
(Bhargava 2010). Bhargava alludes to two functions common to social and political
theory interpretation and explanation, and secondly providing insights into social
phenomena that may not be completely explained by empirical inquiries- the
contemplative‘ role of political theory (Bhargava 2010: 35-6).

11
 BPS-1/OSOU

Political theory offers a general reflection on the human condition‘‖ this is more
philosophical and closer to metaphysical knowledge; second, the exercise of power as
well as the mechanisms of exercise of power- this involves not only studies of state
but also on the capillaries of society, if they are sites of power; third, political theory
is also the study of how this power should be wielded, by whom and why, and in the
light of which values and ideas of the good life (Bhargava 2010: 41). The third element,
Bhargava emphasises, is a prescriptive, normative and largely an ethical function of
political theory (ibid). Evaluation of judgements and the methods of arriving at these
principles of normative evaluation become significant for political theory in this
distinctive function.

1.9 SUMMARY

Political theory's definition, nature, and scope have evolved over time. Political theory
has broadened its focus from a narrow focus on the state to the point that it has
encroached into the territory of social theory and even phenomenology, as in
experience or viewpoint theories. Today's political theory is concerned with norms,
but it is also worried with empirical issues such as how to create required political
arrangements in the interests of justice, equality, and other goals. At the same time,
postmodernism's antifoundalism raises questions about the concept of theory. While
postmodernism casts doubt on meta-narratives or "great theories," "micro theories" are
also called into question, because perceptions differ depending on subjects and subject
positions. Political theory has been viewed from this perspective. From universalism
to particularisms, objectivism to subjectivism, and foundationalism to anti-
foundationalism, has been a lengthy journey.

1.10 EXERCISES

1. What is theory?
2. What is political theory?
3. Why Do We Need Political Theory?
4. Explain the evolution of Political theory

1.11 REFERENCES

B.Barry, The Strange Death of Political Philosophy‘ in Democracy, Power and

Justice: Essays in Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989

Sir I. Berlin, Does political theory still exist? in P. Laslett and W.G. Runciman,
Philosophy, Politics and Society, 2nd series (eds.) Blackwell, Oxford, 1964

12
 BPS-1/OSOU

UNIT-2 TRADITIONS OF POLITICAL THEORY: LIBERAL,

MARXIST, ANARCHIST AND CONSERVATIVE

Structure

2.1 Objectives

2.2 Introduction

2.3 The features of the Liberal – Marxist Traditions

2.4 The difference between Liberal Tradition and Marxist Tradition

2.5 Versions of the Liberal Tradition

2.6 Versions of the Marxist Tradition

2.7 Varieties of anarchist traditions

2.8 Anarchism in Political Philosophy

2.8.1 Anarchism in the History of Political Philosophy

2.8.2 Absolute, Deontological and a priori Anarchism

2.8.3 Individualism, Libertarianism and Social Anarchism

2.9 Meaning and characteristics of Conservatism

2.10 Summary

2.11 Exercise

2.12 Reference

2.1 OBJECTIVES

After studying this unit, you should be able to explain:

 Know the characteristics of the Liberal-Marxist tradition as a whole;

 Be able to differentiate expression between Liberal-Marxist tradition
 Be able to identify the impact of Liberal-Marxist tradition upon political theory
and practice
 Be able to understand versions of the Liberal Tradition
 Be able to understand Versions of the Marxist Tradition
 Explain what is Anarchism;
 Describe and explain the meaning of Conservatism, and Numerous use of the

13
 BPS-1/OSOU

term Conservatism ‘
 Explain what is conservatism, the use of the term conservatism; and describe
and explain the meaning of political Conservatism, and Numerous use of the
term Conservatism ‘and Discuss History and Tradition of Conservatism,
Organic Society, Liberty and Equality.

2.2 INTRODUCTION

Multiple methods and traditions have enhanced political theory, which tend to analyse
and explain politics in distinct and frequently contradictory ways. Each of these
techniques is defined by a set of key assumptions and postulates. Each of them,
however, is immensely diverse and is sometimes influenced by other traditions. This
paper provides a basic review of two important political theory approaches/traditions:
liberalism and conservatism. Political theory is a collection of methods for interpreting
political notions, or a collection of political conceptions (Gaus 2000: 47). Political
philosophy attempts to link concepts (such as liberty and equality) in previously
unimagined ways during this process. In the last two centuries, according to Gaus
(2000), three "enduring political doctrines" have emerged: liberalism, socialism, and
conservatism. Gaus clarifies that they are not monoliths; each of these approaches has
a great deal of variability. The concept of 'liberalisms,' as proposed by Alan Ryan, is
one worth mentioning (Ryan 2007). What all of these traditions have in common is
their enormous diversity; nonetheless, they all have a set of 'foundations' that separate
them from one another. That is, each of them is distinguished by particular
characteristics.While there is much that makes the Liberal-Marxist tradition a
continuum, there are also substantial cleavages and contrasts that result from them. Of
course, the magnitude of the differences varies depending on their individual
tendencies. As a result, each of them might be regarded a separate tradition. On the
one hand, what distinguishes the liberal tradition from the Marxist tradition? Although
there may not be much disagreement on what defines their individual cores, defining
the bounds of either of these traditions, or both of them taken together, is challenging.
However, there is little consensus on the elements that are mutually compatible and
those that distinguish them.

The Liberal and Marxist traditions, as traditions rather than theories, encompass
critically reflected views of their respective theories on a variety of issues and
concerns, as well as the habits and dispositions of those who serve these traditions, the
worldviews they are based on or support, and the ways of life they spawn. By evoking
them as a whole or a few of their elements, they become merged with common sense
and shape many of our unreflected ways even before we make our deliberative
decisions.

Anarchism is a political philosophy that questions the legitimacy of authority and

power. Anarchism is primarily based on moral statements about the necessity of
individual liberty, which is often interpreted as independence from oppression.

14
 BPS-1/OSOU

Anarchists also advocate for a positive theory of human flourishing based on the ideals
of equality, community, and nonviolent consensus building. Practical initiatives to
construct utopian communities, radical and revolutionary political agendas, and other
types of direct action have all been inspired by anarchism. This item primarily
discusses "philosophical anarchism," i.e., anarchism as a philosophical concept rather
than a kind of political activism. While philosophical anarchism refers to a sceptical
conception of political legitimacy, anarchism has also been used to represent an anti-
foundationalism in philosophical and literary thought. Philosophical anarchism can
refer to either a political doctrine that rejects attempts to justify state authority or a
philosophical theory that rejects the assertion of firm foundations for knowing.

2.3 THE FEATURES OF THE LIBERAL-MARXIST TRADITIONS

Some shared traits of the Liberal-Marxist tradition can be identified. In its entirety
They're universal, however the manner we draw them differs from custom to tradition.
The tradition's limits and internal cleavages may have an impact on our lives. The way
these features are perceived. Much more than pre-modern political traditions based on
custom, usage, authority, or revelation, the Liberal-Marxist tradition is founded on
collective human experience, reason, and debate. For example, the mediaeval Christian
faith considered revelation as a special place where truth could be found. It's possible
that the Marxist-Liberal heritage will be revived.Because they were reflective about
their own thinking, the Liberal and Marxist traditions couldn't avoid looking at their
own premises, formulations, and suggestions, which led to radical reformulations of
their own ideas at times. The freedoms to which these traditions were dedicated, like
as speech, expression, and access to knowledge and information, eventually paved the
way for a diversity of ideas and ideals that were compatible with free inquiry. As a
result of both reflective understanding and personal autonomy, diversity of ideas and
practises emerged. A wide variety of topics were deemed significant by both liberals
and Marxists. They shared a same understanding of human beings and the importance
of man on the planet in many ways. Both thought their investigations were rational
and avoided preconceptions and localisms of all kinds. Both of them thought that
freedom and a political society that promotes freedom are highly prized values. They
defended human equality and the one-of-a-kind function that man is called upon to
play in the natural world.The role of the masses was viewed positively by the Liberal-
Marxist tradition as a whole. They were dedicated to bringing the people into the
political arena and influencing its direction. They disagreed, however, on how to
conceptualise the masses and how to give them a voice. Their positions changed from
time to time. Once in power, liberals who were initially enthusiastic about bringing the
masses into the political arena to fight autocracy and political fragmentation began to
dither on the issue and turned to the language of the rule of law and constitutionalism.

Similarly, once the Marxist parties were in power, Marxists abandoned the rhetoric of
self-rule and adopted the language of responsibility. Rather than just tuning into public
power, the Liberal-Marxist tradition focuses on comprehending and specifying its

15
 BPS-1/OSOU

foundation, scope, and boundaries. Pre-liberal-Marxist traditions emphasised

sensitivity to the larger political system and the role one was supposed to play within
it. Rather than just being attuned to it, the basis, scope, and boundaries of public
authority must be understood.Pre-liberal-Marxist traditions emphasised sensitivity to
the larger political system and the role one was supposed to play within it. In terms of
space and time, pre-modern political traditions were constrained. The Liberal-Marxist
traditions, on the other hand, presented universal systems for organising and
reorganising the universe, both procedurally and substantively.

2.4 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERAL TRADITION AND THE

MARXIST TRADITION

While the Liberal and Marxist traditions have some common ground, they cannot be
merged in many ways. There are a lot of distinctions between them. Furthermore, when
we compare distinct versions of one tradition to those of the other, these discrepancies
take on specific forms. Liberalism presupposes a fairly stable and well-rounded view
of human nature.Human nature is endowed with rationality and agency as intrinsic
parts of it, according to this view. Human nature, on the other hand, is viewed as a
historical product in Marxism. It is shaped by the vortex of the social ties in which it
is situated, and it shapes those same social relations in turn. While Marxism does not
deny human rationality and agency, it does claim that they are constrained by and must
account for current social connections. Liberalism assumes a fairly consistent and
well-rounded understanding of human nature.According to this viewpoint, human
nature is endowed with rationality and agency as integral components of it. Marxism,
on the other hand, views human nature as a historical product. It is shaped by the vortex
of social links that surround it, and it in turn shapes those same social relations. While
Marxism does not deny human rationality and agency, it does argue that they are
restricted by contemporary social connections and must account for them. Liberalism
assumes a fairly consistent and well-rounded understanding of human
nature.According to this viewpoint, human nature is endowed with rationality and
agency as integral components of it. Marxism, on the other hand, views human nature
as a historical product. It is shaped by the vortex of social links that surround it, and it
in turn shapes those same social relations. While Marxism does not deny human
rationality and agency, it does argue that they are restricted by contemporary social
connections and must account for them. Liberalism favours giving the human mind
more leeway in interpreting reality. The sphere of objective reality is usually separated
from the subjective appropriation of the same in Marxism. In addition, it gives the
former priority over the latter. Marxism, on the other hand, accepts that ideas can
become independent actors when they become practises or gain control of people's
hearts and minds.

The concepts and categories used by Marxism for social analysis and advocacy differ
significantly from those used by Liberalism. Liberalism's discourse revolves around
concepts and categories such "human" rights and freedoms, civil society,

16
 BPS-1/OSOU

representation, separation of powers, public opinion, justice, and equality. Marxism,

on the other hand, is built on a set of conceptions that include classes and class struggle,
modes of production, production relations, and productive forces, base and
superstructure, surplus appropriation, the state, revolution, and transitions. Marxism
emphasises social classes as fundamental social units. It does not completely negate
human agency, but it does assign social classes a historical role. Liberalism, on the
whole, values the individual rational agent and gives him or her the ability to make
independent decisions and live a life of their own. Marxism brings attention to the
mechanisms at work in a class-divided society, which stifles and distorts human life
and prevents people from realising their full potential. Liberals, on the whole, constrain
human beings to a small area of common aspirations, leaving them to use their liberties
to select what kind of human being they want to be.In comparison to Liberalism,
Marxism seeks to provide a more comprehensive account of the path of human affairs
and man's relationship with nature.Marxism highlights the processes at work in a class-
divided society, which stifles and distorts human life and deprives people of their basic
rights. Marxism is not an extra-terrestrial philosophy. It allows the world to inform our
goals and objectives. However, because it envisions a rich constitution of the self
through freely deciding themes, it does not have to preclude certain spiritual interests.
While there are compelling streams of thought within Liberalism that confine human
striving to this world, it is far more open to wards accepting human beings'
transcendental and other-worldly strivings. Liberals are known for making more room
for spiritual and other worldly interests. Marxism advocates a state of affairs in which
there is no exploitation and a rich self-constitution coexists with the disintegration of
the society.Its historical theory sees the course of class conflict in a capitalist society
as pointing in that direction. While defending diverse sorts of equality, liberalism tries
to strike a balance by allowing people to make their own decisions. It prefers to reform
the existing society rather than aim for a society that is free of exploitation and
oppression. The Liberal imagination did not place a premium on community. Liberals,
on the other hand, are striving to reach out to the community in a significant way in
the wake of the growth of communitarianism as a distinct body of thought. Marxists
have a well-thought-out and impassioned vision of revolutionary change. Liberals tend
to view the current human predicament as eternal and permanent, and political
radicalism is only used as a last resort if they subscribe to it. Revolutionary
transformation is a moral act in defence of rights and justice for Marxists, whereas it
is a moral act in support of rights and justice for Liberals.

On the notion, role, and importance of the state, Marxists and Liberals disagree.
Liberals often regard the government as an inescapable evil. Its denial causes more
harm than the suffering it endures. Marxists regard the state as a historical product
born out of society's unresolvable class divisions. There is also a significant distinction
between the many variants of Marxism and their Liberal counterparts. Many later
iterations of the Marxist tradition saw themselves as genuine heirs to their forefathers'
legacies. Leninism claimed to be the sole heir of Marx's and Engels' legacies.
Similarly, Maoism declared itself the inheritor of Marx, Engels, and Lenin's legacies.

17
 BPS-1/OSOU

The Liberal versions that followed rarely claimed to be the actual voices of the
previous versions. There is also a significant distinction between the many variants of
Marxism and their Liberal counterparts. Many later Marxists saw themselves as
genuine heirs to their forefathers' legacies. Leninism asserted that it was the sole heir
of Marx and Engels' legacies. Maoism, likewise, declared itself the inheritor of Marx,
Engels, and Lenin's legacies. The Liberal versions that came after rarely claimed to be
the genuine voices of the previous versions. In contrast to Liberal variants of Marxism,
the various versions of Marxism are significantly influenced by the ideas of a certain
thinker. As a result, various forms of Marxism are frequently referred to by the name
of their eminent proponent.

2.5 VERSIONS OF THE LIBERAL TRADITION

While the Liberal and Marxist traditions have some common ground, they cannot be
merged in many ways. There are a lot of distinctions between them. Furthermore, when
we compare distinct versions of one tradition to those of the other, these discrepancies
take on specific forms.

Classical Liberalism

John Locke (1632-1704) is the central figure. It brought together a fairly coherent set
of ideas and attitudes. It unleashed and steered social and political processes in
radically different ways than had previously been the case. It encouraged and instilled
a different set of ideals and norms. It gave birth to a distinct set of public institutions
and held them accountable to its own ideas. It aimed to create a common sense and
way of life based on its beliefs and attitudes. It made selective forays into the legacies
at its disposal in order to eke out aspects that would aid in the formation of this agenda.
As far as this version is concerned, John Locke (1632-1704) is the primary figure. It
brought together a fairly coherent set of ideas and attitudes. It unleashed and steered
social and political processes in radically different ways than had previously been the
case. It encouraged and instilled a different set of ideals and norms.

It gave birth to a distinct set of public institutions and held them accountable to its own
ideas. It aimed to create a common sense and way of life based on its beliefs and
attitudes. Civil society and the government had no right to intervene. It was, on the
contrary, necessary for the pursuit of the common good. In this version, liberty had a
negative meaning, implying a lack of restraint.Classical liberalism is a political
ideology and a subset of liberalism that promotes free markets, civil freedoms, and the
rule of law, with a focus on limited government, economic liberty, and political liberty.
It was created in the early nineteenth century as a response to urbanisation and the
Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America, expanding on concepts from the
previous century. John Locke, for example, is a well-known liberal whose ideas
influenced classical liberalism. It was known as economic liberalism until the Great
Depression and the advent of social liberalism. Classic liberalism was coined as a
retronym to distinguish social liberalism from previous 19th-century liberalism.
18
 BPS-1/OSOU

New Liberalism: Neoliberalism (or neo-liberalism) is a phrase used to characterise

the revival of 19th-century principles connected with free-market capitalism in the
twentieth century. A major driver of the rise of conservative and libertarian groups,
political parties, and think tanks, as well as the majority of those who advocate for
them, It is commonly connected with economic liberalisation policies such as
privatisation, deregulation, globalisation, free trade, austerity, and budget cuts to
strengthen the influence of the private sector in the economy and society. The defining
characteristics of neoliberalism in philosophy and practise, on the other hand, have
been the topic of extensive scholarly dispute.

Libertarianism:Libertarianism is a political ideology based on the principle of liberty.

Libertarians emphasise free association, freedom of choice, individualism, and
voluntary association in order to increase autonomy and political independence.

2.6 VERSIONS OF THE MARXIST TRADITION

Based on influential works by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (1848) in The
Communist Manifesto, Marx (1859) in A Contribution to the Critique of Political
Economy, and Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State,
Marxism sees classism as the root of women's oppression rather than sexism. Material
forces, which produce and reproduce social life, are the primary drivers of history,
according to Marxists. To put it another way, Marx believed that a society's total mode
of production that is, its forces of production (the raw materials, tools, and workers
who actually produce goods) plus its relations of production (how production is
organized) generates a superstructure (a layer of legal, political, and social ideas) that
reinforces the mode of production.

Marx and Engels emphasised class struggle as the driving force of history, while
ignoring sex class. Following Marxian dialectics, radical feminist Shulamith Firestone
believed that the material basis for the sexual/political ideology of female
subordination and male dominance was founded in men and women's reproductive
duties. She recommended compensating for this by constructing a feminist form of
historical materialism that emphasises sex class over economic class. According to
Firestone, achieving this level of human emancipation would necessitate a great
biological and social revolution. Women's liberation, according to Marxist feminists,
can only be achieved by a major reorganisation of the current capitalist system, in
which much of women's labour goes unpaid and unnoticed. There are two sorts of
labour in the capitalist society. Following in the footsteps of Engels, Marxist feminists
such as Margaret Benston and Peggy Morton emphasised:

Productive Labor: In which the labor results in goods or services that have monetary
value in the capitalist system and are thus compensated by the producers in the form
of a paid wage.

19
 BPS-1/OSOU

Reproductive labor: Which is associated with the private sphere and involves
anything that people have to do for themselves that is not for the purposes of receiving
a wage (i.e. cleaning, cooking, having children).

Engels- The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State:

Although the fathers of Marxism did not take women‘s oppression as seriously as they
did workers‘oppression, but Engels did offer explanations for women‘s oppression.
Engels in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (1845), showed
how changes in the material conditions of people affect the organization of their family
relations. Engels speculated that primitive hunting gathering; promiscuous societies
may have been not merely matrilineal but also matriarchal societies in which women
ruled at the political, social, and economic levels (Tong, 2009). Only when the site of
production changed, women lost their advantaged position. Engels said a site change
did occur with the advent of agriculture, domestication of animals and the breeding of
herds. Somehow, the male-female power balance shifted in favor of men, as men
learned to produce more than enough animals to meet the tribe‘s needs for milk and
meat. As men‘s work and production grew in importance, the value of women‘s work,
production and status of women decreased.With new found social status, suddenly
men wanted their own biological children (by imposing control on pre-existing free
female sexuality) to get their possessions and exerted enormous pressure to convert
society from a matrilineal one into a patrilineal one. Engels presented the overthrow
of mother right‖ as ―the world-historic defeat of the female sex (Engels, 1845: 118–
119).In this new familial order, said Engels, the husband ruled by virtue of his
economic power: He is the bourgeois and the wife represents the proletariat‖ (Engels,
1845: 118–119) Engels believed men‘s power over women is rooted in the men‘s
control over private property. He believed the oppression of women will cease only
with the dissolution of the institution of private property.

Marxism is a socioeconomic analytical method that employs a materialist

interpretation of historical development, also known as historical materialism, in order
to comprehend class relations and social struggle, as well as a dialectical perspective
in order to examine social transformation. It is based on the works of German
intellectuals Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the nineteenth century. There is now
no single, definitive Marxist theory because Marxism has evolved over time into
numerous branches and schools of thought. Certain aspects of traditional Marxism are
emphasised by some Marxist schools of thought, while others are rejected or changed.
Some schools have attempted to combine Marxist and non-Marxian ideas, with wildly
divergent results. Historical materialism Marx’s theory of historical materialism
encapsulates his general beliefs about society. Because material conditions or
economic variables affect the form and development of society, Marx's sociological
thinking is based on materialism. Material circumstances, according to his thesis,
primarily consist of technological means of production, and human civilization is
shaped by the forces and relations of production. Marx's historical materialism theory

20
 BPS-1/OSOU

is historical. Marx has traced the evolution of human societies from one stage to the
next, therefore it is historical. It's dubbed Materialistic because Marx understood
society's evolution in terms of its material or economic foundations. Materialism
essentially states that the basis for any change is matter or material reality. Karl Marx,
according to Friedrich Engels, discovered historical materialism, while Marx believed
it was Engels who independently formulated the materialist conception of history. To
quote Marx, both of them employed this theory as the "guiding thread" across all of
their works. Marx attempted to argue that every society goes through a unilinear
evolution, that every society advances stage by stage, and that every society has
progressed. He made a suggestion concerning society's history. Slavery, Feudalism,
Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are all terms used to describe primitive
communism. Historians chronicled history in the order in which it was discovered.
Marx, on the other hand, had a vision for the future, a picture of how history will lead
man through time. Each stage plants the seeds for its own demise. One will depart,
while the other will arrive. This level of precision and succession will continue until
communism is achieved.

2.7 VARIETIES OF ANARCHIST TRADITIONS

Anarchism comes in a variety of forms. The broad critique of centralised, hierarchical

power and authority unites this diversity. It's hardly unexpected that the anarchist
criticism has been applied in a variety of ways, given that authority, centralization, and
hierarchy may be found in a variety of discourses, organisations, and behaviours.
While hostility to the state is important, there is a lot of debate among academics and
anarchists about it, and different currents view anarchism in different ways.As a result,
it's possible to define anarchism as a collection of political ideologies that reject
authority and hierarchical organisation (including the state, capitalism, nationalism,
and all related institutions) in the conduct of all human relations in favour of a society
based on voluntary association, freedom, and decentralisation.This definition, like
those based on etymology (which is merely a negation of a ruler), anti-statism (which
is much more than that), and even anti-authoritarian (which is an a posteriori
concussion), has its own problems.

Political Anarchism

Anarchism is most commonly thought of as a sceptic of political legitimacy.

Anarchism is derived from the negative of arche, which meaning initial principle,
basis, or dominating force in Greek. As a result, anarchy is defined as no-rule or non-
rule. Some claim that non-ruling happens when everyone is in charge, with consensus
or unanimity as a positive goal. Political anarchists criticise state power, believing that
concentrated, monopolistic coercive power is unjustified. As a result, anarchists
criticise "the state."

Religious Anarchism

21
 BPS-1/OSOU

The anarchist criticism has been extended to include the rejection of non-political
authority and centralization. Bakunin broadened his critique to encompass religion,
contending that God and the State are incompatible. Bakunin despised God as the
supreme ruler, stating famously, "If God truly existed, he would have to be abolished."

There are, however, religious variants of anarchism that criticise political authority
from a theological perspective. Rapp (2012) has demonstrated how Taoism contains
anarchism. Anarchist elements have also been found in Islamic Sufism, Hindu bhakti
movements, Sikhism's anti-caste activities, and Buddhism, according to Ramnath
(2011). Below, we look at anarchism in relation to Gandhi. However, we will
concentrate on Christian anarchism in this article. The kingdom of God, according to
Christian anarchist theology, exists beyond any human principle of structure or order.
An anti-clerical criticism of ecclesiastical and political power is offered by Christian
anarchists. Tolstoy serves as a powerful example. Tolstoy says that Christians have a
responsibility to reject to obey political authority and to refuse to swear allegiance to
it (see Tolstoy 1894). Tolstoy was a pacifist as well. Because of its ties to armed force,
Christian anarcho-pacifism considers the state as immoral and unsustainable (see
Christoyannopoulos 2011). There are also Christian anarchists that aren't pacifists.
Berdyaev, for example, builds on Tolstoy's work while also offering his own take on
Christian theology. "The Kingdom of God is anarchy," Berdyaev says.

Theoretical Anarchism

Anarchist rejection of authority has application in epistemology and in philosophical

and literary theory. One significant usage of the term shows up in American
pragmatism. William James described his pragmatist philosophical theory as a kind of
anarchism: “A radical pragmatist is a happy-go-lucky anarchistic sort of creature”
James had anarchist sympathies, connected to a general critique of systematic
philosophy Pragmatism, like other anti-systematic and post-Hegelian philosophies,
gives up on the search for an arché or foundation. Anarchism thus shows up as a
general critique of prevailing methods. An influential example is found in the work of
Paul Feyerabend, whose Against Method provides an example of “theoretical
anarchism” in epistemology and philosophy of science

Traditional anarchists were primarily interested in sustained and focused political

activism that led toward the abolition of the state. The difference between free-flowing
post-anarchism and traditional anarchism can be seen in the realm of morality.
Anarchism has traditionally been critical of centralized moral authority—but this
critique was often based upon fundamental principles and traditional values, such as
autonomy or liberty. But post-structuralism—along with critiques articulated by some
feminists, critical race theorists, and critics of Eurocentrism—calls these values and
principles into question.

2.8 ANARCHISM IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

22
 BPS-1/OSOU

The kingdom of God, according to Christian anarchist theology, exists beyond any
human principle of structure or order. An anti-clerical criticism of ecclesiastical and
political power is offered by Christian anarchists. Tolstoy serves as a powerful
example. Tolstoy says that Christians have a responsibility to reject to obey political
authority and to refuse to swear allegiance to it (see Tolstoy 1894). Tolstoy was a
pacifist as well. Because of its ties to armed force, Christian anarcho-pacifism
considers the state as immoral and unsustainable (see Christoyannopoulos 2011).
There are also Christian anarchists that aren't pacifists. Berdyaev, for example, builds
on Tolstoy's work while also offering his own take on Christian theology. "The
Kingdom of God is anarchy," Berdyaev says.

Anarchism in the History of Political Philosophy

Anarchism in political philosophy maintains that there is no legitimate political or

governmental authority. In Political Philosophy anarchy is an important topic for
consideration even for those who are not anarchist as the political background
condition against which various forms of political organization are arrayed, compared,
and justified. The popular imagination often views anarchists as bomb-throwing
nihilists. But philosophical anarchism is a theoretical standpoint. In order to decide
who (and whether) one should act upon anarchist insight, we require a further theory
of political action, obligation, and obedience grounded in further ethical reflection.
Simmons explains that philosophical anarchists “do not take the illegitimacy of states
to entail a strong moral imperative to oppose or eliminate states” (Simmons 2001:
104). Some anarchists remain obedient to ruling authorities; others revolt or resist in
various ways. The question of action depends upon a theory of what sort of political
obligation follows from our philosophical, moral, political, religious, and aesthetic
commitments.

Absolute, Deontological and a priori Anarchism

Anarchists often make categorical claims to the effect that no state is legitimate or that
there can no such thing as a justifiable political state. As an absolute or a priori claim,
anarchism holds that all states always and everywhere are illegitimate and unjust. The
term “a priori anarchism” is found in Simmons 2001; but it is employed already by
Kropotkin in his influential 1910 article on anarchism, where he claims that anarchists
are not utopians who argue against the state in a priori fashion Despite Kropotkin’s
claim, some anarchists do offer a priori arguments against the state. This sort of claim
rests upon an account of the justification of authority that is usually grounded in some
form of deontological moral claim about the importance of individual liberty and a
logical claim about the nature of state authority. If all men have a continuing obligation
to achieve the highest degree of autonomy possible, then there would appear to be no
state whose subjects have a moral obligation to obey its commands. Hence, the concept
of a de jure legitimate state would appear to be vacuous, and philosophical anarchism
would seem to be the only reasonable political belief for an enlightened man. (Wolff
1970: 17)

23
 BPS-1/OSOU

Individualism, Libertarianism, and Socialist Anarchism

The content of anarchist theory, the focal point of anarchist critique, and the expected
practical impact of anarchism are all different. The communist anarchism associated
with Kropotkin, as well as communitarian anarchism, are socialist types of anarchism
(see Clark 2013). The socialist approach emphasises the growth of social and
communal groupings that are meant to survive outside of hierarchical and centralised
political structures. Some kinds of libertarianism or anarchy-capitalism, as well as
egoistically focused antinomianism and non-conformism, are examples of
individualist varieties of anarchism. Individualistic focus opposes group identity and
social/communal good notions while remaining strongly founded in moral assertions
about individual autonomy.

2.9 MEANING AND CHARACTERISTIC OF CONSERVATISM

Conservatism by its name implies that it conserves. “It recurrently said of itself, in a
tone suitable for an axiom of politics, that it is against change”(Honderich 2005:6).
Conservatism therefore is generally understood as a political tradition that is opposed
to change or is skeptical of change; conservation of the existing order becomes the
hallmark of conservative approach. Though conservatism has often been traced to
Plato, Aristotle, Halifax, Hooker, Bolingbroke and others, it reaches its maturity only
with Edmund Burke’s tumultuous response to the French Revolution” (Quinton 2007:
291). On the contrary, Vincent (2009: 56) traces conservatism to the fourteenth
century- the idea of conserving something. Vincent also acknowledges the roots of
twentieth century conservative writers to the medieval period. Russell Kirk’s tracing
of the conservative tradition to the ‘conservators’- guardians of medieval cities is one
example. The diversity within the technical usages of conservatism is explained in
terms of five positions by Andrew Vincent (2009):

 As the negative doctrine of the aristocratic class after the French Revolution.
In this perception, conservatism is a temporary historical phenomenon from
1790 to around 1914 in the European societies. The development of Tory Party
in England from late eighteenth century to around 1832 is an example.
 A second view explains conservatism as a doctrine with no political content, a
form of political pragmatism, simply absorbing the prevailing political, cultural
and moral ethos.
 A third view- situational or positional view- “reflects the self-conscious
defensive posture of any institutionalized political doctrine” (Vincent 2009:
58) Conservatism here is not attributed to class, historical event or ideology. It
is just part of any institutional order that defends the existing order. Thus we
would find conservatives in liberalism and Marxism as well.
 There is also a view of conservatism as a disposition. Hugh Cecil’s ‘natural
conservatism’- a tendency of human mind to be averse to change, is one such

24
 BPS-1/OSOU

example (ibid). Conservatism is again not an ideology but only a human

disposition to stick to tested beliefs and practices.
 Finally, conservatism as also been perceived as an ideology- a body of ideas
with a prescriptive content. Edmund Burke’s works on conservatism are
exemplars of an ideology of conservatism (ibid). Burke cited the novelty of
French Revolution in its emphasis on equality and perfectibility of human
beings through reason and reform of institutions that was a cause of skepticism
for him.

Vincent also identifies three distinct but overlapping approaches to the study of
conservatism-the historical nation state, chronological and conceptual approaches. The
historical nation state view contends that conservatism is specific- in a specific
historical context. This is broadly agreed to by Noel O’ Sullivan and Karl Mannheim
who speak of distinctive British, German, French and other nation state and history
based conservatisms. The chronological approach classifies conservatism according
to the timeline of Conservative parties, each phase marked by a dominant personality
and exigencies of the period. Thus British Conservatism is marked by Robert Peel’s
conservatism, followed by Disraeli, MacMillan and Thatcherism. The conceptual
view has two strands: one denies the existence of different conservatisms. There could
be different philosophical roots but no pure doctrine of conservatism. Antony Quinton
and Roger Scruton subscribe to this view. The second strand views manifold
diversities within conservatism. Vincent (2009) divides them into five- traditionalists,
romantic, paternalistic, liberal and New Right.

Conservatism: It’s Characteristic

Despite the diversity, Anthony Quinton (2007) argues that there are three central
interconnected doctrines in conservatism- traditionalism, skepticism about political
knowledge, and the organic conception of human beings and society. Traditionalism
“supports continuity in politics, the maintenance of existing institutions and practices,
and is suspicious of change, particularly of large and sudden change, and above all of
violent and systematic revolutionary change” (Quinton 2007: 286). Conservatives
favour change but only gradualist change: “Conservatives accept change as required
by changing circumstances, but they insist that, to minimize its dangers, it should be
continuous and gradual” (ibid: 288). Ted Honderich (2005: 9) highlights this as a
difference drawn by conservatism between change and reform; they favour reform but
not change. Change alters the basic essence or substance of something-something
fundamental whereas reform addresses only what is extrinsic or accidental to
something (ibid: 10). Furthermore, conservatives like Michael Oakeshott make a case
for retaining traditions not because they are merely traditions, but by virtue of the
society’s familiarity with them (see Honderich 2005: 17). Noel O’Sullivan adds a new
dimension to the notion of change in Burke, when he contends that what constitutes
change/reform and indeed conservatism in different societies could be different. What
constitutes reform cannot be said in advance; conservatism may range from defensive

25
 BPS-1/OSOU

actions to initiating changes to ensure status quo (Honderich 2005: 22). Benjamin
Disraeli’s act of extending suffrage to dish the Whigs is an example of the latter. This
gives conservatism an overall pessimistic colour. Changes bring not only possibilities
but also bad consequences. The overall improvement of human condition is also
fraught with negative impacts, and hence their skepticism to ‘progress’. The
skepticism to change has led many to describe conservatism as the ‘politics of
imperfection’ (see Quinton 2007). Kekes (2004) gives a different interpretation of this
imperfection. Kekes argues that conservatism also assumes that human condition is all
right as it is. Human nature is a mix of good and bad aspects; however, both individual
and society have limited control to change human propensity to evil (Kekes 2004:
139). Unlike the liberals, conservatism does not perceive human beings as rational:
“humans are not rational machines; they are a complex mesh of emotions, thoughts
and often contradictory motivations” (Vincent 2009: 68). This vindicates their
skepticism about reforming human beings –that inspired Peter Viereck to call
conservatism as the ‘political secularization of the doctrine of original sin’ (Vincent
2009: 69). Indeed, it is tradition that mediates between individual autonomy and social
authority for the design of good life, in conservatism: tradition is a set of customary
beliefs, practices, and actions that has endured from the past to the present and attracted
the allegiance of people so that they wish to perpetuate it. A tradition may be reflective
and designed, like the deliberations of the Supreme Court, or unreflective and
spontaneous, Traditions may be religious, horticultural, scientific, athletic, political,
stylistic, moral, aesthetic, commercial, medical, legal, military, educational,
architectural, and so on and so on. They permeate human lives.That is, individual’s
idea of leading a good life consists in her participation in traditions given to society
through history. The autonomous participation of individual in following social
traditions is hence the key to reconciling individual autonomy and social authority in
conservative theories. At the same time, conservatism also refutes traditions that
violate the main requirements of human nature (see Kekes 2004). Who chooses these
traditions then? Conservatives argues that the decisions should be taken by those
legitimately empowered to do so by the political process; The decision should be on
the basis of the contribution of the tradition to the society in terms of its past record-
those that have positively contributed should be retained; negatively contributed
traditions should be rejected. Conservatism hence is not a non-discretionary
acceptance of tradition; it is a reasonable and reflective defence of durable traditional
arrangements (see Kekes 2001; Honderich 2005).Secondly, political wisdom is
embodied in experience and established institutions and practices.

Conservatism therefore opposes utopias and systemic proposals of change (ibid).

Thirdly, conservatism is based on the idea that there is no universal human nature. The
organic relations between individuals and society entail that they are not independent
of social institutions and practices; human nature therefore changes from time to time
and place to place. The corollary of this is the conservative argument that it is not
possible to evolve abstractions or abstract theories characteristic of natural sciences.
The hostility towards abstract theoretical political knowledge prompted Quinton to

26
 BPS-1/OSOU

argue thus: “As an ideology conservatism is, then, procedural or methodological rather
than substantive. It prescribes no principles or ideals or institutions universally and so
falls outside the scope of its own rejection of abstract theory” (Quinton 2007: 288).
Burke’s distinction between abstraction (metaphysical reason) and principles rooted in
custom and tradition clarifies the conservative position on abstract theory. Oakeshott’s
rejection of rational technical knowledge in favour of practical knowledge is another
example. This makes conservatism hostile to not only utopias but also to social
contracts and abstract categories including rights (see Quinton 2007; Kekes 2004). On
the contrary, they draw from the history of their own society to decide their present
and future (Kekes 2004). In other words, political arrangements should be based on
history.Thirdly, conservatism is based on an organic conception of society, also a
society linked through hierarchy. The individual cannot be explained except through
the organic whole. Society is thus a mutually interdependent interrelation of parts; it
is not an artifice or a mechanism as the liberals would explain. This also implies that
political order cannot be invented; it emerges from existing moral and political
institutions. Except for the New Right within conservatism, political leadership and
skills are for an exclusive few who also command special status. Burke, for example,
referred to political leadership as a natural aristocracy (see Vincent 2009). This also
explains conservatives’ hostility to democracy. Conservatives favour limited
democracy, like the notion of ‘virtual representation’ in Edmund Burke.3 Human
nature is imperfect; therefore Finally, the conservative tradition is also marked by its
opposition to theory. Conservatism argues that no social theory can capture the
complexities of society. It is a fallacy therefore to apply theory to society (Honderich
2005: 32). Russell Kirk’s denunciation of a priori notions as divorced from history and
circumstances is an example (see Kirk, in Honderich 2005). Similarly,Oakseshott’s
repudiation of rationalism in politics is another vindication of conservatism’s departure
from Enlightenment rationality, moral philosophy and social engineering (ibid: 34).
This has often been portrayed as conservatism’s anti- philosophy (see Vincent 2009).
Honderich (2005) argues that the conviction of conservatism in time tested traditions
and experiences implies that it denounces metaphysical abstractions and favours a
form of empiricism.

Government is needed to provide a framework of procedures and rules. Freedom,

rights, liberty, property- none of them are moral values; they are tied to the ends of the
community (ibid). This also brings to light a basic contradiction in conservatism
especially in the works of Burke- except in the ideology of the New Right and more
liberal conservatives, conservatism is characterized by a hierarchically ordered society
but mostly a free market economy.

2.10 SUMMARY

As no other tradition has done before, the Liberal-Marxist tradition as a whole has led
to the constitution and restoration of the globe. The liberal tradition is widely thought
to be opposed to the Marxist tradition. This section focuses on the difficulties they

27
 BPS-1/OSOU

have in common as well as the mutually beneficial outcomes that stem from their basic
concerns. At the same time, the Liberal heritage is distinct from the Marxist tradition,
and collapsing them would be a grave mistake. The distinctions between these
traditions are highlighted in this unit. There is no such thing as a unified liberal
tradition. There are various variants of the liberal tradition to consider. This unit
outlines some of the most major variations of the liberal tradition, based on shifts in
core beliefs on the one hand, and political community appropriations of the tradition
on the other. We looked at classical liberalism, new liberalism, libertarianism, and
equalitarian liberalism for the first. We discussed American liberalism and continental
liberalism in the second section. The Marxist tradition has also evolved significantly
over time. This course gives an overview of the heritage founded by Marx and Engels,
as well as the Leninist recasting of this legacy and the Maoist version of this tradition.

Tradition and history, human imperfections with a love for prejudice and against
reason, organic society with liberty and inequality, admiration of authority and power,
strong plea for property and life rights, and belief in ethical, moral, and religious values
are all characteristics of conservative ideology. Conservatism is a conservationist
ideology. It arose primarily as a reaction to the fast-paced nature of political and
economic change, particularly in the West. This is one of the reasons why the term
"conservatism" is so resistant to change. It defends the principles of hierarchy,
tradition, and order as a philosophy against the pressures of industrialization and the
political challenges of liberalism and socialism. Conservatism's future is doomed by
its own constraints. It is unpopular in nations with a strong democratic bent because of
its resistance to equality and, more importantly, its defence of inequality. As a result,
conservatism has not succeeded in becoming a globally influential ideology. In and of
itself, conservatism is far too wide, and as a result, it has become a hazy ideology: what
is extreme now may not be so tomorrow.

We can deduct from the preceding discussion that anarchy refers to a society that lacks
authorities or a governing body, as well as the general confusion and turmoil that
results from this state. It could also apply to a society or a group of individuals that are
completely opposed to hierarchy. Anarchy can be defined as the reduction or
eradication of established forms of government and institutions. It can also refer to a
country or any inhabited area that lacks a government or central authority. Individual
anarchists advocate anarchy by proposing that government be replaced with private
institutions.

2.11 EXERCISE

1. Describe four characteristics of the liberal tradition.

2. Describe the characteristic of liberal-Marxist tradition.
3. What is the impact of liberal-Marxist tradition upon political theory and
practice?
28
 BPS-1/OSOU

4. Analyse about different expression between liberal –Marxist tradition.

5. Describe briefly the characteristic features of conservatism.
6. Explain the meaning of conservatism. In how many major senses the word
'conservatism' is used?
7. What is Anarchism?
8. Why anarchism is a cluster of political philosophies?
9. Explain anarchist views on Democracy.

2.12 REFERENCES

Bellamy, R. (1993), (ed.) ‘Theories and Concepts of Politics’. New York: Manchester
University Press.
Bhargava, R. and Ashok Acharya (2008) ‘Political Theory: An Introduction. New
Delhi: Pearson Longman.
Heywood, Andrew (2016) (Reprint) ‘Political Theory: An Introduction’, Palgrave,
UK.
Marsh, D. and Stoker, G. (eds.) ‘Theory and Methods in Political Science’. London:
Macmillan.
Verma, S. P. (1996) ‘Modern Political Theory’, Vikash Publishing, 3rd Reprint, New
Delhi.
Vinod, M.J and Deshpande, Meena ( 2013) ‘Contemporary Political Theory’, PHI,
New Delhi
Benjamin Franks; Nathan jun; Leonard Williams (2018). Anarchism: A conceptual
Approach.
O.P Gauba ; An introduction to political theory, 7th edition, 2017
K.K Ghai ; understanding political theory; kalyani publisher
Benjamin Franks; Nathan jun; Leonard Williams (2018). Anarchism: A conceptual
Approach.
O.P Gauba ; An introduction to political theory, 7th edition, 2017
K.K Ghai ; understanding political theory; kalyani publisher

29
 BPS-1/OSOU

UNIT-3 APPROACHES TO POLITICAL THEORY-I: NORMATIVE &

EMPIRICAL

Structure

3.1 Objectives
3.2 Introduction
3.3 Approaches To Political Theory
3.4 Normative Approach To Political Theory
3.5 Empirical Approach To Political Theory
3.6 Summary
3.7 Exercise
3.8 References

3.1 OBJECTIVES

After going through this unit, you will be able to-

 Explain the traditional approaches to Political Theory

 Discuss the normative approach to Political Analysis
 Discuss the empirical Approach to Political Analysis
 Explain the limitations of the Normative and Historical approaches.

3.2 INTRODUCTION

The various approaches to political analysis have been playing an important role in the
field of study of politics and political events. The approaches to political analysis can
be broadly classified as traditional approaches and modern approaches. While the
Traditional Approaches to political theory include the philosophical, historical,
institutional and legal approaches, the Modern Approaches to political analysis include
the behavioural approach, the post-behavioral approach, the systems approach, the
structural-functional approach, the communications theory approach and the decision-
making approach. In this unit we shall be focusing on two traditional approaches
namely, the Philosophical approach and the Historical approach.

3.3 TRADITIONAL APPROACHES TO POLITICAL THEORY

The traditional approaches to political analysis were widely prevalent till the outbreak
of the Second World War. These approaches were mainly related to the traditional
view of politics which emphasized the study of the state and government. Therefore,
traditional approaches are primarily concerned with the study of the organization and
activities of the state and the principles and ideas which underlie political organizations

30
 BPS-1/OSOU

and activities. These approaches were normative and idealistic. The political thinkers
advocating these approaches, therefore, raised questions like ‘what should be an ideal
state?’ According to them the study of Political Science should be confined to the
formal structures of the government, laws, rules and regulations. Thus, the advocates
of the traditional approaches emphasize various norms - what ‘ought to be’ or ‘should
be’ rather than ‘what is.

Characteristics of Traditional approaches

Traditional approaches are largely normative in nature and laid stress on the values
associated with politics (e.g. moral issues of justice, equalty. etc.)

Emphasis is on the study of different political structures. (e.g. parliament,

judiciary.etc.)

Traditional approaches made very little attempt to relate theory and research

These approaches believe that since facts and values are closely interlinked, studies in
Political Science can never be scientific.

Various types of Traditional Approaches:

The traditional approaches can be sub-divided into the following: Philosophical

approach, Historical approach, Institutional approach, Legal approach.

3.4 NORMATIVE APPROACH TO POLITICAL THEORY

Different titles have been given to the normative conception in political philosophy.
Some prefer to refer to it as philosophical theory, while others call it ethical theory.
The normative view is founded on the assumption that the universe and its occurrences
may be interpreted in terms of logic, purpose, and outcomes using the theorist's
intuition, reasoning, insights, and experiences. In other words, it's a project centred on
philosophical value inquiry. The foundations of political study were laid by normative
political theory, which was created in ancient Greece. Its significance was never
questioned until the emergence of logical positivism and empirical social science,
which claimed to be truly scientific, i.e. value neutral. The article begins with a
summary of the debate before delving into the nature of normative theorising, the
structure of a normative argument, and the role of normative political theory. The final
portion examines the difficult relationship between empirical and normative research.
Political philosophy, it is said, can be practical, but it must first deal with strictly
deductive fact-insensitive concepts before moving on to practical purposes. There are
two different intellectual paradigms in political science: a normative approach and a
‘positive’ approach. The ‘positive’ paradigm treats the scientific study of politics as
associated with a value neutral approach to the subject(Gerring, Yesnowitz, 2006, p.
101) and argues that theory can be applied only to what is, not to what ought to be.

31
 BPS-1/OSOU

Neopositivists such as Lucien Levy Bruhl claimed that science cannot be a science in
so far as it is normative. And Peter Laslett in his introduction to Philosophy, Politics
and Society (1956) famously declared that ‘political philosophy is dead’ at least ‘for
the moment’. Its death was largely a consequence of the rise of logical positivism that
reflected a deep faith in scientific understanding and suggested that propositions that
are not empirically verifiable are simply meaningless. Logical empiricists supported
the view that political science, like natural science, must dispassionately study facts
for science can only be concerned with ‘what has been, is, or will be, regardless of the
“oughts” of the situation’. Such a view excluded political philosophy as ‘alleged’
knowledge of the normative.

A number of political scientists declared that their work was concerned with the
empirical propositions of political science and not with ‘the value judgments of
political doctrine’ However, since then a number of scholars not only have been
engaged in doing normative theory (notably many political philosophers such as Mi-
chael Oakeshott, Leo Strauss or Hannah Arendt), but have also expressed
dissatisfaction with ‘the empiricist separation of normative (advocacy-oriented) and
empirical (explanation-oriented) approaches’. After the publication of John Rawls’
Theory of Justice, political philosophy and more broadly normative political theory
has gone from strength to strength to become recognized again as a valuable or even
necessary method of research in political science. This recognition came with the
agreement that values can be seen as the substance of political systems and political
structures for they play the role of mediators in both prescriptive and descriptive
accounts of politics. In 1976 Charles Taylor published a celebrated article ‘Neutrality
in Political Science’ in which he argued, against the prevailing intellectual current at
the time, that the findings of political science are not and will never be value-free: ‘a
given explanatory framework secretes a notion of good, and a set of valuations, which
cannot be done away with – though they can be overridden – unless we do away with
the framework’. Using several examples, including Seymour Lipset’s analysis of
democracy in his Political Man, he explains that empirical theories or supposedly pure
assumptions about facts have normative consequences expressed in statements about
what is good or desirable in politics. It thus proves that a ‘connection between factual
base and valuation is built in, as it were, to the conceptual structure’ (Taylor, 1994, p.
559). When establishing a framework of political analysis, the range of values that can
be adopted must necessarily be limited, and thus value orientation cannot be done
away with completely. Consequently, ‘to the extent that political science cannot
dispense with theory, with the search for a framework, to that extent it cannot stop
developing normative theory’.

Defining normative theory and its role

Normative political theory is as old as reflection about politics and we can easily regard
Plato and Aristotle as its founders. There are several aspects of their philosophical
reflection of politics (or practical philosophy) which build up a normative theory: there

32
 BPS-1/OSOU

is no separation between ethics and politics (thus between‘ought’ and ‘is’, they are
mutually dependent), the nature of political theorizing is both descriptive (e.g.
Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens) and prescriptive (Plato’s The Republican and The
Laws, Aristotle’s Politics), politics has a teleological character and as an activity is
concerned with which is primarily defined as the good life of the political community.
Classical political theory was a predecessor of political science and for many centuries
political theorizing had had mainly a normative character, but it was often a response
to a certain empirical context. For instance, Jean Bodin’s concept of sovereignty was
developed during his service to the French monarchy and in a way justified the already
developing system of governing. It was not, however, presented as a description of
empirical phenomena, but as a normative theory. In the concept of sovereignty Bodin
found a principle upon which a political order should be based. Thus it can be said
that‘political theories are shaped by the important cultural, intellectual, and political
currents of their time and place, and it is natural to think of these currents as, in a sense,
the “foundations” of a political theory’ (Moon, 2015, p. 1342). This line of reasoning
about the nature of political theory was addressed by Quentin Skinner in his two-
volume Foundations of Modern Political Thought (1978), and in other writings. He
argues that political theorizing is not, and can not be, an effort to answer perennial
questions of political life, but is itself a form of political activity, in which one draws
on the cultural elements available in one’s society to advance and legitimate a position
in ongoing controversies.

Thus in order to understand what the authors of political texts were ‘doing in writing
them’, we must recover ‘the normative vocabulary’ of the time within which an
author’s ideas – even, or especially, when they extend or revise that vocabulary – are
necessarily expressed. The study of political thought, in this view, must not only be
contextual, but must be a ‘history of ideologies’ in the sense of ‘discourses of
legitimation’. In Foundations of Modern Political Thought, for example, Skinner
investigates ‘the acquisition of the concept of the sovereign state, together with the
corresponding idea that individual subjects are endowed with natural rights within and
potentially against the state’, Our primary concern here, however, is not whether we
accept the contextua- list reading of political philosophy or not. The key question for
our analysis concerns the type of theory that political philosophy involves. In general,
a positive social theory attempts to explain how the social world works in a value-free
way, while a normative theory provides a value-based view about what the social
world ought to be like or how it ought to work. The former describes and examines the
existing social, political and economic structures while the latter proposes goals and
standards that should be achieved, or at least are desirable even if they cannot be
achieved at the moment. Political theories provide a set of concepts or propositions
that explain political phenomena on the one hand and, on the other, normative
principles for ordering political communities. These principles are often treated as
having universal validity. Each political community can function on the basis of
certain common standards shared by its members. A descriptive social or political
theory simply identifies and examines those standards whereas a normative theory

33
 BPS-1/OSOU

formulates statements as to what standards a political community ought to follow or be

based upon.

Normative theory is concerned with norms or normative principles. A normative

principle can be defined as ‘a general directive that tells agents what (they ought, or
ought not) to do’. All our concepts cannot simply ‘describe’ reality; they also provide
meaning to the social world of facts, values, norms, patterns, standards. Therefore
apart from descriptive arguments formulated by empirically minded political
scientists there are also evaluative or prescriptive arguments formulated by theorists
who are concerned with justification of norms. Broadly conceived norms are
regularities of certain phenomena. In the social and political context, norms can be
understood descriptively as standards of behaviour of social and political action, or
prescriptively as reasons which dictate a certain choice of action. In ethics norms mean
moral standards. A normative theory tries to determine what standards ought t o b e
f o l l o w e d in a political community (domestic or international).

Normative statements refer to an ideal standard or model and this reference may
involve a priori concepts that establish standards by which judgments can be made.
Norms determine the value of social phenomena and are the major point of reference
in the process of judging social phenomena as desirable or undesirable. Because of the
structure of our reasoning it can be suggested that ‘All our concepts have normative
dimension once we look at the world as agents we cannot reach a pure non-normative
core; this is part of the thorough unity of the world wrought out by bridging
implications’. Normativity allows for questioning the world we experience in order to
render judgment on it so that we can say what measures are not being met, what
standards are being overlooked. This is possible because of the clear autonomy of
‘what ought to be’ from ‘what is’ although the relationship of the two dimensions will
always be a matter of controversy.

3.5 EMPIRICAL APPROACH TO POLITICAL THEORY

Not normativism, but an alternative notion known as empirical political theory, which
develops hypotheses from practical facts, has dominated political theory in the
twentieth century. Empirical political theory rejects theories that make value
judgments as having the status of knowledge. As a result, normative political theory is
dismissed as a mere expression of personal preferences. The quest for value-free
theory began with the goal of making political theory more scientific and objective,
and thus a more dependable guide for action. Positivism was the name given to this
new way of thinking. Political theorists under the influence of positivism set out to
gain scientific understanding about political processes based on principles that could
be objectively confirmed and proved.

This empirical political theory endeavour was based on the empiricist theory of
knowing, which claims to have full-fledged criteria for determining what constitutes
truth and falsity. The experimentation and verification principle are at the heart of this
34
 BPS-1/OSOU

criterion. When political theory began to crumble under the weight of this influence, a
so-called revolution erupted, which became known as the 'Behavioural Revolution.' In
the 1950s, this revolution seized control of political theory and, by advocating new
features, absorbed the entire area of study and research. In reality, an anti-theory mood
dominated the behavioural climate, giving those who mocked theory in the traditional
sense a field day. Ideology, abstraction, metaphysics, and utopia have all been
associated with theory. Some adventurers even pushed for the abandonment of theory
as a business venture. They even reduced thinking to a component of reality, blurring
the line between thought and reality, in their quest for objective knowledge. As a result,
they drew the wrath of certain science philosophers who advocated for a post-positivist
view of science. Karl Popper set the tone for the new era by establishing the idea of
'falsification' as a criterion of scientific knowledge, arguing that all knowledge was
speculative, tentative, and far from the final truth. In the philosophy of science,
Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, and Mary Hesse lambasted the so-called scientific
theory, which marked a real turning point or breakthrough. Kuhn's book The Structure
of Scientific Revolution was a pioneer in exposing the positivist theory's flaws and
inadequacies, demonstrating how all cognitions rely on understanding and
interpretation as a way of inter-subjective communication.

3.6 SUMMARY

We've seen why political theory develops and how it shapes and determines the path
of history through aiding human political activity. The many concepts maintained by
the theorists have also been examined, as well as their problems. The contemporary
enterprise has been debated, as well as its limitations, as it purports to open new vistas
in our knowledge of social and political reality. Since we have different conceptions
of political theory, they acquire different meanings in different traditions. Any project
in political theory that combines scientific facts with normative reasoning by
rigorously criticising it can open the door to political theory creativity, which we can
use to guide into the future.

3.7 EXCERCISE

1. Distinguish between the empirical and normative conceptions of political

theory
2. Examine the debate about relevance of political theory
3. What do you understand by political theory?

3.8 REFERENCES

Barry, B. (1989). The Strange Death of Political Philosophy’ in Democracy, Power

and Justice: Essays in Political Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Berlin, S. I. (1964). Does political theory still exist? in P. Laslett and W.G. Runciman,
Philosophy, Politics and Society. 2nd series (eds.) Oxford: Blackwell

35
 BPS-1/OSOU

UNIT-4 APPROACHES TO POLITICAL THEORY: II

(BEHAVIOURALISM AND POST-BEHAVIOURALISM)

Structure

4.1 Objectives

4.2 Introduction
4.3 Modern Approaches to Political Analysis
4.4 The behavioural approaches to political analysis
4.5 Salient features of behaviouralism
4.5.1 Merits of Behavioralism and Criticisms against Behaviouralism
4.6 The Post-behavioural approach or post behaviouralism :origin and meaning
4.7 Summary
4.8 Exercise
4.9 Reference

4.1 OBJECTIVES

After reading this unit you will be able to understand

 The modern approaches to Political analysis

 The behavioural approach or behaviouralism
 Salient features of Behaviouralism
 The post behavioural approach or post behaviouralism :origin and meaning

4.2 INTRODUCTION

In the previous units, we learnt about the traditional approaches to political analysis.
In this unit we shall learn about the modern approaches to political analysis. As
opposed to the traditional approaches, the modern approaches are based on the study
and analysis of facts .The modern approaches include behavioural approach, post-
behavioural approach, systems approach, structural-functional approach,
communication theory approach, etc. In this unit we shall focus on two major modern
approaches, namely, Behaviouralism and Post-behaviouralism.

36
 BPS-1/OSOU

4.3 MODERN APPROACHES TO POLITICAL ANALYSIS

After studying politics with the help of traditional approaches, the political thinkers of
the later period felt the necessity to study politics from a new perspective. Thus, to
minimize the deficiencies of the traditional approaches, various new approaches have
been advocated by the new political thinkers. These new approaches are regarded as
the "modern approaches" political analysis. Many thinkers regard was these
approaches as a reaction against the traditional approaches. These approaches are
mainly concerned with the scientific study of politics. The first breakthrough in this
regard comes with the emergence of the behavioural revolution in Political Science.
The modern approaches include: the Behavioural approach, the Post Behavioural
approach, the Systems approach, the Structural Functional approach, the
Communication Theory approach and the Decision-Making approach.

Modern Approaches try to draw conclusion from empirical data. These approaches go
beyond the study of political structures and its historical analysis and concentrate on
the study of political behaviour based on factual understanding of political phenomena.
Modern Approaches believe in inter-disciplinary study .They emphasize scientific
methods of study and attempt to draw scientific conclusions in Political Science.

4.4 THE BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH OR BEHAVIOURALISM

The origin of behavioural movement can be traced back to the period of intellectual
developments in the twentieth century. The main thrust of this approach has been on
the day to day behaviour of the individuals as the members a political society. After
the First World War a movement emerged towards the use of empirical and
quantitative methods. Thus the emphasis on political behaviour in the first stage of the
twentieth century later led to the emergence of the behavioural movement in Political
Science. Significant landmark of this revolution is the publication of the book, Political
Behaviour written by an American thinker Frank Kent in 1928. This approach takes
into account the behaviour of persons and groups in society and not institutions,
structures or ideologies. Hence, the emphasis of this approach is on the study of the
individual as a member of the group.

After the Second World War this movement became very popular among the political
thinkers of America as well as some European countries. Charles. E. Merriam who
was a professor of Political Science at the Chicago University is regarded the father of
the behavioural movement. The behaviouralists emphasize the use of quantitative data
and statistical tables in political analysis. Several American political scientists like
Gabriel Almond, Robert Dahl, David Easton, Harold Lasswell and Karl Deutsch have
evolved some theoretical frameworks and research designs to do scientific and
systematic research in Political Science. All these works have contributed towards the
strengthening of behavioural movement. Behaviouralism has been defined in different
ways. Robert Dahl regards behaviouralism as "a protest movement within Political

37
 BPS-1/OSOU

Science associated with a number of political scientists, mainly Americans who shared
a strong sense of dissatisfaction with the achievements of conventional Political
Science, particularly through historical, philosophical and the descriptive institutional
approaches." He further opines that by linking politics with the empirical components
of the society, the behavioural approach makes an attempt to make Political Science
more scientific, objective and value free.

David Easton is of the view that the behavioural approach should look at the
participants in the political system as individuals with their emotions, prejudices and
predispositions of human beings. Scholars like Charles E Merriam and Harold
Lasswell also believed that political investigations would be incomplete if
psychological and social aspects are not taken into consideration. Therefore, the
behavioural movement tried to shift the focus of study from the structure and origin of
the government and various other institutions of the state to the individuals who
constitute the political system. For studying the day to day problems of the individuals,
behaviouralism put emphasis on the development of new methods and techniques of
research. The behaviouralists mainly used the techniques of observation, interview,
survey, research, case studies, data collection, statistical analysis, quantification etc.

4.5 SALIENT FEATURES OF BEHAVIOURALISM

David Easton has pointed out certain salient features of behaviouralism which are
regarded as its intellectual foundations. These are:

Regularities: This approach believes that there are certain uniformities in political
behaviour which can be expressed in generalizations or theories in order to explain and
predict political phenomena. In a particular situation the political behaviour of
individuals may be more or less similar. Such regularities of behaviour may help the
researcher to analyze a political situation as well as to predict the future political
phenomena. Study of such regularities makes Political Science more scientific with
some predictive value.

Verification: The behaviouralists do not want to accept everything as granted.

Therefore, they emphasize testing and verifying everything. According to them, what
cannot be verified is not scientific.

Techniques: The behaviouralists put emphasis on the use of those research tools and
methods which generate valid, reliable and comparative data. A researcher must make
use of sophisticated tools like sample surveys, mathematical models, simulation etc.

Quantification: After collecting data, the researcher should measure and quantify
those data.

38
 BPS-1/OSOU

Values: The behaviouralists have put heavy emphasis on separation of facts from
values. They believe that to do objective research one has to be value free. It means
that the researcher should not have any pre-conceived notion or a biased view.

Systematization: According to the behaviouralists research in Political Science must

be systematic. Theory and research should go together.

Pure Science: Another characteristic of behaviouralism has been its aim to make
Political Science a "pure science". It believes that the study of Political Science should
be verified by evidence.

Integration: According to the behaviouralists, Political Science should not be

separated from various other social sciences like history, sociology and economics etc.
This approach believes that political events are shaped by various other factors in the
society and therefore, it would be wrong to separate Political Science from other
disciplines.

Thus, with the emergence of behaviouralism a new thinking and new method of study
were evolved in the field of Political Science.

4.9.1 Merits of Behavioralism and Criticisms against Behaviouralism

Merits of Behavioralism

We can list the merits of behavioural approach as follows: m It attempts to make

Political Science scientific and brings it closer to the day to day life of the individuals.
Behaviouralism has first talked about bringing human behaviour into the arena of
Political Science and thereby makes the study more relevant to the society. This
approach helps in predicting future political events.

Criticisms against Behavioralism

The behavioural approach has been appreciated by different political thinkers for its
merits as mentioned above. However, the Behavioural approach has also faced
criticism for it’s ‘mad craze ‘for scienticism also. The main criticisms levelled against
the Behavioural approach are mentioned below:The Behavioural approach has been
criticized its dependence on techniques and methods ignoring the subject matter.

The advocates of the behavioural approach were wrong when they said that human
beings behave in similar ways in similar circumstances.The growth of behavioural
movement in Political Science is one of the important landmarks in the history of
Political Science. The rise of behaviouralism clearly introduced a scientific vigour in
the study of political phenomena. However, after sometime, it began to be realized that
unlike natural sciences, generalizations could not be made in the field of social
sciences, as the study of man in the societal context was a far more complex pursuit
than the study of objects in the natural sciences. Therefore, a new thinking emerged

39
 BPS-1/OSOU

among the behaviouralists for modifying behaviouralism. This led to the emergence
of post-behaviouralism.

4.6 THE POST-BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH OR POST-

BEHAVIOURALISM: ORIGIN AND MEANING

The growth of behavioral movement in Political Science is one of the important

landmarks in the history of Political Science. The rise of behaviouralism clearly
introduced a scientific vigour in the study of political phenomena. However, after
sometime, it began to be realized that unlike natural sciences, generalizations could
not be made in the field of social sciences, as the study of man in the societal context
was a far more complex pursuit than the study of objects in the natural sciences.
Therefore, a new thinking emerged among the behaviouralists for modifying
behaviouralism. This led to the emergence of post-behaviouralism. David Easton who
was a staunch supporter of behaviouralism later became a strong critic of
behaviouralism. In his presidential address to the Annual Convention of the American
Political Science Association held in 1969, David Easton declared that he felt
dissatisfied with the political research and teaching made under the impact of
behaviouralism. He further said that because of too much use of mathematics, Political
Science looked more of mathematics than of social science and that it had lost touch
with the current and contemporary world. Behaviouralism also dissatisfied people as
it failed to offer solutions to many social and political problems. Such dissatisfaction
has led to the emergence of post- behaviouralism. This new approach believed that
mere use of sophisticated techniques and research tools would not solve the social and
political problems of the world. Therefore post behaviouralists opposed the idea of
behaviouralists to make Political Science a value-free science like other natural
sciences. Therefore, postbehaviouralists made an effort to make Political Science
relevant to the society by reintroducing the emphasis on values. However, it must be
remembered that post-behaviouralism cannot be separated from behaviouralism as it
has emerged out of behaviouralism. Through using different techniques and methods
post-behaviouralists try to overcome the drawbacks of behaviouralism and make the
study of Political Science more relevant to the society by laying equal emphasis on
facts and values.

Post-behaviouralism believed that the use of scientific tools is beneficial if it can solve
the various problems of the society. Behaviouralists gave too much emphasis on
methods and techniques and believed that it was better to be wrong than vague. Post-
behaviouralists on the other hand, believe that it is better to be vague than non-
relevantly precise. The postbehaviouralists criticized behaviouralism on the ground
that the latter had lost touch with the realities of the society because of over emphasis
on techniques. Thus, post-behaviouralists may be regarded as the reform movement
within behaviouralism. This new approach emphasizes identifying and solving the
major issues of political and social life. According to postbehavioralism, the political
scientists should find out different alternatives and means to solve the social problems.

40
 BPS-1/OSOU

Thus, the main thrust of postbehaviouralism has been to make Political Science
relevant to the society. However, it must be remembered that it is only a continuation
of behaviouralism. It does not altogether reject the ideas of behaviouralism. It
acknowledges the achievement of behavioralism and appreciates its effort to do
objective research in Political Science. It only tries to bring research in Political
Science closer to reality to make the subject more relevant to the society. Accordingly,
the post-behaviouralists opposed the efforts of the behaviouralists to make Political
Science a value-free science. It was argued by the post-behaviouralists that political
science in order to be relevant to the society must consider basic issues of society such
as justice, liberty, equality, democracy, etc., The post-behaviouralists have described
behaviouralism as a 'mad craze for scienticism'. Thus, post-behavioralism is a
reformation of behavioralism as it shifts its focus strictly from empirical research to
resolving problems confronting the society.

After studying politics with the help of traditional approaches, the political thinkers of
the later period felt the necessity to study politics from a new perspective. Thus, to
minimize the deficiencies of the traditional approaches, various new approaches have
been advocated by the new political thinkers. These new approaches are regarded as
the "modern approaches" political analysis.Many thinkers regard these approaches as
a reaction against the traditional approaches. These approaches are mainly concerned
with the scientific study of politics. The first breakthrough in this regard comes with
the emergence of the behavioural revolution in Political Science.The origin of
behavioral movement can be traced back to the period of intellectual developments in
the twentieth century. The main thrust of this approach has been on the day-to-day
behaviour of the individuals as the members a political society. After the First World
War a movement emerged towards the use of empirical and quantitative methods.

The emphasis on political behaviour in the first stage of the twentieth century later led
to the emergence of the behavioural movement in Political Science. Significant
landmark of this revolution is the publication of the book, Political Behaviour written
by an American thinker Frank Kent in 1928.The behavioural approach takes into
account the behaviour of persons and groups in society and not institutions, structures
or ideologies. Hence, the emphasis of this approach is on the study of the individual as
a member of the group. After the Second World War this movement became very
popular among the political thinkers of America as well as some European countries.
Charles. Merriam of the Chicago University is regarded the father of the behavioural
movement.The behaviouralists emphasize the use of quantitative data and statistical
tables in political analysis. Several writers like Gabriel Almond, Robert Dahl, David
Easton, Harold Lasswell and Karl Deutsch have evolved some theoretical frameworks
and research designs to do scientific and systematic research in Political Science. All
these works have contributed towards the strengthening of behavioural movement.

David Easton has pointed out certain salient features of behaviouralism which are
regarded as its intellectual foundations. These are: Regularities, Verification,

41
 BPS-1/OSOU

Techniques, Quantification, Values, Systematization, Pure Science and

Integration.The growth of behavioural movement in Political Science is one of the
important landmarks in the history of Political Science. The rise of behaviouralism
clearly introduced a scientific vigour in the study of political phenomena. However,
after sometime, it began to be realized that unlike natural sciences, generalizations
could not be made in the field of social sciences, as the study of man in the societal
context was a far more complex pursuit than the study of objects in the natural
sciences. Therefore, a new thinking emerged among the behaviouralists for modifying
behaviouralism.

David Easton who was a staunch supporter of behaviouraism later became a strong
critic of behaviouralism. In his presidential address to the Annual Convention of the
American Political Science Association held in 1969, David Easton declared that he
felt dissatisfied with the political research and teaching made under the impact of
behaviouralism.The Post-behavioural approach believed that mere use of sophisticated
techniques and research tools would not solve the social and political problems of the
world. Therefore post behaviouralists opposed the idea of behaviouralists to make
Political Science a value-free science like other natural sciences. Therefore, post-
behaviouralists made an effort to make Political Science relevant to the society.

It must be remembered that post-behaviouralism cannot be separated from

behaviouralism as it has emerged out of behaviouralism. Through using different
techniques and methods post-behaviouralists try to overcome the drawbacks of
behaviouralism and make the study of Political Science more relevant to the
society.Post-behaviouralism believed that the use of scientific tools is beneficial if it
can solve the various problems of the society. Thus, post behavioralism is a
reformation of behaviouralism as it shifts its focus strictly from empirical research to
resolving problems confronting the society.

The post-behaviouralists opposed the efforts of the behaviouralists to make Political

Science a value-free science. It was argued by the post-behaviouralists that political
science in order to be relevant to the society must consider basic issues of society such
as justice, liberty, equality, democracy, etc.

4.7 SUMMARY

The Post-Behavioral perspective held that advanced procedures and research tools
alone would not be enough to solve the world's social and political challenges.As a
result, post-behaviorists fought behaviouralists' attempt to turn political science into a
value-free science like other natural sciences. As a result, postbehaviouralists worked
to make Political Science more relevant to society. It's important to note that post-
behaviouralism is inextricably linked to behavioralism, as it arose from it. Post-
behaviouralists attempt to address the shortcomings of behavioralism by employing
various strategies and methods in order to make political science more relevant to
society.
42
 BPS-1/OSOU

4.8 EXERCISE

1. What is the modern approach?

2. What are the different characteristics of modern approaches?
3. What is behaviouralism?
4. Explain the features of Behaviouralism
5. Explain the merits and demerits of behaviouralism.
6. Explain post behaviouralism.

4.9 REFERENCES

Bhargava, R. and Ashok Acharya (2008) ‘Political Theory: An Introduction. New

Delhi: Pearson Longman.

Vinod, M.J and Deshpande, Meena (2013) ‘Contemporary Political Theory’, PHI,
New Delhi

Verma, S. P. (1996) ‘Modern Political Theory’, Vikash Publishing, 3rd Reprint, New
Delhi.

Ramaswamy, Sushila (2010), ‘Political Theory: Ideas and Concepts’, PHI Learning,
New Delhi

Bellamy, R. (1993), (ed.) ‘Theories and Concepts of Politics’. New York: Manchester
University Press.

Marsh, D. and Stoker, G. (eds.) ‘Theory and Methods in Political Science’. London:
Macmillan.

Heywood, Andrew (2016) (Reprint) ‘Political Theory: An Introduction’, Palgrave,

UK.

43
 BPS-1/OSOU

Block-2
CRITICAL AND
CONTEMPORARYPERSPECTIVES IN
POLITICAL THEORY

Unit-5 Theories Of Feminism

Unit-6 Postmodern Feminism

Unit-7 The Feminist Understanding Of Politics And Power

Unit-8 Eco-Feminism

44
 BPS-1/OSOU

UNIT-5 THEORIES OF FEMINISM

Structure

5.1 Objectives
5.2 Introduction
5.3 What is feminism and why do we need this
5.4 History of feminism
5.4.1 First wave of feminism
5.4.2 Second wave of feminism
5.4.3 Third wave of feminism
5.5 First-wave feminism
5.6 The second wave feminism
5.7 The third wave feminism
5.8 Conclusion
5.9 Exercises
5.10 References

5.1 OBJECTIVES

The introductory course on feminism at the bachelor’s level discusses the development
and meaning of feminism and the feminist movement. After reading this chapter you
should understand:
1. what is feminism?

2. Meaning and need of the feminist movement?

3. Development of different phases of feminism?

5.2 INTRODUCTION

In Political science, feminism is an idea to bring social, economic, and political

equality between sexes especially male and female genders. Initially, it originated in
the West, that later manifested globally. Several institutions were established to work
towards women’s rights and interests that see women and their situation as central to
political analysis. Feminism discusses why men have more power and privilege over
women and how the situation can be changed. It is a way to understand society
challenge its discriminatory customs and traditions and change them. The word
“feminism” was first used in English during the 1880s, to indicate support for women’s
equal legal and political rights with men. With time and further awakening, the
feminist movement split into several parts to accommodate different views and

45
 BPS-1/OSOU

perspectives from people of all kinds of ideologies, for example radical, liberal,
Marxist, socialist, ecofeminism, Black feminism, etc.

5.3 WHAT IS FEMINISM AND WHY DO WE NEED IT

Feminism involves deep theoretical disagreements that find their roots in competing
for ideological traditions. It started with religious traditions to assert women’s worth.
During the 17th century, the demand for equal access to education, employment,
political participation, and legal rights emerged in secular liberal ideology. Feminism
tried to bring women out of the domestic sphere to the public sphere which was
considered men’s domain. In Medieval Europe, when women were denied the right to
own property, study and participate in public life, to vote, feminism came in support
of these women.

5.4 HISTORY OF FEMINISM

The first record of the women’s movement emerges from the 3rd Century BCE when
Roman women gathered at Capitoline Hill and blocked all the entrances to the Forum.
They were protesting against the ruling by Consul Marcus Porcius Cato to limit
women’s use of expensive goods. This was followed by a much later period in the late
14th and early 15th century when Christine de Pisan called for female education. Later
in the 15th century, Laura Cereta a Venetian woman published Epistolae Familiares
(Personal Letters in 1488) wrote that dealt with women’s complaints regarding
illiteracy and domestic violence against women. Since then, there is a long list of
women of courage who claimed that women are of equal intelligence to men if they
are given equal opportunities.

England has the first debate on women’s questions in the late 16th century when many
pamphleteers and polemicists wrote about the true nature of womanhood. The first one
to write on women was Jane Anger who wrote a pamphlet Jane Anger, Her Protection
for Women (1589). Demand for women who are not interested in religion or marriage
to arrange a secular convent was raised in A Serious Proposal to the Ladies by Mary
Astell in 169and 4, 1697 in two volumes. A wave for women’s rights started after
Mary Wollstonecraft wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792). It was
published in England. It challenges the notion of women are there to please men and
proposes equal opportunities for women in education, work, and politics due to their
equal rationality. This book created a wave of revolutions in France, Germany, and
Italy. In the United States, feminists demanded social and political freedom and
equality in opportunities. Thus, an inter-continental movement for social changes took
place and ideas were shared across Europe and North America for the emancipation of
women. Among the few major issues, she pointed out are 1) she opposed the prevalent
idea of weakness and frivolity of women due to their natural attributes of their sex.
She mentioned that the mindless vanity of upper-class women was a social construct
which did not reflect women’s true ability, 2) since men and women are equally

46
 BPS-1/OSOU

reasoned beings, they must be educated equally to use that reasoning. Women are not
“specially made for man’s delight” but is an independent being who is capable of and
entitled to a rational education. 3) virtues of both sexes should be based on their shared
and God-given possession of reason not on the male-imposed ignorance cunningly
disguises as innocence. She argues that passive obedience to her husband could not be
fit to bring up children. 4) women’s knowledge and education help in making rational
choices that only make sense of their worthiness and this worthiness should decide
their equal rights. These arguments paved the way for political liberalism and
established campaigns for women’s suffrage and legal rights and eventually t the
demand for equal participation with men in the worlds of politics and paid
employment.

The contemporary age of industrialisation somehow puzzled the implementation of

her ideas and settled new age of economic dependence on men and increased
separation of home and work. Changes in agriculture created a wage labourers’ class
and declined the older family-based domestic industry. Women were exclusively
excluded from trades and their husbands’ businesses, like brewing, printing and
medicine and restricted to the home. Hence, marriage becomes economically
important for women to survive due to financial dependence. It was the time the public-
private question emerged with ‘behind scenes, involvement and women started
demonstrations, rioting, and petitioning parliament. They opposed the justification of
patriarchal power at home like God’s authority in the king as divinely ordained.
Women’s exclusion was justified by Eve’s curse that devaluated them till now. So,
men’s value-given rationality was defined in terms of overcoming femininity that
includes nature, particularly biology, passion, and emotion. Therefore, feminists
demanded women’s inclusion in “malestream” ideologies when they argue that women
are both different from and superior to men and that the problems, they face are not
discrimination or capitalism but male power. There are largely three waves to
understand the feminist movement which we are going to study here:

5.4.1 First Wave Feminism

The first wave of feminism was ruled by suffrage rights for women. The demand for
equality and suffrage and the liberal feminist movement went back as far Seneca Falls
Convention in New York in 1848 when more than 300 men and women assembled for
the nation’s first women’s rights convention. It was organised by Elizabeth Cady
Stanton (1815-1902) to bring a political strategy of equal access and opportunity. This
declaration started the suffrage movement. Formally, the first wave of feminism
started in the United States of America along with other reform movements like
abolition and temperance and was closely involved with women of the working
classes. They protested against the White House accusing the government of
undemocratic practices of not enfranchising half of its citizens, unlike Germany. They
were ready to get arrested while picketing, demonstrating, and protesting. Their acts
were inspired by a radical agitator Alice Paul (1885-1977), who introduced militant

47
 BPS-1/OSOU

tactics to the NWP: parades, picketing, marches, and burning of President Wilson’s
speeches.

Finally with the struggle of women like Alice Paul, Carrie Chapman Catt, president of
the National American Women’s Suffrage Association (NAWSA), Anna Howard
Shaw, a former president of NAWSA, and others alike, women in the USA won the
right to vote in 1920. It was also supported by Black abolitionists, such as Maria
Stewart, Sojourner Truth, and Frances E. W. Harper. Participation by radical feminists
like Elizabeth Cady Stanton also participated in this movement long back in 1868 to
represent the National Labour Union Convention.

The Black women feminists faced another issue while supporting the suffrage
movement. Many well-meaning sceptics feared that it would be a setback for men of
colour, who were campaigning for enfranchised rights. So, even though they
participated with white women for the right to vote, they showed the presence of
sexism and racism together for White male dominance. However, the first wave was
largely dominated by white, middle-class, well-educated women. They faced a severe
backlash due to both World War I and World War II along with the Civil War in the
United States of America. Therefore, propagandists of the suffrage movement then
tried to counter the stereotypes of women by engaging in public persuasion, highly
unwomanly behaviour, crossing the domestic boundaries (women’s place was
considered in the home to serve husband and children), and showing less feminine
attributes like behaving masculine attributes and ignoring her biological weakness- a
smaller brain and a more fragile physique. Later it was argued by some rights activists
that women should get the right to vote from an argument of expediency because they
are fundamentally different and they have to work on maternity and domesticity.
Therefore, it would be advantageous to enfranchise women to get benefitted from their
“innately” female concerns and they would perform their “duties” as mothers and
housewives in a better way. Another argument in support of the right to vote for
women is justice. Women and men were considered equal at least in the terms of law
therefore extending their voting rights was giving them full citizenship. Some
feminists also argued in favour of women’s superior morality, in part of sophisticated
rhetoric of equity, developed in Europe and the USA. It shared the Western political
framework of enlightenment and liberalism, anchored in universalism. They consider
patriarchy an irrational and unprofitable entity that only makes women a cultural
emblem of deficiency. According to them women should not only be considered equal
by extending all their rights to them but should be given special attention due to their
contributions and competencies. This form of feminism is called “equal-opportunities
feminism” or “equity feminism”. They denied biological differences as a basis to
validate theoretical or political discriminations, though they accepted these differences
as the basis of social gender roles.

There were a few ground-breaking works that led the first wave and also prepared the
base for the second wave. The famous books among them were: Mary Wollstonecraft’s

48
 BPS-1/OSOU

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), written in the wake of the French
Revolution, Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own (1929), and Simone de
Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (1949). Woolf also brought the notion of lesbians up along
with women’s writings and voices on social and political issues. Beauvoir produced
an authoritative definition of patriarchy by which women face “othering” through a
social process. She argued that by strengthening her body and will and practising
various virtues women can avoid being dependent on their husbands.

During the first wave, along with liberal feminism, socialist/Marxist feminism also
developed in the workers’ unions in the United States of America. It was the rise of
communism in the former Soviet Union that was influencing the formation of social-
democratic parties in Europe and the USA. Among the supporters of this form of
feminism were, Rosa Luxemburg (1870-1919) in Germany, Alexandra Kollontai
(1873-1952) in Russia, and anarchist Emma Goldman (1869-1940) in the United
States, etc. Both liberal and socialist/Marxist feminists believe in equity and equal
opportunities for women and men. However, socialist/Marxist feminists focus more
on working-class women and their participation in the socialist revolution against class
struggle. These socialist/Marxist feminists paved the road for second-wave feminism
by talking about the private lives of women, the right to abortion, divorce, and non-
legislative partnership, and also about sexism in upper-class society and within the
socialist movement. While these forms of feminism were developing continuously, the
concept of equity and equality has given a rise to the second wave of feminism, which
we are going to study in the next part.

5.4.2 The Second Wave Feminism

The second wave of feminism is synonymously used for the radical feminist movement
of women’s liberation in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It started with a protest against
the Miss America Pageants in 1968 and 1969. They followed the tactics of liberal
feminism along with performing underground or guerrilla theatre against what they
called the Pageants’ “women’s oppression”. Later the Redstockings, the New York
Radical Feminists, and other significant feminist groups also joined the protest in 1969
to protest the policies, and activities of the pageant and argued that such pageants
unnecessarily highlight the way women look than what they do, think, and the very
idea of their thinking. They compared the pageant walk with a cattle show and their
protest included activities like crowning a sheep Miss America and throwing
“oppressive” gender artefacts, such as bras, girdles, false eyelashes, high heels, and
makeup in the trash before journalists. It was all done to oppose the patriarchal,
commercialised, oppressive beauty culture.

The background of second-wave feminism had many global movements like student
protests, the anti-Vietnam War movement, the lesbian and gay movement, and the civil
rights and Black power movements in the United States of America. They were held
against the interests of capitalist and imperialist power against oppressed groups.
Women were part of that oppressed group. In the contemporary New Left, women

49
 BPS-1/OSOU

were also facing sexism, classicism, and heterosexism along with racism. Therefore,
they decided to form women-only “rap” groups, consciousness-raising groups through
which they worked on empowering women and raising awareness and gendered
oppression. The first writing in the second wave was Sisterhood of Powerful edited by
Robin Morgan in 1970.

A major contribution in the second wave came from the group Redstockings, which
derived its name from a combination of words read from socialist revolution and
bluestockings, a term used for educated and strong-minded women of the 18th and 19th
centuries. This short-lived radical feminist group gave household terms in the
contemporary time like “personal is political”, “pro-woman line”, “sisterhood is
powerful” etc. They worked based on the idea that women can collectively empower
each other. According to them, women are not born passive and peaceful but they are
born human. Juliet Mitchell argues in her book The Subjection of Women (1970) that
radical second-wave feminism was based on neo-Marxism and psychoanalysis. She
wrote that patriarchy is part of any bourgeois society in which sexual differences are
more fundamental than class and race differences. Women have an undervalued class
and economy that is based on unpaid service and caregiving work at home because
they are given the primary social attachment to the family and reproduction. She
stressed an unjustified relation between capitalism and patriarchy that particularly
reports sexism as the character of women’s oppression. In another book Sexual
Politics, Kate Millet (1969), stressed women’s rights over their bodies and sexuality
which can be different from the traditions of marriage and motherhood. There was
opposition to heterosexuality also from some homosexual authors like Adrienne Rich
and Audre Lorde who blamed heterosexuality as a reason for women’s oppression.
They argued that since heterosexuality is a compulsory part of society, it gives social
power to men over women irrespective of class or race differences. In their works like
“On Lies, Secrets, and Silence (Rich, 1980) and Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches
(Lorde, 1984), these authors tried to find out the relations between sexism, racism,
classicism, and heterosexual relations. Hence, the early years of second-wave
feminism were guided by sisterhood and solidarity across all racial and class
differences. They gave the slogan “woman’s struggle is a class struggle” and “the
personal is political”. They combined all the social, sexual, and personal struggles to
counter the dual workload for women working outside and inside the home. Along
with all these issues, Sheila Rowbotham and Angela Y. Davis see the hope of
addressing the “woman question” by destructing capitalism and rising socialism. It
would free women from being dependent on men and they would be involved in
“productive and paid” labour. In the arguments over sex roles and beauty myths,
radical feminists have similarities with liberal feminists.

It was argued by Rowbotham and Davis later that middle-class women’s discontent
due to lack of social power and political influence can be compensated by payment for
housework to women. If paid work outside the home is not necessary, a kind of
citizen’s income and acknowledged presence in public institutions can be of much help

50
 BPS-1/OSOU

to them. The liberal feminists of the second wave were focusing on counting sexism
in private and public life by delivering criticism of gendered patterns of socialisation,
for example in school books, parents’ responses to girls and boys differently. At the
same time, radical feminists were opposing this inclusion and counting of women’s
oppression. They were out rightly opposing the women’s involvement in capitalist
patriarchal institutions.

The second-wave feminism was also significant for the rise of the eco-feminist
perspective. It was first propagated by Mary Daly in Gyn/Ecology (1978) and
Starhawk in The Spiral Dance: A Rebirth of the Ancient Religion of the Great Goddess
(1979). This form of feminism brought many significant developments in enterprises
to turn them into “woman-only” corporations and zones. In the later years, it became
a necessary part of sustainable development goals, corporate feminism and separatist
women-only spaces, for example, “SAPPHO” on the internet. The famous statement
of Gloria Steinem (1934), “We’ve begun to raise our daughters more like our sons but
few dare to raise our sons more like our daughters”, led the road ahead in this equity
approach to different approach. At the same time, Nancy Hartsock (1983) articulated
“Standpoint feminism” to expand the criticism of capitalism and patriarchy by
analysing a post-war welfare society and its impacts on women in different situations.
They worked based on women-friendly psychoanalytic theory to focus on the
productive capabilities of women in the domestic spheres of motherhood and
caretaking. The books, The Reproduction of Mothering (1978) by Nancy Chodorow
and In a Different Voice (1982) by Carol Gilligan tried to understand the source of
knowledge, and empowerment of women and the process for that. They focus on
gender as culture and communication and the “genderlects”.

Ultimately, several differences among women and ways to address them brought
“identity politics” that was marked by criticism from Black, working-class and lesbian
feminists. They have opposed colonialism and capitalism but they are living in a
complex power structure of it. In the feminist movement, they opposed the dominance
of White, middle-class, and heterosexual feminist ideology to include different
identities in this movement. These identities were spread across continents, cultures,
races, ethnicities, and sexuality. Important texts for this are: Ain’t I A Woman? Black
Woman and Feminism (1981)By Bell Hooks, and Trinh T. Minh-ha in Woman,
Native, Other: Writing Post-coloniality and Feminism (1989). This movement was
called “gyno-criticism”. It was developed by Elain Showalter in A Literature of Their
Own (1977). An African American author Alice Walker called it “Womanism” in her
book In Search of Our Mothers’ Gardens: Womanist prose (1983). It strived to search
women’s cultures and their integrated differences. They argued that along with
understanding and analysing the different interrelated oppressive methods according
to gender, class, and race, one should also know how they work with the help of each
other. Black feminists worked on bringing gender and race into the national
consciousness and addressing particular issues like poverty, health, and welfare
through a gendered approach. They included different standpoints and identities in the

51
 BPS-1/OSOU

mainstream feminist movement by talking about different experiences. To cite some

examples here Trinh T. Minh-ha called her and her race’s experiences “other Others”
and “unappropriated others”, and Gayatri Spivak spoke against the naivety of White
feminists on third-world women. She called it “strategic essentialism” to show
concerns about linguistic barriers among them to raise their voice. Hence differences
among feminism show that sexual feminism is universal whereas gender is historical
and social and therefore contextual and changeable phenomena.

The second-wave feminists gave a sociological and cultural explanation, yet were
partially successful in answering the question of the sexed body and differences among
women. These differences are inherent among women and of their subordination.
Hence, at the end of second-wave feminism, the question was not just of whether one
is feminist or not, but also of which kind of feminist one was. It gave multiple subjects
to theorise and analyse women’s issues since the 1960s. These differences multiplied
in the third wave of feminism which we are going to study next.

5.4.3 The Third Wave Feminism

The third-wave feminists were privileged to be born as capable, strong, and assertive
social agents. When second-wave feminism was at the end during the 1980s with
hardly any attempt to unite and rebuild it, the third wave emerged from their
contestations. The rise of third-wave feminists has many theories on their birth years,
ideologies, and terms’ meaning. Several feminists have given a timeline of the
emergence of the third wave-like Leslie Heywood in The Women’s Movement Today:
An Encyclopaedia of Third Wave Feminism, Jo Reger in Different Wavelengths:
Studies of the Contemporary Women’s Movement (2005), Rebecca Walker’s To Be
Real: Telling the Truth and Changing the Face of Feminism (1995), and Barbara
Findlen’s Listen Up” Voices from the Next Feminist Generation (1995) and other. For
the first time, the term third-wave found its space in an anthology by M. Jacqui
Alexander, Lisa Albrecht, and Mab Segrest entitled The Third Wave: Feminist
Perspectives on Racism. It conceptualises the focus of the third wave which is the
challenges faced by women of colour feminists to the racial biases of the second wave
feminism. People started speaking against it. The existence of different consciousness
as Chela Sandoval claims in “Genders” (1991), is vital to the next generation of “third
wave” and provides different distinctions and distinctiveness. Since the mid-1990s,
several academic texts published to delineate the contours and complexities of the third
wave as a new feminist generation. Rebecca Walker (co-founder of the Third Wave
Foundation (formerly the Third Wave Direct Action Corporation) wrote in her article
Becoming the Third Wave (1992), “I am not a post-feminism. I am the Third Wave”
and established distinct feminism from the second wave.

These third-wave feminists worked on showing a break from an earlier feminist

generation because they considered second-wave feminism as triangulated in
essentialism, universalism, and naturalism ultimately reflect in their political
consequences. This is also reflected in the titles of their books like Walker’s to Be

52
 BPS-1/OSOU

Real: Telling the Truth and Changing the Face of Feminism, Drake’s Third Wave
Agenda: Being Feminist, Doing Feminism, Dicker and Piepmeier’s Catching a Wave:
Reclaiming Feminism for the 21st Century and others. Their focus on personal politics
reveals remarkable gaps in their understanding of the first and second waves of
feminism. It was termed a ‘cross-generational moment through mother-daughter
rhetoric to understand the feminist history and to imagine the feminist future.
Therefore, to do so, a constructive dialogue between feminists – a dialogue not owned
by anyone generation is raised through the third-wave feminist with (post) feminism.
Third-wave feminism moves three steps ahead of the second wave in theorising its
major questions. First is to respond to the collapse of the category of “women”, third-
wave feminists give a personal account to illustrate an intersectional and multi-
perspectival version of feminism. Second third-wave feminists propose multivocality
over synthesis and action over theoretical justification to counter the rise of
postmodernism. The third step is to counter the sex wars, third-wave feminists focus
on an inclusive and non-judgemental approach to the refuge to police the boundaries
of the feminist political. In a way, they reject many points that can create further
tension and prepare the ground for unity with a dynamic and welcoming politics of
coalition. Third-wave feminists completely do not reject the agenda of second-wave
feminism. They just try to reject the rigid ideological perspectives of second-wave
feminists. Rebecca Walker explains that third-wave feminists do not want to form an
identity that regulates their lives against someone and forces them to choose inflexible
sides, black against white, oppressed against the oppressor, and women against men.
It becomes more difficult for people from the communities of transgender, bisexual,
interracial etc.

Several authors as mentioned earlier summarise the three major claims of third-wave
feminism on how it differs from second-wave feminism. First, third-wave feminists
necessarily try to have their distinctive version of feminism: We are the first generation
for whom feminism has been entwined in the fabric of our lives; naturally, many of us
are feminists…. This country hasn’t heard enough from young feminists. We’re here,
and we have a lot to say about our ideas and hopes and struggles and our place within
feminism” (Findlen 2006, 6–7, 9). Unlike second-wave feminists, third-wave feminists
feel that they need not prove that they are entitled to equality and self-fulfilment. They
have their own set of challenges like a world colonised by the mass media and
information technology where they are more sophisticated and media savvy. A large
section of third-wave feminists gave importance to cultural production and critique by
focusing on female pop icons, hip-hop music, and beauty culture rather than on
traditional politics. However, it rejects the idea of defining third-wave feminists by the
year of their birth but considers it a particular approach to women’s understanding of
what feminism means from where and when one entered the discourse of feminism.
Second, third-wave feminists argue to be less rigid and less judgmental than their
second-wave counterparts whom they call anti-sex, anti-femininity, and anti-male.
They perceive interacting with men equally and sexual pleasure as they desire it
(heterosexual or homosexual) bring more equality than staying away from it. Girl

53
 BPS-1/OSOU

power is the central theme of the third wave. It says that natural human desires are not
simply traps set by patriarchy. So they accept the feminine enculturation- Barbie dolls,
makeup, fashion magazines etc. according to their view about themselves: sexy,
campy, ironic, or just to decorate themselves without any related issue.

Third, third-wave feminists present themselves as more inclusive and racially diverse
than second-wave feminists. Third-wave feminists include not only women from all
races, ethnicities, religions, and classes, but also different identities based on their
sexual orientation, ideologies, occupation, and also those women who were at clashed
with feminism earlier. There are several primary texts on third-wave feminism that
were written not only by women of race, class, or both but also by biracial (Jones 2006;
Tzintzu´n 2006; Walker 2006a), bisexual (Walker 2006c), multicultural (Hurdis 2006;
WeinerMahfuz 2006), and transgender (Wilchins 2006) authors on their own
experiences. Though third-wave feminists claim to be more inclusive, the second-wave
feminists were not exclusively White, middle-class women. Many women of colour
played an important role in the second as well as the third wave, like Gloria Anzaldua,
Cherrie Moraga, and Audre Lorde.

Hence third-wave feminists honour the earlier feminists but criticise their feminism
and they strive to bridge contradictions that they experience in their own lives. They
are more inclusive towards ambiguity than certainty and engage in multiple positions
to explore inclusion and exploration. It reminds us how far feminism has come. It has
represented women from local, national, and transnational levels while dealing with
issues like violence against women, trafficking, body surgery, self-mutilation, and the
overall “pornification” of the media.

5.5 SUMMARY

Through our study in this chapter, we have understood that feminism is the belief in
the political, economic, and cultural equality of women. It is a complex set of
ideologies and theories that have developed over the centuries. It seeks to achieve
equal treatment and opportunities for women in all fields whether in the public sphere
or domestic sphere across different fields of cultures and roles they play. Feminism
tries to find out the reasons behind women’s oppression and then decides the course
of action. As we have seen above through three generations of feminism, all feminists
had their distinctive ways to fight against oppression. However, they find one
similarity in the oppressive culture and that is patriarchy. Patriarchy is a concept of
power that is generally in the hands of men in society therefore, feminism is considered
anti-men. In the reading of this chapter, we can analyse what feminism stands for. It is
not against one, but a fight for all. It is to level the playing field to ensure that no one’s
rights are violated due to race, gender, language, religion, sexual orientation, gender
identity, political or any other belief, nationality, social origin, class, or wealth status.
It is a fight for equality and equity.

54
 BPS-1/OSOU

5.6 EXERCISES
6 Define feminism and discuss the origin of the concept of feminism.
7 What is the difference between gender and sex?
8 How does feminism deal with women’s questions?
9 What are the generations of feminism?
10 Explain different waves of feminism in detail.

5.7 REFERENCES

1. Gillis, Stacy et all, Third Wave Feminism A Critical Exploration, Palgrave

MacMillan New York (2004).
2. Synder, R. Claire, What Is Third‐Wave Feminism? A New Directions Essay,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2008), vol 34 (1): pp 175-196.
3. Bryson, Valerie, Feminist PoliticalTheory: An Introduction (Second
Edition)Palgrave MacMillan, London (2003)
4. Walters, MargaretFeminism: A Very Short Introduction, University of Oxford,
New York (2005).
5. Floral, Anastasia Three Waves of Feminism: From Suffragettes to Grrls, PhD
thesis, Erasmus Program, European Union (2017).
6. Effiong, Angelica A Brief history and Classification of Feminism,
Environmental Education the University of Calabar, Nigeria (2008).

55
 BPS-1/OSOU

UNIT-6 POSTMODERN FEMINISM

Structure

6.1 Objectives
6.2 Introduction
6.3 Defining and introducing postmodernism
6.4 Defining postmodern feminism
6.5 Judith Butler on postmodern feminism
6.6 Criticism
6.7 Summary
6.8 Exercises
6.9 References

6.1 OBJECTIVES

The overall objective of this unit is to help students

 To define and understand post-modernism

 To define and understand post-modern feminism
 To understand the way the -modern feminism has developed over the
period of time
 To explain the conflation between post-modernism and post-modern
feminism
 Comprehend how studying gender, forms an important part of post-
modernism
 Critically examine post-modern feminism

6.2 INTRODUCTION

The main objective of this unit is to understand the concept of postmodern feminism.
For this purpose, it is necessary to have some basic understanding on postmodernism
along with the term modernism. However, before moving into these concepts a few
sentences on the crux of postmodern feminism is in order. The period 1990s witnessed
a different phase in the history of feminism. The recognition of ‘difference’,
particularly in relation to race, class, sexuality, age and embodiment, led to the
development of more complex models of feminist analysis. Postmodernism is used as
a term to describe today’s rapidly changing post-industrial societies in which
apparently stable groupings such as class and gender have broken down and everything
seems transitory, fragmented and insecure. Post-modern feminism challenges gender
categories as binary, oppositional, and fixed i.e. male and female arguing instead that
sexuality and gender are shifting, fluid, multiple categories. For postmodern feminists,
Equality will come, when there are so many recognized sexes, sexualities, and genders.

56
 BPS-1/OSOU

Some of the most prominent writers of postmodern feminist philosophy are Helen
Cixous, Luna Irigaray and Julia Kristeva.

6.3 DEFINING AND INTRODUCING POST-MODERNISM

From the seventeenth century, Western philosophy was increasingly dominated by the
Enlightenment. The emergence of the factory system, urbanization, industrialization,
railway system, scientific innovation and technological revolution gave birth to
modernization which is also known as Enlightenment. It brought huge changes in life
and the thought of the people. It believes that everything is in principle knowable
through human reason and that society can be ordered in accordance with reason,
knowledge and justice. Modernism is based on the belief that human life can only be
improved via. The application of human rationality. It means human relations and
institutions have to be explained and justified by argument and evidence. In other
words, if something can’t be measured, predicted, and scientifically thought of as real
then it will have no role to play in improving human life.

However, the above view of modernization was challenged by postmodernism.

Interestingly, the prefix ‘post’ in postmodernism does not mean the further
development of modernism, but rather a reaction against modernism. Post-modernism
rejects the above idea of modernism. For postmodernists, however, the search for
certainty is misguided, for truth, they say, can only be provisional. The very possibility
of objectivity is rejected in principle, as is the search for a single all-encompassing
theory. From a postmodernist perspective, Western philosophy’s quest for truth and
certainty (sometimes described Black and Postmodern Feminisms as logocentricism)
is simply the product of a particular historical era that is becoming inappropriate in a
postmodern society that is increasingly characterized by fragmentation and diversity
in all spheres of life. It believes knowledge as something created by particular people
to suit particular interest. The theoretical elements of postmodernism are consisted of
the following elements.

Metanarratives

Post-modernism maintains the death of metanarratives. Lyotard in this context argues

that there is no definitive interpretation of an event or history and they no longer
seriously take the idea that history is heading for a happy ending. For post-modernism,
the enlightenment ideas rely on totalitarian ways of thinking, thinking that there is only
one correct answer to historical questions in complex historical circumstances. It
underestimates subjectivity in favour of objectivity. It ignores the plurality of historical
voices. It imposes its own ideas on them. Ethics, morality and religion are examples
of meta-narratives. Their explanations are also universal and offer definitive answers
to questions about how one should live and think about the world. For post-modernists,
these ideas are totalitarian.

57
 BPS-1/OSOU

Truth

Postmodernists are skeptical about the concept of truth. For postmodernist, truth is
bound up with modernism’s oppressiveness. Truth is a unitary idea – there can only
be one truth about a particular person or event and it is an exclusionary idea; those that
object to the final verdict are regarded as a nuisance. Further, postmodernism forces
us to pay attention to who is deciding about what to call truth. For them, truth and
objectivity are nothing but modernism’s lust for power and control.

Language

Postmodernists argue that modernist claims are nothing but the reflection of linguistic
constructions. The words may have their effects as the notes played by an orchestra
do, but as with music, there is ‘nothing outside the text’ to which these notes refer.
One major consequence of this emphasis on language is that postmodernists reject all
forms of essentialism.

Fragmentation

Postmodernism is closely identified with fragmentation. There is no single and unique

truth, but a supposed plurality of conflicting yet valid claims. For the postmodernist,
contemporary society can no longer be understood in the modernist ways of right
versus left, worker versus boss or mass versus elite. More specifically, postmodernists
reject the Enlightenment notion of the subject, not only for being exclusively thought
of as white and male but as no longer being a stable unitary being.

Postmodern Feminism

There are many commonalities between post-modernism and feminism. There are
clear affinities between postmodernism’s rejection of claims to objectivity and truth
and feminist critiques of the partiality of male reason and the limitations of binary
thought. Postmodernism’s stress on difference and diversity also seems to support
those feminists who reject the essentialism of some radical feminist thought and the
tendency of white, middle-class feminists to generalize from their own experience.
Postmodern ideas about the ubiquity of power also sound at first sight very like the
claim that patriarchal power is exercised in personal life as well as through formal
political institutions, while rejection by some feminists of mainstream politics in
favour of the small-scale community and/or separatist activity might seem to be in line
with Foucauldian notions of resistance by marginalized groups. At this kind of level,
postmodernism might seem large to endorse what many feminists have long been
saying, or what they have recently started to argue as a result of their own experience.
Other writers, however, argue that postmodernism has much more profound
implications for feminist thought; some believe that it is more genuinely subversive
than anything that has gone before.

58
 BPS-1/OSOU

Early feminist writers differentiated between the concepts of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’. For
them, ‘sex’ referred to the biological factor and ‘gender’ to the social roles and cultural
understandings that were attached to male or female bodies. Separating sex and gender
had been politically significant for feminism as it followed that gender roles were
socially and culturally constructed, rather than ‘naturally’ and thus could be reshaped.
However, postmodern feminist scholars developed alternative ways of theorizing the
relationship between sex and gender. For them, both sex and gender became to be seen
as socially and culturally constructed.

Another area of debate for postmodernists is ‘equality’ and ‘difference’. Joan Scott has
argued, that it enables feminists to contest the ways in which equal rights and
employment disputes are framed. These have required women either to claim equality
by assimilating to a male norm or to abandon the goal of equality by asserting their
‘different’ needs, interests and characteristics. Scott, however, says that this apparent
choice rests on a false dichotomy which constructs a hierarchical power relationship
which privileges men, conceals differences amongst women and men and fails to see
that ‘equality is not the elimination of difference; difference does not preclude
equality’.

While discussing postmodern feminism, the contribution of Judith Butler cannot be

ignored. She argues that Societies divide human beings into two main genders, male
and female and expect these men and women to fulfil different roles. Human
individuals come to identify with a particular gender as they perform their gender roles
repeatedly. The older feminist distinction between sex and gender, where sex was
anatomical and gender was social, was given a new interpretation by Butler where she
points out that both one’s gender and sexual identity are a result of social processes.
Social norms about how a girl behaves show the person who has been named a girl
what she is expected to do, and by behaving in an expected way, the person becomes
a girl. Butler argued, that women and men normally acquired their gender identity by
behaving as women and men were expected to in society. She argues that, in a world
in which no two people are identical, equality does not mean that they should somehow
become ‘the same, but that their differences can in some situations be deemed
irrelevant; she also says that women can both demand entry into male-dominated areas
of employment and insist that their traditional roles are more highly valued.

Butler argues that feminists should be wary of seeing ‘sex’ as a purely biological
characteristic; rather, ‘sex’ is also socially and culturally determined. Butler suggests
gender as diverse, not binary. An understanding of gender as separate from sex thus
holds the potential for a greater diversity of masculinities and femininities, which, in
turn, allows for the recognition of differently embodied gendered identities and
expressions, or of different ways of being women.

59
 BPS-1/OSOU

Feminist criticisms of postmodernism

However, post-modern feminism is not free from criticism from different sections.
Firstly, the post-modern emphasis on subjectivity has been criticized by some feminist
scholars. They argue that so much emphasis on subjectivity is likely to harm the very
possibility of collective political action and to make it impossible to speak of women’s
trouble in general. Secondly, some critics argue that post-modernism is essentially a
conservative theory which turns feminism from a revolutionary social movement into
an inward-looking elite activity. Thirdly, by not accepting the validity of the concepts
of words like right, justice, truth, and reason, post-modernism denies legitimacy to
feminist attempts to change the present condition of the society.

6.4 SUMMARY

In a nutshell, post-modern feminism has challenged the basic premises of all three
previous theories of liberal, radical and socialist feminist thought on the ground that
they have all based themselves on meta-narratives rather than a true picture of the
actual state of things. All this suggests that postmodernism can liberate us from the
closed mind set of modernist thought, with its mistaken quest for all-encompassing
theory and denial of the inherent messiness, instability and uncertainty of life, and that
it can open up a range of exhilarating insights into the Black and Postmodern
Feminisms construction of identities, culture and knowledge which also throws up new
possibilities of resistance.

6.5 EXERCISES

1) Define post-modernism. How does it help to theorize post-modern feminism?

2) Discuss the commonalities between post-modernism and post-modern
feminism?
3) Critically evaluate post-modern feminism.
4) What are the major arguments of post-modern feminism?
5) How post-modernism do does criticizes modernism?

6.6 REFERENCES

1. H. Eisenstein, Contemporary Feminist Thought, Unwin, London, 1984.

2. J. Butler and J. W. Scott (1992) Feminists Theorize the Political, Routledge, New
York, 1992.

60
 BPS-1/OSOU

3. Sally Hines, Feminist and Gender Theories, in Introducing Gender and Women's
Studies edited by Diane Richardson and V. Robinson, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2020.

4. Sephali Jha, Western Political Thought, Pearson Publication, Noida, 2018.

5. Stephen Brown, Postmodernism, in Contemporary Political Concepts: A Critical

Introduction Edited by Georgina Blakeley and Valerie Bryson, Pluto Press, London,
2002.

6. Valerie Bryson, Feminist Political Theory, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2003.

7. Will Kymlika, Contemporary Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press, USA,

2014.

61
 BPS-1/OSOU

UNIT-7 THE FEMINIST UNDERSTANDING OF POLITICS AND

POWER

Structure

7.1 Objectives

7.2 Introduction

7.3 The Need for a Feminist Perspective on Politics

7.3.1 Sex and Gender

7.4 Feminist Understanding of Power and Patriarchy

7.5 Public Private divine

7.6 Summary

7.7 Exercise

7.8 Reference

7.1 OBJECTIVES

After studying this unit students should be able to understand about:

 The Need for a Feminist Perspective on Politics

 Difference between sex and gender
 Feminist Understanding of Power and Patriarchy and Public Private divine

7.2 INTRODUCTION

This chapter begins with an overview of the feminist conception of politics. This will
be followed by examining the sex-gender debate, which questions the essentialized
nature of the ‘woman’. Subsequently, various themes within feminist politics like the
public-private divide, debates on the body including issues like abortion and
surrogacy, the sameness vs. difference debate and intersectionality within the feminist
movement will be discussed.

7.3 THE NEED FOR A FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE ON POLITICS

The feminist perspective on politics makes us aware of the problem with the above
statement. It is precise because a feminist perspective disrupts our understanding of
the ‘normal’, of the ‘everyday’ that it is required within the realm of political theory.
A feminist reading of politics and society opens up the cracks and the faults of an

62
 BPS-1/OSOU

accepted, traditional way of doing political theory. It reveals the hugely masculine
nature of the discipline even when it claims to represent the entire gamut of positions,
identities and interests in society. Feminist political theorists like Carole Pateman
(1988) have asserted that the very subject of political philosophy in the Western
discourse has been ‘male’. Political theory and philosophy, or what is read and taught
as political theory and philosophy, has not only been written by men but in fact, they
have been written keeping in mind the ‘male citizen’, the ‘male employee and
employer, the ‘male labourer’ and the ‘male voter’. This figure of the male has been
masquerading as the unmarked ‘Universal’. Thus whenever liberal theory has talked
about the ‘human’ or the ‘citizen’ or even the ‘person’, it is almost always talking
about the male. This means that the concerns of the female citizen, voter, mother,
professional, and labourer are all missing. The best example of this could be how the
male pronoun, ‘his’ or ‘he’ has been treated as the universal signifier in virtually the
entire printed world. It is not as if women did not write literature or philosophy or take
part in politics. The issue rather is, was their opinion considered? When the canon of
literature and philosophy was being made, women were systematically kept out of it.
No wonder then that much of political theory and philosophy is made up of works of
men alone or much rather of a masculine perspective. The latter is important here.
When women were writing, were they still writing in the framework provided by the
masculine political philosophy?

A feminist perspective on politics thus simply does not ask for the inclusion of more
women in the canon or the practice of politics, it demands a radically different
perspective – one that includes the concerns of women, females and all other sexes and
genders. Thus a perspective which is largely egalitarian yet anti-foundationalist,
attacks the very foundations of disciplines and practices. In the next sections, we will
examine some of the basic premises of this feminist perspective.

7.3.1 SEX AND GENDER

Any understanding of the feminist perspective of politics, will either begin or come
back sometime to the sex-gender debate. The split that the feminist movement made
between the two concepts of sex and gender is crucial to our understanding of
patriarchy and its gendered critique. One rather simple way to understand the
increasingly complex categories of sex and gender is to say that sex refers to the
biological differences between women and men. These would include the anatomically
different genitals or external sex organs, the presence of different sex hormones and
ultimately the different chromosomal configuration of both these sexes.

Gender would refer to an array of social and political meanings attached to one’s self.
This is broadly what we call the process of socialization. One is reminded hereof
Simone De Bouvier’s (1988) famous invocation that one is not born a woman but
becomes one. One of the biggest contributions of feminist thought was to bring forth
this distinction between sex and gender. Centuries of oppression and discrimination
against women were based on the fact that they are biologically ‘different’ and thus

63
 BPS-1/OSOU

‘weaker’ than men. This may come across as their perceived inability to not participate
in activities as diverse as physical labour and math. Women, in short, are neither
physically nor mentally capable of competing with men. This is the rationale for
having different gender and professional roles and also discriminatory pay scales for
women as against men. While this discrimination seems to be resting on a biological
basis, something which is natural and about which nothing much can be done – people
will be born with either of the two types of sex organs (The position will be
complicated a little further down the chapter), the situation is much more complex than
this.

Men and women are socialized differently, even from before birth, based on which sex
organ they seem to have. So people born with penises and what looks largely like male
anatomy, is encouraged to play sports, play with guns and robots, and take up subjects
like math and computers in school and college. People born without penises (or with a
vulva and vagina) are designated as females and are consequently taught domestic
work, encouraged to remain indoors, play with dolls and talk softly. In contexts which
are not middle and upper class, most of these people designated as women will
probably never go to school and college, simply because they are women and may not
need that education. Those who do are almost always kept out of ‘serious’ fields like
mathematics, physics and engineering. According to Nivedita Menon (2008), “A
startling study in the USA of inter-sexed infants (babies born with both ovarian and
testicular tissue or in whom the sex organs were ambiguous) showed that medical
decisions to assign one sex or the other were made on cultural assumptions rather than
on any existing biological features. Thus, a baby might be made into a female but then
still require hormonal therapy all her life to make her stay "female." In other words,
maleness and femaleness are not only culturally different, they are not even
biologically stable features at all times.”

Thus the very process of ‘sexing’ at birth determines ones ‘gender’ and thus determines
one’s life chances. This is broadly known as biological determinism. Another example
of this could be race, where one’s skin colour, is deemed as the sole and determining
marker of one’s capacities. The sex-gender distinction helps us to complicate the
argument of biological determinism. Sex and gender may not always coincide in most
individuals. If we were to take out the process of socialization from the process of
upbringing children, then there is no scientific or philosophical logic by which males
would turn out to be masculine men and females would necessarily be feminine
women. Feminist anthropologists, like Margaret Mead, have examined different
cultural contexts to determine what is meant by masculinity and femininity across
various cultures. According to Mead then, different societies have varied
understandings of what it means to be masculine and feminine, without any direct
overlapping of the biological specificities of the human body.

Roles and activities which are considered feminine, like cooking, crying, and being
physically weak are largely social constructions. Anyone can cook, clean and

64
 BPS-1/OSOU

participate in caregiving provided that they are trained for it. Women are groomed for
this role even before they are born. Men are consciously kept away from the domestic
front and encouraged to go out and ‘play’. Then, different skill sets develop. Similarly,
there is nothing naturally masculine about having short hair or being muscular. These
have been fixed as attributes of being male by societal and historical processes. Take
for instance a newspaper report which came out in 2008. “She is not very educated,
comes from a small town, and has nothing extraordinary about her personality”. This
is how a newspaper report, in the Indian Express (dated March 10, 2008) chose to
characterize a 27-year-old woman, Susheel Kumari, who helped the police arrest two
burglars who had entered her house. What is even more significant, according to the
report is that she did this a day before International Women’s Day, and this is an act
which can inspire all (stress intentional) women in the Capital. The photograph which
accompanies the news article is also worth mentioning here. It shows Susheel, sitting
with her family, head covered with a dupatta, addressing four males of her family.
There are no other females in the picture.

The report also mentions that ‘…covering her head with her dupatta in respect for her
father-in-law who is visiting them. The report was particularly striking because the
focus was on the fact that a woman did such a thing rather than the fact that the crime
had taken place or had been prevented. Further, she has to be characterized as
‘someone who was not expected to do this, especially since she does not fit into the
usual category of women with whom we associate such ‘acts of courage.

Thus the whole emphasis of the report is on creating the image of a woman who is
very ‘traditional’ and also subscribes to the usual notions of the Indian woman, like
covering her head. Yet she did something which is not a part of her usual gendered
role. The very phenomenon of ‘catching burglars’ is something which strongly
resonates with the notions of protecting the family and the idea of security.
Traditionally it is men who are supposed to perform this role. While women may have
been able to assert equal identity in several other fields, that of security and protection,
especially in terms of physical safety is still something that we associate with males,
partly because of the link to physical strength. A case like this, in some ways thus
inverts that logic and could serve useful to undo certain stereotypes. But instead, the
feeling one gets after reading the report is that the issue here is not whether it was a
male who should have been doing this. Or did the woman do it better? The focus is
that a woman actually did something which is not at all ‘expected’ of her in ‘normal’
circumstances and thus she has to be portrayed as an icon. “After the arrests were
made, an exhausted Susheel almost fainted and had to be supported by her
neighbours”, the report went further stated. Now, this is a statement which would
rarely appear in any other routine crime story. This statement which comes towards
the end of the narration about the day’s events, actually in a way conforms to the
accepted stereotype of a woman, who is unexposed and thus unprepared for such
situations. It is as if by the act of ‘fainting’ she returns to the fold of the gendered

65
 BPS-1/OSOU

female and re- establishes any patriarchal or social hierarchies that she might have
disrupted.

The sexual division of labour thus also means that women do not get paid for the work
that they do. Labour activities like cooking, cleaning, rearing of children and care, are
not treated as ‘labour’ at all and are hence not paid for. These are rather considered as
the ‘duties’ or worse still, ‘natural inclinations’ of women. Work or paid labour activity
is what happens outside the house, which constitutes the realm of serious work which
only men can do. Consequently, women who work only at home are largely unpaid
workers. The distinctions between sex and gender have since then been hugely
complicated. According to Nivedita Menon(2008), there have largely been four
movements in this regard. There is nothing natural or pre-given about the bodies of a
man or woman then. These bodies are a complex set of relationships and products of
history, labour, environment and living conditions. Through this understanding, we
can safely assume then that sex and gender interact with each other in much more
complex ways. The second kind of complexity in this argument, according to Menon
(2008), comes from the school of radical feminism, which argues for retaining the
priority of biological differences, as this is what differentiates women from men and
prevents us from falling into the unmarked category of the universal individual. Menon
(2008) writes, “Radical feminists claim that on the contrary, patriarchal social values
have denigrated "feminine" qualities and that it is the task of feminism to recover these
qualities, and this difference between men and women, as valuable.

The radical feminist position on the sex/gender distinction is that there are certain
differences between men and women that arise from their different biological
reproductive roles, and that therefore, women are more sensitive, instinctive and closer
to nature”. The third kind of understanding of these issues comes from the post-
modern perspective about the body and sexuality. Menon(2008)takes recourse to
Judith Butler’s understanding of sexuality to say that, “Butler uses the term
heterosexual matrix to designate the grid produced by institutions, practices and
discourses, looking through which it appears to be “a fact of nature” that all human
bodies possess one of two fixed sexual identities, with each experiencing sexual desire
only for the “opposite sex.” From this viewpoint, the removal of this grid or
heterosexual matrix will reveal that sexuality and human bodies are fluid and have no
necessary fixed sexual identity or orientation”.

7.4 FEMINIST UNDERSTANDING OF POWER AND PATRIARCHY

The feminist understanding of power comes from a viewpoint of systemic oppression

expressed through institutions like the different forms of patriarchies. The term
‘patriarchies’ is being used here in consciously as there seems to be no one
homogenous way in which patriarchy affects men and women. Different social and
historical positions make people experience the power of patriarchy in extremely
diverse ways. This kind of understanding has also shifted the debate to the idea of

66
 BPS-1/OSOU

‘masculinities’. The initial point was that patriarchy affects not just women, but also
men and also society in general. This understanding led us to the observation that
interrogating the idea of ‘masculinity’ carries equal importance to the idea of
feminism. Masculinity could be defined as how the idea of the masculine has been
constructed by patriarchal power in society. How are men affected by patriarchy? Just
as women are expected to be homely, delicate, and weaker in physical strength and
men are expected to be strong and breadwinners. Patriarchy, which is ultimately a
system of power, thus also defines the roles and capacities of men. It may appear as if
men are the oppressors and women are the victims of patriarchal power, yet,
interventions by various scholars have told us that men are equally victimized by
patriarchy.

For instance, what happens to men who are not ‘masculine’ enough? There will be
plenty of men who are not very good at physical labour, who would want to keep their
hair long, or who would like to cook and stay at home. But we do not come across
many such people in everyday life, because society expects them to behave in a manner
fitting to ‘men’. Men thus model themselves on this expectation of patriarchal
masculinity. On the other hand, this issue of masculinity also affects people who
cannot be ‘masculine enough’ even if they tried hard. Disability, caste, class and
sexuality, intersect with this idea of ‘being a man and create increasingly complex
modes of being. A Dalit man, considered inferior to an upper caste man, will not be
masculine enough. He will be filthy, dirty, weak, emasculated and not a man in the
same way in an upper caste man will be.

Disability also creates its peculiar conditions. Since people with disability inhabit a
different set of capabilities; our physical built environment may not allow them to
exercise their abilities and capacities to the fullest. For instance, if our built
environments were designed to have ramps instead of staircases, those of us who are
in a wheelchair would have the best capability to navigate these spaces. While those
of us using legs would find the uphill trudge increasingly tedious. Just as built
environments are constituted by power relations, so is the society at large constituted
by the power relationship of patriarchy. Imagine a man who is differently abled and
cannot work in a typical office environment because there are no lifts or ramps or
because the computers do not have screen-reading software installed on them, or
simply because the management is not willing to accommodate different abilities. Now
this man cannot be the traditional ‘breadwinner’ for his family, cannot participate in
much of the public sphere and also thus cannot fulfil the role of a ‘man’ as expected
by society. Patriarchal norms tell this person that he is not a man enough because he
cannot work in an office space, or cannot lift heavy weights. This person then is also
a victim of patriarchal norms which dictate how men should be. Sexuality is another
such contested arena, which has in recent years contributed immensely to our
understanding of sex and gender roles. The queer understanding of body, sexuality and
capabilities rejects the idea of males being masculine and females being feminine. This
perspective largely understands the human body, capability and sexuality as a

67
 BPS-1/OSOU

continuum rather than as poles. Thus people who are anatomically male may be
considered ‘feminine’ in other attributes or have so-called ‘feminine’ interests. Other
groups like Hijras, present somewhat at the margins of the queer and sexuality
discourse also pose a strong challenge to our understanding of gender.

7.5 PUBLIC-PRIVATE DIVINE

One of the central conceptions that some branches of feminism have challenged has
been the divide between the public and the private spheres. This conceptual and
philosophical divide has been the pivot around which liberal political theory bases
itself. Consequently, the liberal feminist school of thought also upholds this divide and
bases its political philosophy on the realm of rights, entitlements and separation of the
public sphere from the private arena. The challenge comes from the radical and
socialist feminist schools of thought, which mount the argument that this artificial
divide, places politics firmly in the realm of the public. Consequently, the private
sphere gets de-politicized to the extent that issues like marriage, child-bearing and
rearing, adoption, surrogacy, divorce, property, domestic violence and ethics of care
become largely non-political issues. The significant insight that radical feminism
brings to this debate is that ‘the personal is the political. Again one must pause here
to reiterate that the public is also not an unmarked universal for women. Women’s very
accessible to the public is mediated by their class, caste, and racial and religious
locations. This is also the problem with opening banks only for women or having
women-only public spaces. The public-private debate also has implications for the
central concept in feminism – the body. In traditional political philosophy, the body
and the mind have treated as two distinct entities. Now, these are not just distinct but
also hierarchical. The mind has largely been treated as the superior faculty,
characterized by reason, rationality, and thinking. The other is the body, which is the
realm of bodily functions and emotions but more importantly, the site of un-reason and
irrationality. There is not much to be discussed then in the fact that men seem to occupy
the realm of the mind, while women, with the emphasis on bodily processes like
menstruation, pregnancy and child-rearing, inhabit the realm of the body. This division
also links up to other such arbitrary divisions like public and private, culture and
nature, masculine and feminine.

7.6 SUMMARY

Going back to the example we started with – a women’s only bank, we will now be in
a better position to comment on this policy initiative. Creating exclusive spaces for
women can be beneficial for limited purposes and contexts. It will enhance public
participation, access to public spaces and the economy, which will lead to certain kinds
of empowerment. However, in the long run, there is a serious need for changing the
overall structure of the public and the private spheres for them to become more
egalitarian, equal and gender friendly. However, the debate on difference sameness
creates a problem here. Do we want a gender-neutral environment which treats

68
 BPS-1/OSOU

everyone equally, without due consideration to specific histories and problems? This
is the condition where there is enough stress on formal equality but substantial equality
lacks a bit. This is because while formally and legally everyone will be equal, in
practice, since different people would have had different starting points in life, they
would also have different life outcomes. For instance, if we look at existing public
institutions like banks and schools, not every woman can access them because of
varying life circumstances. Poverty, lack of freedom, lack of economic security and
community restrictions can be the various reasons why women from certain contexts
cannot access education or banks despite the facilities being there, i.e., substantial or
actual opportunity and equality are missing even though the formal arrangements are
present. A woman-only school or college or bank will thus improve this state of affairs
as women and their communities may feel safer and more enabled in these cordoned-
off spaces. Our experience with women's colleges has been largely positive in this
regard. The problem with this approach is that it creates an opposition between
equality and liberty. Affirmative action programs, reservations and privileges, given
to minorities or special groups violate the principles of liberal equality where the
citizen is an unmarked individual, worthy of a universal idea of respect, equality and
freedom. However, the women’s movement has made sufficient critiques of this idea
of the universal and also of liberal notions of equality, which can be used to create a
much more layered and complex idea of feminist politics and also politics at large.

7.7 EXERCISE

1. Define feminist Understanding of Politics and Patriarchy?

2. Write a short note on Sex and Gender?

3. What is the need for a feminist perspective on politics?

7.8 REFERENCE

Agarwal, Bina (2007) The gender and environment debate: Lessons from India, In
Mahesh Rangarajan (Eds.) Environmental Issues in India: A Reader. New Delhi:
Pearson India.

Buckingham, Susan (June 2004) Ecofeminism in the 21st century, The Geographical
Journal, 170 (2).

Buckingham, Susan (2020) Gender and Environment, In Diana Richardson and

Victoria Robinson (Eds.) Introducing Gender and women’s studies, Red Globe Press:
London.

Kurian, Alka (2017) Feminism and the Developing World, In Sarah Gamble (Eds) The
Routledge Companion to Feminism and Postfeminism, Routledge: London.

69
 BPS-1/OSOU

Rao, Manisha (2012) Ecofeminism at the Crossroads in India: A Review, DEP, No 20.

Shiva, Vandana (1988) Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Survival in India, New
Delhi: Kali for Women.

Warren, Karen & N. Erkal (1997) Ecofeminism: Women, Culture and Nature.

Warren, Karen (2000) Ecofeminist Philosophy, New York: Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers.

70
 BPS-1/OSOU

UNIT-8 ECO-FEMINISM

Structure

8.1 Objectives
8.2 Introduction
8.3 Defining Eco-Feminism
8.4 Different Variants of eco-feminism
8.4.1 Liberal Ecofeminism
8.4.2 Cultural Ecofeminism
8.4.3 Radical Ecofeminism
8.5 Two Major Approaches to Ecofeminism: Western and Indigenous
8.6 Ecofeminism in India: Chipko Movement
8.7 Criticism of Ecofeminism
8.8 Summation
8.9 Exercises
8.10 References

8.1 OBJECTIVES

After completion of this topic, you will be able to:

 Explain what is ecofeminism.

 Describe commonalities between women and the environment and their
exploitation by the structure of patriarchy.
 Explain theoretical debates around eco-feminism and its practical implications.
 Critically evaluate eco-feminism in contemporary times and its relevance.
 Discuss the Chipko movement with special reference to Vandana Siva’s idea
of eco-feminism.

8.2 INTRODUCTION

In this unit, we will deal with the meaning and definition of ecofeminism. This topic
explains different variants of ecofeminism like liberal, radical and cultural and the
conflation between feminism and the environment. It discusses the subjugation of both
women and the environment at the hand of patriarchy. It also highlights both the
indigenous and western perspectives on ecofeminism. It explains the connection of
women with environmental issues like soil degradation, deforestation, climate change,
etc. it discusses how gender inequality is the root cause of climate change. It critically
evaluates ecofeminism and its relevance in the contemporary world.

71
 BPS-1/OSOU

8.3 DEFINING ECO-FEMINISM

Eco-feminism is a branch of feminism that examines the connections between women

and nature. Ecofeminism is also known as ecological feminism. The term ‘eco-
feminism’ was coined by French feminist Françoise Darbonne in 1974. Ecofeminism
creates an awareness of the associations made between women and nature. It views
gender inequality and the destruction of nature are interrelated. It emphasizes the ways
both nature and women are treated by a male-dominated (patriarchal) society.
Prevailing patriarchal social and economic structures have consistently devalued both
nature and women. It is impossible to address gender inequality while maintaining
dominance over nature or to address environmental problems without ending gender
inequality. Braidotti (1994) defines ecofeminism as ‘the feminist position most
explicitly concerned with environmental degradation. Bina Agarwal outlines certain
key features of eco-feminism. First, there is an important connection between the
domination and exploitation of nature and women. Second, as per patriarchy, women
are seen to be closer to nature and men as closer to culture. Nature in turn is seen to be
inferior to culture, and therefore women are inferior to men. Third, the domination and
oppression of nature and women have occurred together. Fourth, the feminist
movement and the environmental movement must stand together to create a more
equitable and just society.

The credit for the growth of the ecofeminist movement goes to a series of conferences
and workshops held in the United States by a coalition of academic and professional
women during the late 1970s and early 1980s. They met to discuss how feminism
and environmentalism might be combined to promote respect for women and the
natural world and were motivated by the notion that a long historical precedent of
associating women with nature had led to the oppression of both. They noted that
women and nature were often depicted as chaotic, irrational, and in need of control,
while men were frequently characterized as rational, ordered, and thus capable of
directing the use and development of women and nature. Rosemary Ruether (an
ecofeminist) insisted that all women must acknowledge and work to end the
domination of nature if they were to work toward their liberation. She urged women
and environmentalists to work together to end patriarchal systems that
privilege dominance, control, regulate, and unequal socioeconomic relations. For
ecofeminists, therefore, the domination of women and nature is rooted in ideology. To
overcome this, one needs to reconstruct and reconceptualize the underlying patriarchal
values and structural relations of one’s culture and promote equality, non-violence,
and non-hierarchical forms of organization to bring about new social forms. According
to the ecofeminists, one also needs to realize the interconnectedness of all life
processes and hence revere nature and all life forms. Humans should not try to control
nature, but work along with it and must try to move beyond power-based relationships.
Some of the noted feminists Susan Griffin, Mary Daly, Carolyn Merchant, Ynestra
King, Ariel Kay Salleh, Karen Warren, Val Plumwood, and others, highlight through
their work that ecology is a feminist issue. United Nation through its conferences and

72
 BPS-1/OSOU

reports have been active in pointing out how women are the first victims of
environmental degradation and their role in the defence of nature. For example,
Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration, which focused on the importance of a gender
perspective in considering environmental issues, and other documents emanating from
the conference also contained recognition of women’s vital roles. The Beijing Platform
for Action on Women (1995) included a specific section on the environment, which
called for women’s participation in environmental decision-making.

8.4 DIFFERENT TYPES OF ECOFEMINISM

Within ecofeminism, there are different variants. It is necessary to understand the

whole gamut of eco-feminism.

8.4.1 Liberal ecofeminism

Liberal ecofeminist argues along the line of liberal principles which views human as
individual rational agents who maximize their self-interest. According to liberal
ecofeminism, environmental problems are the result of the rapid exploitation of natural
resources accompanied by the lack of regulation of pesticides and other environmental
pollutants. This can be overcome by a social production that is environmentally sound.
For this, one requires better science, conservation, and laws. With equal educational
opportunities, women can become scientists, natural resource conservators, lawyers,
and so on, like men. Thus, these ecofeminists attempt to change human relations with
nature through the passage of new laws and regulations. However, just training women
to be lawyers and environmental scientists will not solve the increasing problem of
environmental degradation. Those eco-feminists fail to question the whole
development process, which is the primary cause of environmental destruction

8.4.2 Cultural Ecofeminism

Cultural ecofeminists encourage an association between women and the environment.

They contend that women have a close relationship with nature because of their gender
roles (e.g., family nurturer and provider of food) and their biology (e.g., menstruation,
pregnancy, and lactation). As a result, cultural ecofeminists believe that such
associations allow women to be more sensitive to the environment. They celebrate the
relationship between women and nature through the popularization of ancient rituals
centred on the Mother Goddess, the moon, animals, and the female reproductive
system.

8.4.3 Radical Ecofeminism

Radical ecofeminists argue that the patriarchal society dominates and exploits nature
and women to degrade both. To that end, radical ecofeminism builds on the assertion
of early ecofeminists that one must study patriarchal domination to end the
associations between women and nature. Of particular interest to those theorists is how

73
 BPS-1/OSOU

both women and nature have been associated with negative or commodifiable
attributes while men have been seen as capable of establishing order. That division of
characteristics encourages the exploitation of women and nature for cheap labour and
resources.

Ecofeminist theory has brought into sharp focus the links between development and
gender. It has highlighted the fact that violence against nature and women is built into
the dominant development model.

8.5 ECOFEMINISM IN INDIA: CHIPKO MOVEMENT

Chipko movement, also known as Chipko Andolan, was a non-violent ecological

movement by the rural villagers, particularly women, in the Himalayan region of
Uttarakhand in 1973, and it quickly expanded throughout the Indian Himalayas. The
word chipko means ‘to hug’ or ‘to embrace’ and reflects the protestors’ primary tactic
of embracing trees to impede loggers. It is aimed at protecting trees and forests. The
Chipko Andolan is also regarded as an eco-feminist movement. For, women formed
the centre of the movement, as the group most directly affected by the lack of firewood
and drinking water caused by deforestation. Women, being solely in charge of
cultivation, livestock, and children, suffered the most due to floods and landslides,
caused due to rise in deforestation in the face of urbanization. The rural villagers
depended heavily on the forests for essential items such as food, fuel, fodder, manure,
building material, herbs, resin, gum, honey, and so on, for survival and livelihood.
With the disappearance of forests and shortage of drinking water and so on, women
have to spend more time and walk long distances to get fuel, fodder, food, and water.
This has increased the burden on women and young girls and has ever led to increasing
cases of suicide among them. In addition to that, government policy prevented the
villagers from managing the lands. The protestors were able to perceive the link
between their victimization and the denuding of mountain slopes by commercial
interests. Local women tied sacred threads around the trees. In other areas, chir pines
(Pinus roxburghii) that had been tapped for resin were bandaged to protest their
exploitation. In Puna village in the Bhyundar valley in 1978, the women confiscated
the loggers’ tools and left receipts for them to be claimed if they withdrew from the
forest. It is estimated that between 1972 and 1979, more than 150 villages were
involved with the Chipko movement, resulting in 12 major protests and many minor
confrontations in Uttarakhand. The movement forced a 15-year ban on commercial
felling in the Uttarakhand Himalayas.

Vandana Shiva regarded as an ecofeminist had actively participated in the Chipko

movement. She criticizes modern science and technology as a western-centric,
patriarchal, and colonial project, which perpetuates violence against women and
nature. In the name of development, nature has been exploited and overused. Both
women and nature are considered ‘passive resources. This has led to marginalization,
displacement, and ultimately the dispensability of women. Her main focus is on Third

74
 BPS-1/OSOU

World women who are not simply only victims of the development process, but also
possess the power for change. She points to the experiences of women in the Chipko
movement of the 1070s in the Garhwal Himalayas – where women struggled for the
protection and regeneration of the forests. Through her analysis, Shiva points out the
critical links between the different development perspectives, the process of change
brought about by the development, and its impact on the environment and the people,
particularly women who are dependent on it for their subsistence.

8.6 CRITICISM OF ECO-FEMINISM

Critics like Braidotti and Agarwal argue that eco-feminism has primarily focused on
ideological, essentialist arguments and has failed to address power and economic
differences as important sources of dominance. They argue that many eco-feminists
do not differentiate women themselves by class, ethnicity, and caste, nor recognize
that concepts of nature, culture, and gender vary across different cultures and localities.
Eco-feminism is being criticized by feminist scholars like Janet Biehl for too much
focus on the connection between women and nature. It does not address the actual
condition of women and nature. It is more theoretical than practical. If we go by the
eco-feminist argument that women are associated with nature and most qualified to
save the earth, then the whole responsibility to save the earth lies on women only. As
a result, men will lack enthusiasm and sensitivity for the same. Some eco-feminist
critics argue that the dichotomy between women and men and nature and culture
creates a dualism that is too stringent and is focused on the differences between women
and men. The assumption that women are closer to nature than men does not leave
room for evolution, consciousness, reasoning, and freedom to choose for women.
Thus, Women are more confined to their nurturing role than active agents of ecological
conservation.

8.7 SUMMARY

This unit brings together the shared cause of women and the environment. It
emphasizes the following elements of eco-feminism.

1) The close interaction of women with the environment and nature.

2) Dependence of women of third world countries on the environment for their
needs and survival.
3) Subordination and exploitation of both women and nature at the hand of a
male-dominated and constructed society.

This chapter highlights two major United Nations agreements viz. Agenda 21 and the
Beijing Platform for Action on Women recognize women’s role in environmental
protection and preservation. The chapter also explains how gender and environment
are mutually constituted: that depending on our gender, we experience environmental
problems differently; that a dominant world views in which both women and nature

75
 BPS-1/OSOU

are secondary to men. The unprecedented challenges, the present world is facing due
to the environmental crisis demand collective action.

8.8 EXERCISES

1) What is eco-feminism? Discuss different variants of it.

2) Explain the theoretical debate on eco-feminism with a special focus on the
indigenous approach.
3) Discuss how women are related to nature and men to culture. Describe it in the
context of eco-feminism.
4) Critically evaluate eco-feminism.
5) Discuss the Chipko movement and its impact and relevance.

8.9 REFERENCES

Agarwal, Bina (2007) The gender and environment debate: Lessons from India, In
Mahesh Rangarajan (Eds.) Environmental Issues in India: A Reader. New Delhi:
Pearson India.

Buckingham, Susan (June 2004) Ecofeminism in the 21st century, The Geographical
Journal, 170 (2).

Buckingham, Susan (2020) Gender and Environment, In Diana Richardson and

Victoria Robinson (Eds.) Introducing Gender and women’s studies, Red Globe Press:
London.

Kurian, Alka (2017) Feminism and the Developing World, In Sarah Gamble (Eds) The
Routledge Companion to Feminism and Postfeminism, Routledge: London.

Rao, Manisha (2012) Ecofeminism at the Crossroads in India: A Review, DEP, No 20.

Shiva, Vandana (1988) Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Survival in India, New
Delhi: Kali for Women.

Warren, Karen & N. Erkal (1997) Ecofeminism: Women, Culture and Nature.

Warren, Karen (2000) Ecofeminist Philosophy, New York: Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers.

76
 BPS-1/OSOU

Block-3
POLITICAL THEORY AND PRACTICE

Unit-9 Democracy: Liberal And Marxist

Unit-10 Contemporary Theories Of Democracy
Unit-11 Democracy And Citizenship
Unit-12 Procedural Democracy And Its Critique

77
 BPS-1/OSOU

UNIT-9 DEMOCRACY: LIBERAL AND MARXIST

Structure

9.1 Objectives

9.2 Introduction

9.3 Democracy: Meaning, Definition and types

9.4 Conditions for the success of Democracy

9.5 Merits and Demerits of democracy

9.6 Democracy: Concept of Liberal Democracy

9.6.1 The mechanism for making Liberal Democracy successful

9.8 Marxist views on Democracy

9.9 Summary

9.10 Exercise

9.11 Reference

9.1 OBJECTIVES

After studying this unit you will be able to understand:

 Explain the meaning and types of democracy

 Discuss the development of the concept of democracy
 Discuss the different forms of democracy
 Discuss the concept of liberal democracy
 Explain the mechanism for making liberal democracy successful
 Discuss the concept of Marxist Democracy

9.2 INTRODUCTION

Democracy, in general, refers to a kind of political process, a form of government, a

form of state, a way of life, a mechanism for choosing and authorizing the government,
institutional arrangements, and most importantly it is a government of the people, by
the people and for the people. It is one of the most preferred forms of government in
the contemporary era due to its close association with the most successful ideology i.e.
Liberalism.

78
 BPS-1/OSOU

9.3 DEMOCRACY: MEANING, DEFINITION

Democracy has been described as one of the characteristic institutions of modernity

and as such, it was the result of complex and intertwined processes of ideological,
social and economic changes. The concept started nearly 2,500 years ago in Greece.
The word ‘democracy’ itself is of Greek origin. It originated from the Greek word
‘demokratia’, a combination word formed from two words “demos” and “Kratos”. The
word demos means ‘people’ and Kratos means ‘rule’. Democracy, therefore, means
“rule of the people”. This gives democracy its meaning as a form of government in
which the people rule, whether directly, through personal participation, or indirectly,
through elected representatives. However, there was a great difference between the
concept of Greek democracy and contemporary democracy. Ancient democracy was
not all-inclusive as it excluded slaves, women and metics (the foreigners who lived
and worked in the city-state). Modern democracy was achieved through struggle and
considerable odds. The concept of democracy may be seen as a part of a conceptual
cluster or a family of concepts, in which the concepts of rights, freedom and equality
are most central. In making these things operational there are certain presumptions
regarding the concept. One such presumption is that the individual is rational and he
can think and discuss the general problems of the community and also take decisions.
Human beings are egoist and their happiness is purely personal. The individual is
sovereign over his body and mind. There is no scope for the use of physical force or
violence in solving problems. Every human being is fallible and can make mistakes.
There is no conflict between the good of the individuals and the good of the
community. Individuals do not resort to violence to get their grievances redressed. The
operationalization of democracy depends on the size of the system where democracy
is working. For instance, according to Robert A. Dahl and Edward R. Tufte there is a
close relationship between the size of the country and the working of the democracy.
They believe that in small democracies, there is effective participation of the people in
decision making. There is also voluntary compliance to rules by the people with less
coercion. The people are homogenous concerning beliefs, values and goals.

Democracy is justified as having intrinsic as well as instrumental value. When

democracy is valued as being good in itself it is held as having intrinsic value. It is
valued as good because it is the fairest way of giving expression to equality among
citizens. On the other hand, democracy may also be valued instrumentally. It is so
because it fosters competition among political leaders and provides the people of the
country with a better choice of leadership. It is instrumental in the sense that it makes
everyone feel that they were a part of the decision-making process. It is also a way of
minimizing the abuse of political power, by distributing it equally among citizens.
Another explanation for being instrumental is its role in human development, to the
extent that it encourages people to take responsibility for their political lives.
Democracy derives its intrinsic value from its moral superiority as a way of giving
effect to political equality. It is a way of arriving at decisions among a group of
persons, whether citizens of a polity or members of a neighbourhood association or

79
 BPS-1/OSOU

sports club, democracy is morally superior to any other way of arriving at decisions.
This is so because the human race has not been able to devise any other way of arriving
at a decision which are binding on all and which takes everybody’s interest into
account. This implies that people are the best judges of their interests and that equal
citizenship rights are necessary to protect those interests.

Let us look at some of the important definitions of democracy as follows :

 John Seeley – “Democracy is a government in which everyone has a share”

 A.V. Dicey – “Democracy is that form of government in which the governing
body is comparatively a large fraction of the population. He treated Democracy
as a form of government under which majority opinion determines legislation”
 C.C. Maxey – “Democracy is a search for a way of life in which the voluntary
free intelligence and activity of men can be harmonized and coordinated with
the least possible coercion”.
 A.B.Hall – “Democracy is a popular government in the last analysis and for all
practical purposes as being that form of political organization in which public
opinion has control”.
 R.G. Gettle – “Democracy is that form of government in which the masses of
the population possesses the right to share in the exercise of sovereign power”
 C.B. Macpherson – “Democracy is merely a mechanism for choosing and
authorizing governments or in some other way getting laws and political
decisions made”
 S.M. Lipset – “Democracy may be defined as a political system which supplies
regular constitutional opportunities for changing the governing officials and a
social mechanism which permits the largest possible part of the population to
influence major decisions by choosing among contenders for political office”
 Joseph Schumpeter – “The democratic method is that institutional
arrangements for arriving at political decisions which realizes the common
good by making the people itself decide issues through the election of
individuals who are to assemble in order to carry out its will”.
 Robert Dahl – “Democracy is concerned with the political process by which
ordinary citizens exert a relatively high degree of control over their rulers”
 Lord Bryce – “The word democracy has been used ever since the time of
Herodotus to denote the form of government in which the ruling power of a
state is legally vested not in any particular class or classes but the members of
the community as a whole. This means, in communities which act by voting,
that rule belongs to the majority, as no other method has been found for
determining peaceably and legally what is to be deemed the will of a
community which is not unanimous.
From the above definitions, we may say that Democracy implies the
following:
 A Government where everyone has an equal share.

80
 BPS-1/OSOU

 It is such a form of government where the masses i.e the people have the right
to participate in the exercise of sovereign power.
 It is a mechanism for choosing the government and authorizing the government
to carry out the will of the people at large.
 It is an institutional arrangement to arrive at political decisions.
 It is such a form of government where the ruling power is vested in the
members of the community as a whole. Democracy rests on the principle of
popular sovereignty.
 Democracy established a form of government which remain accountable to the
people. the people enjoy a set of rights and the government is bound to protect
the same each individual can his or her full potential.

9.4 ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT OF DEMOCRACY

The concept of democracy has evolved over a long period. It developed in different
parts of the world in different times of history. The term democracy originated in
ancient Greece. The first work on democracy was supposed to be published in
Herodotus’ notion of “isonomia” and “equality before the law”. The idea is believed
to be developed in ancient Greece the mean a kind of popular government but it was
considered to be a perverted idea. The Athenian democracy symbolized a new political
culture enfranchising the whole citizenry. The citizens not only participated in regular
meetings of the assembly, but they were in large numbers prepared to undertake the
responsibilities of public office and decision-making. The Athenian concept of
citizenship entailed taking a share and participating directly in the affairs of the state.
The Sumerian city-states also played a role in the development of democracy. The
Iranian people also favoured proto democracy which existed during the 6th century
BC. The republics of India such as Sanghas and Ganas also represented democratic
institutions in the 6th century BC, but the evidence has no historical sources. When
Alexander attacked India, the Greek historian Diodorus mentioned that independent
and democratic states used to exist in India. The Roman Republics also helped in the
growth of some aspects of democracy. The Romans introduced a system called
gerrymandering in which the votes of the powerful people were given more weight.
With the fall of the Roman Empire and the coming of the Dark Age in Europe, the
barons became very powerful. The people were left with no power and consequently,
there was no scope for democracy. In the middle ages the idea could not develop. The
dominance of faith over politics and birth over merit left democracy as an impossible
thing to achieve. Oligarchy was more prevalent than democracy. during the 16th and
17th centuries Cossack Republics of Ukraine. The ideals of democracy are supposed
to have developed during the European Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment,
American and French Revolutions.The concept gained importance during 18th and
19th centuries. By 1840 , the property was no longer regarded as a qualification for
exercising the right to vote. For example, the American Colonization
Society(ACS)established the colony of Liberia so that thousands of former African-
American slaves and free black people could move to that colony from the USA and
81
 BPS-1/OSOU

live freely there. By the end of the American Civil War in the late1860s, the newly
freed slaves became the citizens of the United State of America with a nominal right
to vote. And finally, the passage of the Voting Rights Act 1965 by the United States
Congress after the African-American Civil Rights Movements(1955-68) had secured
the full enfranchisement of citizens. During the mid -19th century, the Australian
colonies started adopting democratic governments. South Australia became the first
government in the world to introduce women's suffrage in 1861. It was followed by
New- Zealand to become the first major nation to achieve universal adult suffrage in
the true sense by granting voting rights to native men in the year 1867, white men in
1879 and women in 1893. Britain is regarded as the first modern democracy because
after the civil war in the seventeenth century the century-long royal absolutism ended
and powers were transferred from the two houses of parliament. Democracy was
inaugurated in France through the french revolution with its call for Liberty – Equality
– Fraternity and its emphasis on the principle of popular sovereignty. America
encountered democracy after the civil war but it was restricted to the white men only
it was by the twentieth century that full democracy was achieved in America. The
Declaration of Independence (1774) was the document that simultaneously affected
the legal creation of the United States of America and that of democracy in that
country. The political ideas of the “Levellers”.

John Locke and Tom Paine and documents like the French Declaration of the Rights
of Man(1789) and the American Declaration of Independence(1776) contained the
seeds of democracy. It belonged to the family of concepts in which the concepts of
rights, freedom and equality emerged. In the 20th century, democracy entered its
golden age and became a passion among the European people. However, that was
temporarily halted with the rise of dictators like Hitler and Mussolini. But with the end
of the first World War and the dissolution of the Ottoman and the Austro- Hungarian
empires, many new nation states had been created in Europe and these newly
independent nation-states adopted democratic government nominally. By the 1970s
and the 1980s, several nations like Spain, Portugal and even the military nations
transformed themselves into democracies. The disintegration of Soviet Russia,
liberalization of the former Eastern bloc, the fall of communism and the dawn of
globalization ultimately boosted the urge for more and more countries to accept
democracy. By now most of the countries in the world have accepted democracy.

9.5 TYPES OF DEMOCRACY

Democracy is an evolving concept. So as and when necessary different forms of it

arose in different parts of the world. Generally, two forms of democracy are more
prevalent. These are - direct and indirect forms of democracy.

Direct Democracy:

A direct form of democracy happens to be the earliest form of democracy. It started

functioning from the day democracy was first practised. In a direct democracy, all the
82
 BPS-1/OSOU

people assemble in one place and decide the matters which concern them. It was
prevalent in the city-state system of Ancient Greece. There the adult male citizens used
to gather together in the Assembly and decide the important issues of the day. Presently
this form of democracy is practised in Switzerland. The people of the cantons meet in
the Landsgemeinde and elect cantonal officers and adopt legislation. The main tools
or devices of direct democracy in Switzerland are Referendum, Initiative and Recall.
The referendum is a special procedure of referring a particular bill or constitutional
amendment to a popular vote, in which, if a majority of the people vote in favour, the
bill becomes law; Initiative is a device which enables a specified number of people to
draft a bill and send it to the legislature for its consideration, and Recall enables the
majority to recall their representative from office if they are not satisfied with his or
her work.

.Indirect Democracy:

Indirect democracy refers to that form of government in which the people elect their
representatives to carry on the administration of the country. Indirect democracy
depends on the size of the state. In a large state where direct democracy cannot be
prevalent, indirect democracy is practised. In the modern age, this form of democracy
is more prevalent. The huge population cannot assemble in one place to decide the
affairs of the government. Here, the population elect their representatives periodically
and these representatives run the government. The people of the land are the ultimate
authority. The people elect the representatives for a fixed tenure and after its expiry,
the representatives go back to the voters seeking a fresh mandate The main features of
indirect democracy are:

(a) Government runs on behalf of the people.

(b) Sovereignty is vested in the people.

(c) People do not have a direct share in the government.

(d) Government is representative in form.

9.6 CONCEPT OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY

Liberalism as a concept is of recent origin. It is generally thought to be inseparable

from democracy so much so that the term democracy is applied to denote liberal
democracy unless otherwise specified. The liberal theory was committed to the
individual’s right to unlimited acquisition of property and to the capitalist market
economy which implies inequality not only in the economic sphere but in the political
sphere also. Thus, classical liberalism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
insisted on property qualification for the right to vote. This was contrary to the
democratic principles which imply equal entitlements of each individual not only in

83
 BPS-1/OSOU

the matter of choosing a government but also to the other advantages accruing from
organized life.

Classical liberalism fostered capitalism and a free market economy which were
responsible for large-scale industrialization and urbanization. This gave rise to a large
working class centered in large industrial cities and forced to live under sub-human
condition created by a cruel, competitive economy. In due course this class became
conscious of its strength and insisted on a voice at the decision level. Thus the liberal
state was forced to accommodate democratic principles in order to save its own
existence. The outcome of this combination emerged in the form of liberal democracy.
It represents a combination of free market economy with a universal adult franchise.
It is an attempt to resolve the conflicting claims of the capitalists and the masses by
making gradual concessions in the form of a welfare state. This is, thus, the
amalgamation of Universal Adult Franchise and a free market economy. It inspired the
emergence of the concept of the welfare state, which is apparently supposed to gulf
the differences between the capitalist and the masses. This form of government has
been quite popular throughout time as it is believed to represent the claims of all
sections of the people and also gives them adequate rights and earmarks duties of a
state.

Liberal democracy is based on certain principles. The principles are:

(a) Government by consent

(b) Public Accountability
(c) Majority Rule
(d) Constitutional government

9.6.1 The mechanism for making Liberal Democracy successful

Multiparty competition for power: Liberal democracy works as a reconciliation of

the varying interests of the available groups and subgroups in the democratic society.
This is best reflected in the form of a multiparty system which takes part in the free
elections representing varying interests of those groups. The former Soviet Union and
the Present People’s Republic of China cannot be treated as democracies as they
conceded monopoly of power to their respective Communist Parties, in spite of a
façade of periodic elections. It supports Open competition.

Openness in public offices: One important feature that distinguishes liberal

democracy from feudalism, monarchy and despotism is free and openness in public
offices. Any citizen can have access to public office by following the prescribed
procedure and fulfilling certain conditions (e.g.: age bar for applying for jobs, fixed
term for the legislature etc). However, to secure due representation for all strata of the
population, some seats in the decision-making bodies can be reserved for minorities or
weaker sections.

84
 BPS-1/OSOU

Free and fair periodic elections based on Universal Adult Franchise: It is one of
the greatest contributions of the liberal democratic tradition to make democracy
participatory and representative.

Protection of freedom and liberties of the individuals: It is to the credit of liberal

democracy that it provides the opportunity for freedom and liberty to the people. It
constitutionally protects freedom and liberty through fundamental and legal rights.

Independence of the Judiciary: The independence of judiciary provides space for

freedom and liberty because through this mechanism the organs of the government
will be competent enough to deliver justice. Though it is imperative to have
interdependence in between the executive and the legislature, it is extremely necessary
that the judiciary is left completely independent of any influences. In a liberal
democracy usually the judges are appointed strictly on the basis of merit, free from the
influence of the politicians which capacitates the judges to deliver judgements freely
and fairly thus ensuring justice for all sections.

Space for minority rights: A liberal democracy accommodates diverse groups

including the minorities. All are tried to be provided with equality, liberty and justice
are accorded proper rights and entitlements.

As discussed above, liberal democracy sprang up by the 18th and 19th centuries in the
Age of Enlightenment in Europe. The Enlightenment intellectuals challenged the
conventional view prevailing during that time. They put forward the argument that
human affairs should be guided by reason as well as the principle of liberty and
equality. They had firm faith in the equality of men and therefore, opposed to the idea
of rule by noble blood which has a privileged connection with God. It made one person
superior to the other which was opposed to the notion of equality. Such ideas
forwarded by the Enlightenment Intellectuals inspired the American and French
revolutions. This led to the emergence of liberal democracies in different parts of the
world. However in each and every democracy, the form varies. For example, India ,
Brazil, USA etc represent the federal republic, whereas Great Britain, Japan, Canada
represent constitutional monarchy; and USA represents the presidential form and UK
represents the parliamentary form of government. Moreover, there is prevalence of
semi-presidential systems like in France and Russia. When the first liberal democratic
model was established, the liberals were regarded as those harbouring extreme views
and it was also believed that the liberals would destroy the international peace and
stability. While opposing democracy, the monarchists became the defenders of
traditional values. Many alliances were forged among the opponents of democracy to
prevent the further spread of democratic values. Moreover, despite resistance, by the
19th century democracy gained widespread momentum and became a dominant value
in the international arena.

It may be mentioned here that mere fulfilment of the structural conditions of

democracy should not lead to complacency. For example, a developing nation like in

85
 BPS-1/OSOU

India, where there is existence of more than one political party competing for political
power it may simply involve conflict and competition between certain dominant and
vocal interest groups (large manufacturers, rich peasants and landlords) for acquiring
political power and not for public interests. Again, vested interests may try to foster a
feudal political culture among the people so as to reduce them to submissive voters
rather than vehicles of social change. Interestingly,there may be no formal restriction
on entry to positions of political power but the actual power wielders may serve the
interests of a tiny class. It is also possible that the judiciary is independent of both the
executive and the legislature, but dispensation of justice at times may not be effective.
So the existence of the mere structure of liberal democracy is no guarantee of achieving
the objectives of democracy. Therefore, the prolonged and actual practice of liberal
values within democracy is what is of utmost importance.

The contradictions within democracy have given birth to newer developments in the
realm of liberal democracy such as post-liberal democracy and neo-liberal democracy.
Laski is one of the most powerful advocates of post-liberal democracy who revised
liberalism in the light of socialistic achievements and draws itself close to the concept
of democratic socialism. This is a contemporary view of liberal democracy which has
taken names such as pure democracy, socialist democracy, people’s democracy, etc.
Macpherson is also one of the post-liberal democratic theorists.

In the western capitalist countries neo-liberalism is a label used to refer to a type of

capitalist political philosophy concerning international trade between developed and
developing countries. Introduced by economist such as Friedrich Hayek, Milton
Friedman neo-liberalism tries to bring in the concept of a stable currency, a balanced
budget and free market capitalism within the framework of neo-liberal democracy

9.7 MARXIST PERSPECTIVE ON DEMOCRACY

Marxists, in principle, do not oppose democracy. On the other hand, they claim that
their "democracy" is genuine whereas the bourgeois democracy is 'fake' and a
'sham'.Marxists do not regard democracy as a political system. They view it as a system
of values and a form of society. In the latter sense, democracy does not have a final
point of achievement. It is a continuously growing process. Thus democracy goes on
struggling to go beyond itself, in the process retaining its essence and improvising it
further.

As a political system, democracy is a class organism. It is meant to serve the interests

of a particular class. Lenin distinguishes working class democracy from bourgeois
democracy. The latter serves the interests of the bourgeoisie -a small minority -
whereas the former promotes the interests of the proletariat the vast majority of the
society. When socialism - the transitional phase matures into communism, democracy
as a political system will cease to exist, but democracy as a system of values will
flourish. A communist society is a democratic society because it nourishes democratic
values like socio-economic equality and the absence of exploitation of one class by
86
 BPS-1/OSOU

another. According to Lefebvre, Marx regards democracy "not as a system but as a

process which comes down essentially to a struggle for democracy. The latter is never
completed because democracy can always be carried forward or forced back. The
purpose of struggle is to go beyond democracy and beyond the democratic state, to
build a society without state power". 16 According to Marxists, in bourgeois
democracy, the state is controlled by the economic elites-the finance capital. The
members of this class, by occupying key posts in different branches of the power
structure, use the government to promote the interests of their class. Some other
Marxists take a slightly different view. They do not think that the organs of the
government are manned by the members of rich class. They believe that the latter, by
preferring to stay outside the government, dominate policy-making process from
behind the scene. They allow the state some autonomy so that the state can utilise that
autonomy to better serve their interests. It is thus clear that both Marxist view-points -
capitalists controlling the government machinery (a) from within, (b) from without-
point to the same proposition that the government in capitalist countries is controlled
by economic elites who use it to further their own interests. Marxists reject the
legitimacy of elections in bourgeois democracies. They argue that political parties in
bourgeois states hardly differ from one another in respect of ideology. The ideologies
of all of them are designed to buttress the interests of rich people. As a result, the poor
people of capitalist countries have little choice. Whichever party they vote for would
help the rich against them. Marxists further argue that in bourgeois democracies justice
is very expensive. It is only the rich who can get judgments in their favor. They gave
the money to buy justice. By money power and political influence they can close the
eyes of the court to their crimes and other misdeeds. The poor, even if innocent, would
be punished by courts. They have little leverage vis-a-vis the judiciary. The judiciary,
it is contended, is not impartial. It has got a class character. It is manned by the
representatives of the rich class and, no wonder, derives its interests. Before we make
a critical examination of the Marxist theory of democracy, we may bring to an end the
preceding discussion by quoting Lenin from his State and Revolution. He said:The
dictatorship of the proletariat - the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as
the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors - for the first time
becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for
the money-bags. The dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on
the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists.

Criticism

The Marxist theory of democracy has been criticised on the following grounds.

1. Negation of Democracy: The Liberals criticise that socialist democracy is not

democracy at all; it is the opposite of democracy. They argue that democracy is a
government of the whole people of the society. Democracy is not a government of one
group to be used by it against another. But the socialist democracy, which represents
the interests of one class only - though it is the majority group fails to satisfy the main

87
 BPS-1/OSOU

criterion of democracy mentioned above. The liberals charge that the dictatorship of
proletariat, far from being the democracy for the proletariat, is a dictatorship over
them. In socialist democracy the party bureaucracy becomes growingly powerful and
the common man becomes increasingly alienated from the system. Sartori describes it
as a "dictatorship pure and simple", while Popper paints it as a "closed society" in
which there is neither freedom nor democracy.2° Benn and Peters have observed:
Marxists can equate the "dictatorship of the proletariat" with" democracy" because
they exclude any but the workers from the "people" But this is not what is meant by
the "people" in the context we have in mind. We should say that a system was just as
undemocratic if it denied people votes because they were rich as if it denied them
votes. After all, they were poor.

2. Bloody and Heartless: Some minor differences among them notwithstanding,

Marxists, in general, agree that the socialist revolutions as well as the socialist
democracy are predominantly violent in nature. Lenin advocates the "bloody"
overthrow of the bourgeois government. Excessive emphasis on violence makes the
working men's democracy unacceptable to many. Many cultures in the world either
hate violence or give very low place to it. No wonder, because of its open support of
violence, Marxist democracy is not welcome in these cultures.

3. Parliamentary Socialism: Many people believe that socialism, a good goal, can be
achieved through parliamentary peace. One need not resort to violence and revolution
for this. Important reforms to help the mass can be pushed through legislation. The
people can make use of elections, pressure groups and other democratic instruments at
their disposal to influence -if necessary; force the government to adopt "welfare"
measures. This is particularly the strong feeling of the Communist parties of Western
Europe who have evolved "Euro-Communism" to represent their point of view. Some
democratic countries of the third world are also of this opinion. It is important to note
that this view has won support in Moscow at a few points in time. In 1956 Khrushchev,
the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party declared that there are two roads
to socialism: one is 'revolution', and the other is 'parliamentary road'. However, China
bitterly attacked Khrushchev for this.

4. Not a Pure Democracy: Some revisionists like Bernstein and Kautsky have
criticised socialist democracy on the ground that is not a "pure democracy."
Kautsky charged that the dictatorship of proletariat, established in Russia after
the 1917 revolution, did not grant liberties to citizens. While Bernstein
criticised the socialist democracy of Russia for unnecessarily indulging in
violence, Rosa Luxemburg, a German Marxist, attacked it for its failure to
grant freedoms to the press and people. In her opinion, the dictatorship of the
proletariat of Russia has become the dictatorship of some politicians.

88
 BPS-1/OSOU

9.8 SUMMARY

Democracy, describing a form of popular government is a result of socio-economic

changes. The evolution of the concept can be traced back to nearly 2500 years back in
Greece. It has been conceptualised to acquaint the people with the ideas of equality,
liberty and justice. It has been formed from the words ‘Demos’ and ‘Kratos’ referring
to the rule of the people. However modern democracy achieved its present status after
prolonged struggle Making Democracy operational largely depends on the size of the
state where it is in operation. The concept of democracy has been defined by different
political philosophers at different time from Lord Bryce, Lipset to Macpherson Robert
Dahl and others. Democracy took different forms at different time and places as per
the needs of the society and polity like procedural substantive, participatory,
representative etc Tolerance, social welfare, liberty, equality, peaceful constitutional
elections etc., are important principles of democracy. An aware and vigilant population
with a vigorous public opinion, literate, effective and enlightened leaders makes
democracy successful. Liberal democracy is a form of democracy bringing liberalism
to the realm of democracy comprising a constitutional government by consent and
majority rule providing public accountability.

The Marxist democracies practised in Russia, China and other Communist countries,
are showing little respect for the political freedoms of individuals. The political
choices, movements and expressions of the latter are severely constrained and limited.
Political power is monopolised by a small minority ruling from above. The system is
characterised by intense centralisation and bureaucratisation. Political democracy is
conspicuous by its absence. However, it seems that in proletarian democracy there is
much more social and economic equality than in liberal democracies. In the former,
the gap between rich and poor is not quite wide. It is apparent that in Marxist
democracies, the individual initiative, a valuable factor of economic development, is
largely absent. Of late, the leaders of these systems seem to have realised this
deficiency and are trying to slowly rectify it. The "capitalist reforms" slowly
introduced in China and Russia in recent times are a pointer in this direction. The
atmosphere of freedom and relaxation created in the Soviet Union as a result of the
"Gorbachev experiment" amply illustrates this. The encouragement given to the
private sector and the high incidence of student activism in China in the post-Mao
period are important developments effected in China's "People's democracy". These
developments in Russia and China suggest that the model of Marxist democracy is
likely to adopt and encourage some innovations which are not in conformity with
orthodox Marxism. The countries concerned are aware of this. But they are perhaps
thinking that the acceptance of small doses of "capitalist" innovations would, in the
long run, make proletarian democracies more stable and secure.

89
 BPS-1/OSOU

9.9 EXERCISE

1. What is the meaning of Democracy? Define its types.

2. What are the conditions for the success of Democracy?
3. Define Democracy and Describe the merits and demerits of Democracy.
4. What is the various mechanism for making Liberal Democracy successful?
5. Define Karl Marx views on Democracy?

9.10 REFERENCE

Tangian, Andranik (2020). Analytical Theory of Democracy: History, Mathematics

and Applications. Studies in Choice and Welfare. Cham, Switzerland:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39691-6. ISBN 978-3-030-39690-
9. S2CID 216190330.
"Definition of DEMOCRACY". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 5 July 2018.
Locke, John. Two Treatises on Government: a Translation into Modern English.
Oxford English Dictionary: "democracy".
Jump up to a b Watkins, Frederick (1970). "Democracy". Encyclopædia Britannica.

Vol. 7 (Expo '70 hardcover ed.). William Benton. pp. 215–23. ISBN 978-0-85229-
135-1.
Wilson, N.G. (2006). Encyclopedia of ancient Greece. New York: Routledge. p.
511. ISBN 0-415-97334-1.
Barker, Ernest (1906). The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle. Chapter VII,
Section 2: G.P. Putnam's Sons.
Anderson, Christopher J.; Bol, Damien; Ananda, Aurelia (2021). "Humanity's
Attitudes about Democracy and Political Leaders".
Article IV of the Philippine Constitution.
"8 U.S. Code Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization". LII / Legal
Information Institute.
"Federal Act on Swiss Citizenship (part 7.1)". admin.ch. Archived from the original on
2021-12-27. Retrieved 2021-02-15.
"Bishops act to tackle sham marriages". GOV.UK.
"Citizenship for sale: how tycoons can go shopping for a new passport". The Guardian.
2 June 2018. Retrieved 24 August 2018.
Democracy at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Democracy
Index 2008.pdf The Economist Intelligence Unit's index of democracy[dead link]
Alexis de of data sources on political regimes on Our World in Data, by Max Roser.
"Democracy", BBC Radio 4 discussion on the origins of Democracy (In Our Time, 18
October 2001)
Democracy Countries 2022 interactive map of countries at World Population Review

90
 BPS-1/OSOU

UNIT-10 CONTEMPORARY THEORIES OF DEMOCRACY

Structure

10.1 Objectives

10.2 Introduction

10.3 Meaning of the Elitist theory of Democracy

10.4 Features of the Elitist theory of Democracy

10.4.1 Concept of Circulation of Elites

10.5 Criticisms against the Elitist theory of Democracy

10.6 The Pluralist Theory of Democracy

10. 6.1 Meaning of the Pluralist Theory of Democracy

10.6.2 Factors responsible for the development of Pluralism

10.6.3 Importance of Pluralism

10.6.4 Features of the Pluralist Theory of Democracy

10.7 Criticisms against the Pluralist Theory of Democracy

10.8 Summary

10.9 Exercise

10.10 Reference

10.1 OBJECTIVES

After going through this unit, you will be able to understand:

 Explain the meaning and features of the Elitist theory of democracy

 Discuss the criticisms against the Elitist theory of democracy
 Explain the meaning and features of the Pluralist theory of democracy and
discuss the criticisms against the Pluralist theory of democracy

10.2 INTRODUCTION

As a response to the marked success of democracy as an ideology and the development

of counter-democratic ideologies, several other variants of democracy emerged all
over the world. In this context, a new interpretation of democracy was offered which

91
 BPS-1/OSOU

sought to accommodate a specific space for a particular section of the society (elite)
or terms of concentrating power in several groups (plural). These new variants of
democracy try to contest that instead of power being concentrated in the hands of the
people, it is better to be in the hands of a few elites. This concept was developed in the
second half of the 19th century by Vilfredo Pareto and Mosca and several other
political sociologists with their different perspectives on the elitist theory of
democracy. However contesting the elite concept of democracy, towards the 1950s
and 1960s, another concept emerged in the form of the pluralist theory of democracy
which believed that powers lay in several associations both government and non-
government and not in the hands of a few.

This unit tries to discuss in depth these two theories of democracy namely:

1. The Elitist Theory of Democracy

2. The Pluralist Theory of Democracy.

10.3 MEANING OF THE ELITIST THEORY OF DEMOCRACY

Questioning the traditional and classical model of democracy which stood on the
concept of egalitarianism, the Elitist theory emerged during the 19th century in the
writings of Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941), Robert
Michels, C.Wright Mills (1916-1962), Floyd Hunter, G.William Domhaff, James
Burnham, Robert D.Putnam, Thomas R. Dye and others. This theory was developed
to accommodate the contemporary condition of society. This theory concentrates on a
small minority consisting of the politically and economically influential individuals
holding maximum power which is free from the democratic election process. The elite
theory consists of those persons who are at the top positions in society. Elites are the
select group of successful persons available in every walk of life. In the political field,
they are those who wield political power in the political system controlling all the
effective centres of political power. This group exercises immense power in society. It
may be acquired democratically or otherwise. It is known by different names in society
like power elite, political elite, governing elite, etc.

Pareto was the first to use the term elite in his work “The Mind and Society”(1916),
where he regarded elites as those powerful minority in the society that is
psychologically and intellectually superior and therefore they are the highest
accomplishers in the society. They are in the form of either the governing elite or non-
governing elites. Mosca, on the other hand, regarded the elite as an organized marginal
group which is subdivided into ruling elite and ruled elite. The ruling class is again
subdivided into the ruling elite and sub-elite. He produced his ideas in his work “The
Ruling Class”(1896). Mosca opined that elites have intellectual, moral and material
superiority that greatly helped them in acquiring and assuring their position in society
and thus help them secure preponderance both in the government as well as in the
society. Another important contributor to the development of the elite theory is Robert

92
 BPS-1/OSOU

Michel who in his work “Political Parties: A sociological study of Oligarchical

Tendencies of Modern democracy” (1911) stated that rule of the minority is natural,
necessary and safe because the masses are apathetic towards governance. He even said
that all organizations are elitist following three basic principles: (i) Need for leaders,
specialized staff and facilities. (ii) Utilization of facilities by leaders within their
organization. (iii) Importance of psychological attributes of the leaders. The important
fact is that these political scientists gave more importance to the rule of a few rather
than the rule of many (democracy) on the following grounds: The general population
i.e the masses are ignorant (lack personal resources like intelligence and skills)They
are intellectually, psychologically, morally and materially inferior to the elites they
lack the attributes essential for governance and are not competent to rule. Their
massive participation in governance results in the degradation of the quality of
democracy. The masses are not adequately equipped to handle democratic processes
which often results in manipulation of them by demagogues resulting in the misuse of
people’s democratic capacities. The masses are generally indolent, apathetic and
slavish hence completely incapable of ruling themselves. Schumpeter is of the view
that the masses cannot provide responsible leadership and hence they are not capable
of ruling. Thus, this particular theory is extremely against popular rule and does not
accept people being capable of ruling themselve , therefore the rule of the elite is a
necessity. This theory developed as a reaction and opposition to popularism
questioning democracy as a utopian idea.

10.4 FEATURES OF THE ELITIST THEORY OF DEMOCRACY

The Elite theory is based on two basic assumptions:

1. The power lies in the position of authority in key economic and political
institutions.
2. The psychological difference that sets the elite apart is that they have personal
resources, for instance, intelligence and skills, and a vested interest in the
government; while the rest are incompetent and do not have the capabilities of
governing themselves; the elite are resourceful and will strive to make the
government work. For, in reality, the elite have the most to lose in a failed
government.

Based on the assumptions the following features of the elitist theory can be derived:

 In every state and society (democratic or undemocratic) there is a governing

elite or the power elite who enjoy very high prestige and widespread influence.
They are generally the minority (the chosen element in society).
 There are large variants of elites. There may be a governing elite, a power elite,
a national elite, elites occupying high status, social elites, political elites,
economic elites etc. Whatever may be the variants of elites, they occupy the

93
 BPS-1/OSOU

highest position within that particular society and they control the decision-
making mechanisms.
 As regards political elites, they occupy a significant position by contesting
elections and exercising their power through their superior skills and
intelligence. Since they acquire power through elections, they generally have a
mass consent and support base. So, in the name of popular will, general will or
consent of the governed, democracy in actual practice is a kind of elite rule
only.
 Elites grow and develop within a particular system in a society and there is an
intra-elite competition for power within the elites which results in a continuous
alteration of elites. The membership of the elites is always open and in flux,
hence it is seen that a particular leader will remain in power for a limited period
and there is every possibility that a new leader will replace the old one.
 The character of an elite is dynamic in response to the ever-changing character
of society. So, the elites of earlier societies do not match with contemporary
elites. Earlier if the landed proprietor formed the elites, today it comprises the
educated and techno-savvy. Earlier elites were from particular strata but now
they may emerge from any strata of the society. A change in the values of the
society also makes changes in the elite structure.
 So from the above features that have been discussed, the central theme of the
Elitist theory can be derived as follows:
 A small group of persons with high prestige and widespread influence
(governing elite) is present in every society.
 These small groups occupy very important positions in society.
 They have a tendency of circulation and change which is known as the
circulation of elites.
 In actual practice, every society is dominated by such elites and democracy is
also not an exception.
 The rule of the elites is not based on equality, rather they justify inequality
based on ability , capacity, experience and wealth. Therefore the society
comprises the elite(ruler) and the masses(ruled)
 To the elites, the election is only a mechanism to bring on another section of
the elite population to the ruling platform. The concept of ‘will of the people ,
‘sovereignty of the people’ , ‘government of the people etc is just some of the
slogans used by the elites to legitimize their rule over the masses. The Elites
are not responsible to the masses.
 The elites are of the view that the rule of the elite is a natural and just condition
without which even a democratic political system cannot work. This is a
minority rule in name of majority rule.

In a democratic society, the elite theory holds that:

i. The elites are relatively open

ii. They are recruited on a merit basis.
94
 BPS-1/OSOU

iii. There is a widespread, continuous and extensive circulation of elites.

iv. The population of the state can participate in selecting their rulers through the
exercise of the right to elect between the competing elitist groups.
v. The democratic elites have a mass background
vi. The distance between the elite and the rank and file is the minimum and not
organic

10.4.1 Concept of Circulation of Elites

According to Pareto in every society, there is an unceasing movement of individuals

and elites from higher to lower levels, and from lower to higher levels resulting in a
‘considerable increase of the degenerate elements in the classes which still hold power
and, on the other hand, in an increase of elements of superior quality in the subject
classes. Pareto thought that if the governing elite does not find ways to assimilate the
exceptional individuals from the subject classes, an imbalance is created in the polity.
This may result in the existing elite being dislodged through violent overthrow. This
leads to the ultimate extinction of every elite group in society. This dissolution of the
elite groups makes the social equilibrium unstable. Pareto opines on different types of
circulation of elites. (i) between different categories of the governing elite itself,
(ii)between the elite and the rest of the population. The latter may involve (a)
individuals from the lower strata entering the existing elite, and /or (b)individuals in
the lower strata forming new elite groups and entering into a struggle for power with
the existing elite. Thus, the circulation of the elite implies the replacement of one elite
by another.

10.5 CRITICISM AGAINST THE ELITIST THEORY OF DEMOCRACY

The following points describe how the theory has been criticized by different thinkers
at different points. These points have to be taken into consideration while analyzing
the elite theory.

The elite theory assumes that society is based on inequality. However, all human
beings are equal in the sense that all are capable of developing their faculties openly
which is evident from the fact that all public offices are open for all in terms of
opportunities.

The theory excludes the ability of the masses, tagging them as ignorant which is wrong
as most of the political systems today are striving only because of the power of the
masses, who cannot be regarded as ignorant. They they had been ignorant then
democracy could not have been successful over the world.

This theory is based on the institutional and not the ideological aspect of democracy.
It is mainly descriptive. It believes in the ‘End of Ideology’ theory and maintains that
ideologies are meaningless because every political system is bound to be governed by
the iron law of oligarchy.

95
 BPS-1/OSOU

The Elite theory wrongly advocates the view that the object of democracy is not the
welfare and development of the people. It excludes the people from the ruling
functions and talks of elite rule as the ideal condition of the rule involving the
subjugation of the masses to the leaders.

To the elite, they are superior and absolute in power, so they are not responsible and
accountable to the people for their acts. This goes against the principle of equality,
which has been adhered to by contemporary civil society. The present society stands
on the principle of equality, rights and liberty, so this theory does not hold good in
present society.

The elite theory failed to recognize the importance of people and public opinion in the
determination of the rules, policies and programmes and decisions of the government
of a state.

This theory is one-sided, particularistic and partial. It lacks objectivity. All its
exponents have been guilty of following a set of principles without subjecting it to
empirical testing and critical evaluation.

It fails to suggest remedies for the prevailing defects of the democratic political
systems. On the contrary, it builds up a defence of some of the evil practices
characterizing contemporary political systems.

Despite the limitations, it cannot be denied that it focuses attention on the real working
and actual behaviour of the leaders of a political system. It is evident from the fact that
irrespective of whatever the political system is power is always exercised by a
minority. That minority may be in the form of elected representatives (in a democracy)
or a few, but the minority is inherently superior to the masses. So, in practice, every
form of government is an oligarchy. The presence of an elite structure in a democracy
also implies the same. It is this sense that in democracy also there is the presence of
elites. This is best described by Manrheim as, ‘the conditions for the development of
democracy require in addition to the competition between elites, changes in the
structures and composition of Elites, in their self-conceptions and their relations with
the rest of the population.’

10.6 THE PLURALIST THEORY OF DEMOCRACY

The concept of pluralism emerged in response to the traditional theory of democracy

which believed in the concept that sovereignty rests only with the state. It also rejected
the view that power rests with an elite group. The pluralist is of the view that power
resides in several organizations rather than in one. The power resides not in the hands
of the rich nor the hands of the poor. Power resides in every social, political and
economic group. Hence power exists in a decentralized form in a pluralist society.
They justified it on the ground that social structure is pluralistic or federal and that is
why the power structure of the society is also pluralistic.

96
 BPS-1/OSOU

10.6.1 Meaning of the Pluralist Theory of Democracy

The Pluralist doctrine was developed by English writers like John Figgis, F.W.
Maitland and G.D.H. Cole, Robert Dahl, Sartori, Presthus, Hunter, Bartelson, Agger,
etc. The Pluralist theory of democracy refers to a model in which power is not
concentrated in the hands of a group or class but is diffused among many interest
groups competing against each other for power. During the 1950s and 1960s in
America, the concept of pluralism gained importance as a reworked version of liberal
democracy challenging the rule of the elite on the ground that this model tries to
establish that the function of policy making is not indulged in by elected
representatives or any elite. Rather it is an outcome of the interaction among the
various groups in a society. This model is perfectly suitable for a plural society. They
are not against democracy, rather they hold the notion that democracy is best realized
in a plural society through the decentralization of power among plural elements. This
theory has been derived from the pluralist theory of sovereignty. The main content of
the theory has been derived from the postulate that “rejecting the indivisibility of the
sovereignty and monopoly of the state they held that social structure is plural and that
is why power distribution must be plural. The state is divided into certain structures
and power must be distributed among these units of the state. Groups are a very
important component of society and all activities of the state are activities of these
groups, that is why they must be equally empowered. This is essential and natural for
the upliftment of the society.” Classical pluralism is of the view that politics and
decision-making are located mostly in the framework of government, however, many
non-governmental groups use their resource to exert influence. The central question
for classical pluralism is how power and influence are distributed in a political process.
Groups of individuals try to maximize their interests. Lines of conflict are multiple and
shifting as power is a continuous bargaining process between competing groups.

10.6.2 Factors responsible for the development of Pluralism

 The pluralist believed in the reduction of the powers of the state. They were
similar to the individualists but instead of laying importance on individual
rights, they laid importance on rights and freedom of associations of
individuals and guilds.
 For the promotion and development of the state and the society, it was felt that
power must be concentrated in different associations.
 Maitland, Gierke, Figgis and other scholars are of the view that churches and
guilds possessed internal freedom and were party to sovereignty in the
medieval ages. They are of the view that if the churches and guilds possessed

97
 BPS-1/OSOU

autonomy in the middle ages than they must possess freedom and autonomy in
modern time.
 Pluralism also got impetus from the concept of anarchism and guild socialism.

10.6.3 Importance of Pluralism

Miss M.P.Follet in her famous book, ‘The New State’ has summed up the highlights
of pluralism in the following manner. The points are: The pluralists prick the bubble
of the present state’s right to supremacy. They see that the state which has been slowly
forming since the middle ages with its pretences and unfulfilled claims has not earned
either our regard or respect. They recognize the value of the group and they see that
the variety of our group life today has a significance which must be immediately
reckoned with politically. They plead for the revivification of local life. The pluralist
sees that the interest of the state is not always identical to the interests of its parts.
Pluralism is the beginning of the disappearance of the crowd. Pluralism contains the
prophecy of the future because it has with its keenest insight, seized upon the problem
of identity, association and federalism. About the above-cited points, Gettle describes
the contribution of the pluralists in these words, “their emphasis on the fact that states,
despite legal omnipotence should be subject to moral restraints is a desirable reaction
against the idealization of the state and the doctrine that state is an end in itself free
from moral restraint. The pluralists also make a timely protest against the rigid and
dogmatic legalism of the Austinian theory of sovereignty”. He further remarks that
pluralists emphasise the necessity of studying the facts of political life in a rapidly
changing social system. In this connection, they point out the growing importance of
non-political groups, the danger of over-interference by the state, the proper functions
of groups and the desirability of giving to such groups greater legal recognition in the
political systems.

10.6.4 Features of the Pluralist Theory of Democracy

Pluralist democracy is operational through different associations rather than through

only the government and the people. The government in such a system is formed
collectively representing different groups emerging in the social process. The political
power is however exercised only by the government which is formed by the people
representing a large number of private associations, groups and organizations.

Pluralist democracy also works based on consensus. They are of the view that people
are rational so they are capable of good and desired decision making and they can
participate in politics through their organized group. These groups are primary units
of politics. Elections are very important in a pluralist democracy. Elections are
reflections of public opinion. They are not only the means of electing the elites but of
ensuring the participation of people to realize the real meaning of democracy.
Decentralization of power, separation of power and federal division of power in the
system allows for the proper functioning of the government. Adequate representation
in the government from all sections of the population facilitates continuous

98
 BPS-1/OSOU

communication between the governors and the governed as well as the government
and the masses. Open competition for power provides a platform for every association
or group to participate in the government. Instead of one, there are several centres of
power and hence all groups have an equal share and participate in policy making and
decision making.

10.7 CRITICISMS AGAINST THE PLURALIST THEORY OF DEMOCRACY

The theory challenges the concept of state sovereignty and the supreme power of the
state. On the contrary, it is observed that state sovereignty maintains a law and order
situation and the absence of state sovereignty may lead to anarchy in the state.
Traditional theorists are of the view that pluralists do not have faith in popular
sovereignty (sovereignty of the people). They do not support the pluralists because the
latter gives undue importance to the groups than individuals. One of the important
conditions for the maintenance of law and order in society is the activeness of the state
which is possible only when the state is legally supreme and indivisible. If power is
decentralized everywhere there are every possibility that conflict and chaos will break
out leading to the failure of constitutional mechanisms. There is a presence of groups
and individuals who are constantly opposed to each other. Their presence after results
in conflicts and chaotic situations. So, it did only the presence of a unitary and
centralized power like the state which can only maintain an orderly society. Therefore
instead of numerous groups and associations, the overriding power should be with the
state. To the Marxists conferring the power in the hands of the people, that too in
associations or groups is a mistake as they are incapable of ruling a state properly.
Instead, there should be one political party to control power in the state. Despite being
levelled with numerous criticisms, the pluralist theory is accepted on the ground that
it supported the idea of politics of consensus and the necessity of public opinion and
popular government. This theory though does not have much significance
independently, yet the emergence of multiple groups in terms of interest and pressure
groups as well as corporate groups is an indicator of the fact that this theory still stands
valid, taking the form of neo-pluralism. In the words of Robert Dahl, it is to be called
polyarchy.

10.8 SUMMARY

During the 19th century through the writings of Pareto, Mosca and Michels, the elite
theory emerged accommodating the contemporary condition of society. Pareto
regarded elites as those powerful minorities in society that are psychologically and
intellectually superior. Mosca is of the view that elites are those intellectuals, who
have moral and material superiority and hold powers in society. Michels, on the other
hand, regards elite rule as natural and necessary and safe because the masses are
apathetic towards governance. The elitist theorists justified the rule of the few on the
ground that the masses are ignorant intellectually and psychologically inferior, not
equipped to handle democratic processes and as a result, they cannot act as responsible

99
 BPS-1/OSOU

leaders. The Elitist theory is criticized on the ground that it excludes the ability of the
masses as today mass government is regarded as the popular government. It is based
on institutional and not ideological aspects of democracy. The Elitist theory wrongly
advocates the view that the object of democracy is not the welfare and development of
the people. As a reaction to the belief in popular sovereignty and aristocracy or
oligarchy, pluralism emerged justifying the division of powers among different groups
and associations. Developed by writers like Figgis, Maitland, Cole, Dahl and Sartori
etc, pluralism referred to a model in which power is diffused among many interest
groups competing against each other for power. The concept emerged from the fact
that the welfare and development of society are possible only if there are rights and
freedom of association. Pluralism features collective representations, collective
consensus, politics through organized groups, decentralization and separation of
powers, equal share and participation in policy-making etc. Critics of pluralism opine
that it is difficult to maintain law and order if power is not concentrated in the hands
of the state. Critics argue that pluralism would lead to a condition of anarchy and the
society would become fragile which is not desirable.

10.9 EXERCISE

1. What is the Elitist theory of Democracy? Define its features and

characteristic.
2. What do you mean by Circulation of Elites?
3. What is the Pluralist Theory of Democracy?
4. Write some criticisms against the Pluralist Theory of Democracy.

10.10 REFERENCE

Tangian, Andranik (2020). Analytical Theory of Democracy: History, Mathematics

and Applications. Studies in Choice and Welfare. Cham, Switzerland:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39691-6. ISBN 978-3-030-39690-
9. S2CID 216190330.

"Definition of DEMOCRACY". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 5 July 2018.

Locke, John. Two Treatises on Government: a Translation into Modern English.

Oxford English Dictionary: "democracy".

Jump up to: a b
Watkins, Frederick (1970). "Democracy". Encyclopædia Britannica.
Vol. 7 (Expo '70 hardcover ed.). William Benton. pp. 215–23. ISBN 978-0-85229-
135-1.

Wilson, N.G. (2006). Encyclopedia of ancient Greece. New York: Routledge. p.

511. ISBN 0-415-97334-1.

100
 BPS-1/OSOU

Barker, Ernest (1906). The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle. Chapter VII,
Section 2: G.P. Putnam's Sons.

Anderson, Christopher J.; Bol, Damien; Ananda, Aurelia (2021). "Humanity's

Attitudes about Democracy and Political Leaders".

Article IV of the Philippine Constitution.

"8 U.S. Code Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization". LII / Legal
Information Institute.

"Federal Act on Swiss Citizenship (part 7.1)". admin.ch. Archived from the original on
2021-12-27. Retrieved 2021-02-15.

"Bishops act to tackle sham marriages". GOV.UK.

"Citizenship for sale: how tycoons can go shopping for a new passport". The Guardian.
2 June 2018. Retrieved 24 August 2018.

Democracy at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Democracy

Index 2008.pdf The Economist Intelligence Unit's index of democracy[dead link]

Alexis de of data sources on political regimes on Our World in Data, by Max Roser.

"Democracy", BBC Radio 4 discussion on the origins of Democracy (In Our Time, 18
October 2001)

Democracy Countries 2022 interactive map of countries at World Population Revie

101
 BPS-1/OSOU

UNIT-11 DEMOCRACY AND CITIZENSHIP

Structure

11.1 Objective

11.2 Introduction

11.3 Democracy: Conceptual Analysis

13.4 Characteristics

11.5 Types of Democracy

11.5.1 Direct democracy

11.5.2 Representative Democracy

11.6 Approaches to Democracy

11.6.1 Classical Liberal Theory of Democracy

11.6.2 Elite Theory of Democracy

11.6.3 The pluralist Theory of Democracy

11.6.4 Marxist Theory of Democracy

11.7 Citizenship

11.8 How to acquire citizenship

11.9 Citizen and Democracy

11.10 Citizen Obligation to state

11.11 Summary

11.12 Exercise

11.13 References

102
 BPS-1/OSOU

11.1 OBJECTIVES

In this unit, you will be acquainted with the concepts of Democracy and Citizenship.
Studying this unit will enable you to

 Understand the meaning of democracy and citizenship.

 Explain types of Democracy and various approaches to democracy.

 Understand citizenship and relationship with democracy.

11.2 INTRODUCTION

Democracy is a government by the people. The government is formed and runs

according to the will of the people. So the people or the citizen and the government
are interdependent. Without one the other is baseless and both of them strengthen each
other. Active and continuous participation of citizens improves the quality and
standard of democracy. Democracy also improves the quality of the citizens. The
discourse on the relationship between Democracy and citizenship denotes a healthy
relation between the two. In other forms of government such as monarchy, and
dictatorship the relationship between the two is hostile and conflicting. With changing
scenarios and changing ideologies, it has become necessary to analyse the relationship
between democracy and citizenship.

In this unit, we will discuss democracy, its meaning, types, citizenship and the
relationship between the two.

11.3 DEMOCRACY: CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS

Since the days of Aristotle democracy has been a popular term both in theory and
practice. The term has so much popularity that the cruellest dictator claims to be a
Democrat. In simple terms, democracy is defined as a government by the people. It s
a government which is formed and runs according to the will of the people. Unlike
other forms of government, the citizens have control over the ruler.

The term Democracy is derived from the Greek word demokratia which was coined
from two Greek words demos (people) and kratos (power or rule ). Etymological the
meaning of the term democracy is power of the people or rule by the people.
Democracy as a theory and practice emerged during the 5th century BC in ancient
Greece. Since then the term democracy has undergone many changes in theory,
practice and approaches. Commonly democracy means rule by the people or power
with the people. “Democracy is a system of government in which laws, policies,
leadership, and major undertakings of a state or other polity are directly or indirectly
decided by the people”. Different scholars in different time span in the different

103
 BPS-1/OSOU

political background have defined democracy in different terms. Some of them are
cited here.

Abraham Lincoln – “Democracy is for the people, by the people and of the people”.
This is the most popular definition of democracy.

Prof. Seely- Democracy is a government in which everyone has a share.

Dr John Hirst's “Democracy: A democracy is a society in which the citizens are

sovereign and control the government.”

Bryce- Democracy is a form of government in which the ruling power of a state is

largely vested not only in any particular class or class but in the members of the
community as a whole.

C.F. Strong- By democracy we mean a system of government in which the majority

of members of a political community participate through a method of representation.
It ensures that the government is ultimately responsible for its action toward that
majority.

There is no clear cut universally acceptable definition of democracy applicable to

political systems at all times. But the commonness among all is that it is a rule by
people. Over time, some definitional issues are raised, such as- What is meant by all
the people or all the people? Whether political power is shared equally among all? In
ancient Greece which is considered to be the birthplace of democracy –“all did not
include all”. Women, slaves, criminals, and non-taxpayers did not have the right to
participate in the policy-making process. In modern times majority rule is based on a
number only.

However, democracy is the best among the prevalent forms of government. Apart from
the quantitative aspect of majority rule, it is based on many qualitative aspects such as
individual liberty, individual rights etc. Democracy is a government in which power
and civic responsibility are exercised by all adult citizens, directly, or through their
freely elected representatives.

11.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF DEMOCRACY

Democracy is universal but not uniform. It does not have a fixed meaning, definite
nature or uniform procedure. Its success, failure, and procedure depend on the socio-
political-economic orientation of the citizens. Characteristics of democracy so differ
from one political system to the other. Characteristics of democracy are given below.

a. Importance of Public opinion

104
 BPS-1/OSOU

b. Popular sovereignty

c. Political equality

d. Majority rule

e. Representative government

f. A peaceful transfer of power

g. Limited government

h. Political accountability

i. Rule of Law

j. Supremacy of the constitution

k. Citizen rights and liberty

l. Independent Judiciary

m. Decentralisation of power

n. Organised opposition

11.5 TYPES OF DEMOCRACY

Based on the mode of participation of people in the process of government and

sources of political power democracy may broadly be classified into the following
categories.

11.5.1 Direct democracy- This is a form of democracy in which people participate

directly in the policy-making process of the government. This is also called pure
democracy. In ancient Athens, all citizens were participating in policy making.
However, citizenship was not open and was restricted to adult male members only who
have completed their military training. Women and slE ave did not have such rights.
In modern times Switzerland adopts direct Democracy in some of its Cantons. In
Switzerland, people assemble in Landsgemeinde (Cantonal Assembly) to take
decisions. There are three methods of Direct Democracy 1. Referendum 2.Initiative 3.
Recall.

In recent times many scholars consider Panchayati Raj Institutions as institutions of

Direct Democracy. The compare Palli Sabha and Gram Sabha with Landsgemeinde
of Switzerland.

105
 BPS-1/OSOU

11.5.2 Representative Democracy. This democracy is popularly known as Indirect

Democracy. Most countries practice this democracy. In such a democracy people
participate in the policy-making process through their elected representatives. The
elected representatives participate on behalf of the people.

Recently various scholars have identified numerous models of democracy from a

qualitative perspective. These are Constitutional democracy, Monitory democracy,
Participatory democracy, Pluralist democracy, Elite democracy, monitory democracy
etc.

11.6 APPROACHES TO DEMOCRACY

Democracy is a process so its dynamic. It can fit into any political system and can be
interpreted from different angles. All democrats focus on people's participation and the
common good. There are two popular approaches to democracy 1) Liberal Approach
and 2) the Marxist Approach.

Liberal Approach- The liberals consider the individual to be the centre of the state
system and the state exists for the sake of the individual. The individual is the end and
the state is the means. The philosophy of democracy entirely lies in providing
maximum freedom to the individual. The state which provides more freedom and more
liberty to the individual is considered to be more democratic. According to John Locke,
“the state had to ensure the safety of the life, liberty and property of the individual”.

The liberal theory has been developed in three phases and each phase has a different
name. These are 1) Classical Liberal theory 2) Elitist Theory 3) Pluralist theory.

11.6.1 Classical Liberal Theory of Democracy

The main idea of this theory is that the protection of individual rights and liberty is the
primary concern of the state. The individual has the right to resist the state and also
revolt against the state if it fails. The advocates of this theory are John Locke,
Rousseau, JS Mill, Montesquieu, Bentham etc. Contractualism like Locke and
Rousseau thinks that government is based on contract and consent co it has limited
power. Montesquieu advocated the principle of separation of power which supports
decentralization of power. The utilitarians like Mill and Bentham emphasise the
participation of people in the political process. They think that the “greatest good of
the greatest number” should be the priority of the government.

Key Features

1) Man is at the centre of democracy.

2) Democracy aims at protecting individual right and liberty.

3) The government is constitutional, limited and accountable.

106
 BPS-1/OSOU

4) It is based upon the consent of the people

11.6.2 Elite Theory of Democracy.

This theory discovers political inequality and unequal distribution of political power.
This theory is a contradiction to the liberal theory which is based on rule of law and
majority rule. This theory says that a superior minority rules over the majority. The
exponents of this theory are Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels and C
writ Mills. All of them accepted unequal enjoyment of political power in society.
Pareto highlights on the intellectual and psychological basis of elite rule. He divided
the elite into Governing elite and the Non-governing elite. He laid down the idea of
the circulation of the elite.

11.6.3 The pluralist Theory of Democracy

In contrast to the elitist view of democracy, the Pluralist view holds that power is
divided and distributed among various sections, and organizations of articulate
interests.

Elements of Pluralism

a. Powers are divided and distributed.

b. The presence of principles and practices like separation of power and checks
and balances reduces the risk of hijack or abuse of power and the emergence
of dictatorship.

c. Sovereignty is not at the exclusive possession of the state nor any other
organization or association.

11.6.4 Marxist Theory of Democracy

Marxists view democracy from a different angle. They criticize the classical view of
democracy as bourgeois democracy and consider it as ‘fake and sham’. They never
reject democracy. For them, democracy is a social system based on certain values
instead of a political system or process. They claim to be more democratic` than the
liberals. Marxists also agree that democracy is based on majority rule. In a society, the
proletariat / the poor constitute to be the majority. In a non-Marxian society, power is
captured by the bourgeois/ capitalist. Marxian democracy focuses on political equality
as well as economic and social equality. They claim their democracy to be real and the
bourgeois democracy is fake.

Elements of Marxian Democracy-

a. Democracy is a continuous growing process.

107
 BPS-1/OSOU

As a political system democracy serves particular interest and to be specific

11.7 CITIZENSHIP

A state is a human organization and population is the chief element of a state. A person
who resides in a state enjoys rights guaranteed by the state and ows allegiance towards
the state is called a citizen. Citizenship implies both rights and obligations. The
concept of citizenship emerged in the writing of the ancient Greek philosophers. A
distinction was outlined between a citizen and a resident. In Greece citizenship was
used in a narrow scene. Citizenship was applied to property owners and taxpayers.
Women and slaves were not considered citizens.

The word Citizen has got its origin in the Latin word City. In earlier days state was
anonymous with the term city. A person who was living in a city was called a citizen.
However, citizenship was not limited to the status of a resident. Citizenship legalizes
the relationship between the individual and the state and it entails certain sanctioned
rights and prescribed duties. In recent times citizenship is used as a synonym for
nationalism. The concept of national citizenship virtually disappeared in Europe
during the Middle Ages, replaced as it was by a system of feudal rights and obligations.
In medieval times, citizenship was associated with protection by the state as the
absolute states wanted to impose their authority over their diverse population. It was
in tradition with the social contract theorists like Hobbes and Locke who believed that
it is the main aim of the sovereign to protect individual life and property. It was a
passive understanding of citizenship as the individual depended on the state for
security. This notion was challenged by the French Revolution in 1789 and ‘The
Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, the citizen was described as a free and
autonomous individual. The modern notion of citizenship seeks to strike a balance
between freedom and equality. Inequalities like caste, class, gender etc are being
eliminated by providing conditions of equality through affirmative action The concept
of citizenship is composed of three main elements or dimensions (Cohen These

1) legal status, defined by civil, political and social rights.

2) citizens are considered political agents, actively participating in a society’s political

institutions

3) citizenship as membership in a political community.

Citizenship refers to a person’s legal status as a legal member of a sovereign state or

as a member of a nation. Citizenship refers to a person’s full membership in any state
in which he or she possesses civil and political rights. Citizenship is a bond between
an individual and a country to which the individual owes allegiance and is entitled to
protection in return. Marxists argue that citizenship is a myth as there is no equality in
a capitalist society.

108
 BPS-1/OSOU

T H Marshall has defined Citizenship is a “status bestowed on those who are full
members of a community. All who possess the status are equal concerning the rights
and duties with which the status is endowed.”A person can be recognized or granted
citizenship on a number of bases. Usually, citizenship based on circumstances of birth
is automatic, but an application may be required.

11.8 HOW TO ACQUIRE CITIZENSHIP

Citizenship can be squared and lost based on certain grounds. In some cases,
citizenship is granted automatically at the time of birth. Sometimes a person
deliberately gives up citizenship of one country and acquires citizenship of another
country. The first one is called natural citizenship and the other is Naturalised. Natural
citizenship is acquired automatically at the time of birth. Three principles 1) jus
sanguinis 2) jus soli 3) jus matrimony are followed. As per the Jus sanguinis principle,
citizenship is determined by a person’s paternal citizenship. For example, children of
an Indian have the right to Indian citizenship. This is called citizenship by blood
relation. By the principle of jus soli citizenship, rights are determined according to a
place of birth. A child born in the USA has the right to be a citizen of the USA. Some
countries also accept marriage as a principle to acquire natural citizenship. Many
countries like Canada, and the United Kingdom allow citizenship on this principle.
The principle of naturalization permits a person to acquire citizenship on various
grounds laid down by the state concerned. Some states follow single citizenship and
some follow double citizenship. Single citizenship means one can be a citizen of only
one country at a time. Double citizenship allows a person to be a citizen of two
countries at a time.

11.9 CITIZENSHIP AND DEMOCRACY

Population constitutes an essential element of a state. When the population enjoys

rights, performs duty shows obligation toward the state is transformed into citizen and
constitute civil society. In a democracy, the civil society is not only ruled it also
regulates the government. In a democracy, the citizen constitutes to be an essential and
significant element. Citizen constitutes an important component of social, and political
community. The quality of democracy and the successful working of democracy
depend mainly on the active participation of citizens. A quality citizen is the source of
an accountable government.

The relationship between citizens and democracy is bilateral. Both are dependent on
and complimentary to each other. A quality civil society results in a quality democracy
and vice versa. Democracy requires active citizens' involved in the policy-making
process. It is the citizen who is the friend, philosopher, guide and master of democracy.

The relationship between the citizen and democracy is manifold, continuous, and
harmonious. It is like the relationship between soil and a plant. Soil texture is

109
 BPS-1/OSOU

responsible for plant growth. The plant is equally helpful for soil conservation and
fertility. Without soil, there is no plant and without plants, the soil is degraded. This
can be analysed from various points as follows.

a. The state is the protector of individual life and liberty. All the theorists
regarding the origin of the state beginning from Aristotle to contractualism
agree that the state is created to provide security to the life and property of the
individual. It is the responsibility of the state to create an environment where
the individual will develop maximum. An individual has natural rights like the
right to life and liberty. Every state must ensure the protection of life and
freedom for citizens. In the pre-state period, the individual had unrestrained
liberty. The state ensures restricted liberty within the framework of law so that
others' liberty can be protected.

b. State Promotes Human Rights- Every individual has the right to leave life
without fear and discrimination. This is the basis of Human rights. State not
only endeavours right to life and liberty but also creates an environment which
will enable citizens to lead a complete life. Elimination of discrimination of
any form, protection from social evils, and satisfaction of minimum needs is
the prime duty of the state. So the state has identified some rights and provided
them with legal protection. Citizens belonging to all age groups, sex, race,
colour, and castes are given these rights.

c. Respect for Public opinion. Democracy respects popular sovereignty. Public

opinion is the central theme of democracy. Democracy is chiefly based on
public opinion. In the Formation of government, the functioning of government
and even in the transfer of power public opinion plays a vital role. The wish of
the people should be reflected in government action. The state should be
careful in expressing a public opinion without any restraint.

d. The democratic obligation of the State toward the citizens. As per

contractualism, the individual has surrendered its sovereignty to the state it has
become an obligation of the state to take care of the citizen in the time of need.
With the advancement of time, various revolutions and events have conferred
more and more obligations over the state. The Chairperson of the National
Human Rights Commission, Dr Justice A.S. Anand has emphasized that “the
State must ensure everyone has the right to adequate food, education and
enjoyment of highest attainable standards of physical and mental health.”

These obligations are as follows:

 The greatest good of the greatest number.

 Maintenance of law and order.

 Protection from foreign aggression.

110
 BPS-1/OSOU

 Promotion of democracy and political justice

 Social welfare measures

 Economic growth

 Maintenance of harmonious relationships among different sections.

 Reduction of inequality in any form.

 Encourage political participation

11.10 CITIZEN OBLIGATION TO STATE

The role of citizens in any political system is vital. It is the citizen which is a member
of the political, social, economic and cultural system and sub-system. Like the quality
of any product depends on its materials so the quality of democracy entirely depends
on the quality of citizens and civil society.

Active Political Participation- Political scientists like J S Mill and Aristotle believed
that an individual can attain full human potential only by being an active participant in
the political community. Jean Jacques Rousseau argued that individuals are more
likely to accept a law which has been formulated by their participation and it also
encourages community feeling among them. Political scientists from Aristotle to John
Dewey have argued that political participation is vital for a government and guards
against tyranny by ensuring governance through collective wisdom.

Participation in democracy normally is understood as participation in the election

process as an electorate. But participation is not limited to that. Democracy is
government by the people. So how the participants would not be limited to the election
only. It includes a broad range of activities through which people develop and express
their opinions and try to take part in and shape the decisions that affect their lives.
According to North American Review, lack of participation can lead to "political ills"
such as corruption and dishonesty among politicians as they are not held accountable.
Countries with mandatory voting have seen fewer occurrences of political and voter
apathy. The purposes of public participation are to promote transparency, encourage
openness in government, and build ownership of development decisions as well as
programmes and projects. Public participation encourages citizens to be more engaged
in the decision-making processes that have an impact on their local community.

Other Civic Responsibilities. A citizen in any political system is obliged to the state
and has to take over many responsibilities as a responsible member. These are duties
and civic responsibilities the citizen is obliged to undertake. These includes:

111
 BPS-1/OSOU

 Loyalty to the State

 Respect for the constitution and laws of the state

 Political resistance

 Pay taxes

 Participating in the political process

 Protection of public property

 Defence of the state and crime prevention

 Knowing one’s rights and duties

11.11 SUMMARY

Democracy, citizenship and their interrelation have gone through many changes and
transformations since the days of the Greek and Roman civilizations. Greek
civilization adopted a policy of exclusion and nowadays emphasis is given to
inclusion. Democracy no more remained a political process only. Recently it has been
transformed into a way of life. Citizen is the chief element of democracy. Active
participation of citizens can make democracy successful in all respects. Both citizen
and the state has an obligation toward each other. Citizenship has gained importance
in recent days. Several political developments of our times have contributed to this
heightened interest in citizenship. Many social movements of modern times have
striven not merely for the inclusion of excluded social groups into the body of citizens,
but also for extending and expanding the zone of equal rights. Despite such strivings,
the notion of citizenship remains deeply ambivalent.

11.12 EXERCISE

1. What do you mean by the concept of democracy. Explain its origin.

2. What is the liberal approach to democracy?

3. What was the Greek concept of democracy and citizenship?

4. What are the obligations of an individual to the state?

11.13 REFERENCE

Tangian, Andranik (2020). Analytical Theory of Democracy: History, Mathematics

and Applications. Studies in Choice and Welfare. Cham, Switzerland:

112
 BPS-1/OSOU

Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39691-6. ISBN 978-3-030-39690-

9. S2CID 216190330.

"Definition of DEMOCRACY". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 5 July 2018.

Locke, John. Two Treatises on Government: a Translation into Modern English.

Oxford English Dictionary: "democracy".

Jump up to: a b
Watkins, Frederick (1970). "Democracy". Encyclopædia Britannica.
Vol. 7 (Expo '70 hardcover ed.). William Benton. pp. 215–23. ISBN 978-0-85229-
135-1.

Wilson, N.G. (2006). Encyclopedia of ancient Greece. New York: Routledge. p.

511. ISBN 0-415-97334-1.

Barker, Ernest (1906). The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle. Chapter VII,
Section 2: G.P. Putnam's Sons.

Anderson, Christopher J.; Bol, Damien; Ananda, Aurelia (2021). "Humanity's

Attitudes about Democracy and Political Leaders".

Article IV of the Philippine Constitution.

"8 U.S. Code Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization". LII / Legal
Information Institute.

"Federal Act on Swiss Citizenship (part 7.1)". admin.ch. Archived from the original on
2021-12-27. Retrieved 2021-02-15.

"Bishops act to tackle sham marriages". GOV.UK.

"Citizenship for sale: how tycoons can go shopping for a new passport". The Guardian.
2 June 2018. Retrieved 24 August 2018.

Democracy at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Democracy

Index 2008.pdf The Economist Intelligence Unit's index of democracy[dead link]

Alexis de of data sources on political regimes on Our World in Data, by Max Roser.

"Democracy", BBC Radio 4 discussion on the origins of Democracy (In Our Time, 18
October 2001)

Democracy Countries 2022 interactive map of countries at World Population Review

113
 BPS-1/OSOU

UNIT-12 PROCEDURAL DEMOCRACY AND ITS CRITIQUES

Structures

12.1 Objectives

12.2 Introduction

12.3 Procedural Democracy

12.4 Aims and Objectives of Procedural Democracy

12.5 Substantive Democracy: A critique of Procedural Democracy

12.6 Summary

12.7 Exercises

12.8 References

12.1 OBJECTIVES

This Unit would enable you to understand

 The form of Indian Government

 The types of democracy :Procedural & Substantive democracy

 Meaning and nature of Procedural & Substantive democracy.

 The critique of procedural democracy

12.2 INTRODUCTION

The terms procedural democracy, proceduralist democracy, or proceduralism are used

to refer to certain processes, such as prescheduled elections with universal suffrage,
which ultimately result in a legally recognised government. Contrasted with
substantive or participatory democracy, which stresses the equal participation of all
groups in society in the political process as the basis of legitimacy, procedural
democracy centres on electoral processes as the foundation of democratic legitimacy.
In essence, power is held by a small group of elites who exploit democratic processes
to give themselves the impression of democratic legitimacy. The word is frequently
used to describe the artificial appearance of democracy created by the existence of
democratic procedures like elections. The electoral process is seen as the foundation
of the power vested in elected officials under procedural democracy, which also

114
 BPS-1/OSOU

ensures that all election-related procedures are faithfully followed (or at least appear
so). It may be compared to a republic when only the fundamental institutions and
structures are in place (i.e., people vote for representatives). Commonly, the previously
elected officials exploit election processes to keep themselves in office despite the
wishes of the majority of the populace (to varied degrees), preventing the development
of a true democracy.

12.3 PROCEDURAL DEMOCRACY

The percent of formal democratization observers think India is a successful

democracy. Participation and competition are the evaluation criteria. The regularity of
elections in India and the fierce competition amongst political parties to run in
elections serve as indicators of all this. Indicators of participation include the
percentage of voters who turn out and the percentage of votes that each party receives.
The supporters of this strategy are optimistic about India's electoral system, which they
view as an example of democratic achievement in general. Survey techniques are used
to gauge democracy by those who view electoral success in terms of competitiveness
and participation. They extrapolate the election's key patterns based on voter turnout,
vote share, or statistical techniques like correlation, coefficient, or regression analysis.
They observe the complex relationships between the socioeconomic facts in certain
constituencies and the turnout rate and participation.

It was aimed at procedural democracy to help India become a more united country.
Studies on democracy in India during the early years after independence were
primarily concerned with determining how the implementation of the universal adult
franchise and regular elections contributed to the development of the country. It was
known as the modernization theory, and it proposed that developing nations went
through a process of modernization with a stable democracy as its end goal. This
process of modernization would be accompanied by the socio-economic
modernization of urbanisation and the spread of mass media, education, wealth, and
equality. It was believed that the development in India would strengthen democracy
and the divisions based on caste, religions, etc., would disappear. However, these
hopes were belied in the following period. Selig Harrison apprehended a dangerous
decade in India in the 1960s in the face of recurrent linguistic and ethnic violence. The
violence which started in the 1950s itself, was further escalated in the 1960s and 1970s;
the defeat of the Congress in several states in the 1967 assembly elections and the
imposition of emergency in the country during 1975-1 977 were examples of people's
discontentment of emergency. Unable to meet the challenge democratically, the
political executive responded to these by authoritarianism, personalisation of the
institutions and imposition. Scholars responded to emergency as an aberration.

115
 BPS-1/OSOU

12.4 AIMS AND OBJECTIVE OF PROCEDURAL DEMOCRACY

It was aimed at procedural democracy to help India become a more united country.
Studies on democracy in India during the early years after independence were
primarily concerned with determining how the implementation of the universal adult
franchise and regular elections contributed to the development of the country. It was
known as the modernization theory, and it proposed that developing nations went
through a process of modernization with a stable democracy as its end goal. This
process of modernization would be accompanied by the socio-economic
modernization of urbanisation and the spread of mass media, education, wealth, and
equality Procedural democracy is quite different from substantive democracy, which
is manifested by equal participation of all groups in society in the political process.
Certain southern African countries such as Namibia, Angola, and Mozambique, where
procedural elections are conducted through international assistance, are possible
examples of procedural democracies.

For procedural democrats, the aim of democracy is to embody certain procedural

virtue. Procedural democrats are divided among themselves over what those virtues
might be, as well as over which procedures best embody them. But all procedural
democrats agree on the one central point: for procedural democrats, there is no
"independent truth of the matter" which outcomes ought track; instead, the goodness
or rightness of an outcome is wholly constituted by the fact of its having emerged in
some procedurally correct manner.

12.5 SUBSTANTIVE DEMOCRACY: A CRITIQUE OF PROCEDURAL

DEMOCRACY

The critique of procedural democracy is provided by the scholars who study the
substantive democracy. In their opinion, it views democracy in a limited way. Electoral
democracy is minimal democracy Free and fair elections, universal adult franchise,
political parties, pressure groups and avail1ability of constitution etc. are not sufficient
conditions for democracy, though they are necessary. Democracy has to be located in
the society and taken out of the institutional mode. This alternative view of democracy
can be termed as the substantive democracy. Bentham argued for a "social agenda of
democratisation". Democracy has to be grounded in the reality of society, apart from
the participation and competition in.tl1e elections. Fareed Zakaria, however, criticises
the substantive democracy in that it views democracy in the normative terminology as
"good governance", with a wide range of rights; it does not consider the descriptive
democracy. In the past two decades, in India, substantive democracy has also found a
significant place in the discourse on democracy. The assessment of substantive
democracy is sought to be made in relation to the role of the state (with democracy) on
the issues concerning the nation-state - secularism, welfarist and development in India;

116
 BPS-1/OSOU

and also the role of the state regarding these issues in the context of globalisation.
Niraja Jayal argues that there are two types of arguments regarding the relationship
between the state and democracy: one, there can be no democracy without an effective
state which can exist when there is a strong civil society to counter the authoritarianism
of the state. Jayal argues that both state and society are complimentary to each other
in relation to the setting up of democracy. But in the absence of the universal criteria
of citizenship, the pasticularistic interests can hijack the project of democracy In her
opinion Indian state is an interventionist state whose thrust has been developmental
rather than welfare state.

Civil Society is also an essential ingredient of substantive democracy. In India there

are two viewpoints on the civil society. One, it considers all associations and collective
actions as civil society, irrespective of the issues they take up; two, only those
associations which take up two issues of universal significance, not sectarian, and
whose foundation is secular/universal are considered civil society. Recently a new
debate has got momentum in our country: the debate between the communitarians and
the liberal, the relationship between the individuals add the communities; within and
between them. The rise of identity politics Dalits, OBCs, women, tribal‟s, ethnicity,
environmental issues, etc, - the new social movements - and the inability of the
discourse which privileges democracy , with the elections have necessitated the focus
on substantive democracy. This has been viewed both as a challenge to the nation-state
and as an increase in the democratic content of the country with the understanding that
India is becoming more democratic, a position which Ashutosh Valley opted for. The
most ardent critique of the nation-state perspective is provided in the writings of tile
scholars representing the peripheries of the country like North-East India. This
perspective proposes the alternative in the form of the "province - state". Sanjib
Baruah's book Indian against Itself 'is a representative of this perspective. This all has
happened with the simultaneous rise of the large number of issues governance, civil
society, social capital, Hunan rights, etc. The existence of all these factors is taken as
an indicator of the existence of democracy in the country. Even here there are opposite
views which suggest both the absence and presence of these factors.

With the introduction of the 73rd and the 74th Constitutional Amendments, the
decentralization has been democratised and the scope of democracy has expanded to
include the women, OBCs and Dalits at the grass root level. Prior to this the dominant
social groups exclusively dominated the institution of the local self-governance. This
defeated the very purpose of democracy. The transfer of 29 subjects to the local bodies
has added to the democratic decentralisation, however, democratic decentralisation
gets impeded in the light of the fact that in several cases women members of the PRIs
(Panchayati Raj Institutions) are proxies of the male members of their families. The
increasing role of crime, money, etc., has further eroded tile creditability of local-level
democracy. Nevertheless, wherever the public action has coexisted with institution of
local self-government, the institutions of local self-government have functioned
democratically. Usually, the assessment of democracy in India has been done at the

117
 BPS-1/OSOU

national, state or district level and the functioning of the democracy at these levels has
been independent of each other. There has been the "top-bottom", not the "bottom-up"
approach to democracy in India. Atul Kohli, however, has covered three levels - nation,
state and district in his book, Democracy and Discontent: India’s Crisis of
Governability.

Scholars like O'Donnell have underlined the need to see the differences within
democracy (citizenship). Following this tradition, Patrick Heller has "disaggregated"
democracy in order to view the "its degrees" in India. Comparing Kerala with rest of
the country, he opines that there is more democracy in Kerala than the rest of the
country. It is possible due to the existence of the "robust civil society" and an "effective
state" there unlike in rest of the country; here the effective/substantive democracy is
indicated by the progress in the areas of education, health and distributive justice, their
extension to the subaltern groups.

Atul Kohli argues that the Indian democracy is facing a crisis of governability. It is
indicated by tile growing disjuncture between weakening institutions and multiplying
demands. Erosion in the credibility of political parties, leaders, and the indiscipline
political mobilisation of various social groups, and class conflicts within the society
has caused the crisis of governability in India. The state elite 11as played a crucial role
in the politics of political disorder crisis of favorability.

The survival of Indian democracy has baffled some observers, for whom it is a "puzzle"
or "exception" of the third world political systems; it has survived diversities on the
basis of caste, religion, language, etc., which often result in violence. Arend Liljphart
explains this 'puzzle' by providing a consociational interpretation. The theory of
consociationalism based on the premise that in a multi-ethnic society, power is shared
among different groups of the society. The consociationalism is a society is contingent
upon four conditions: (1) government of coalition in which all ethnic groups are
represented (2) cultural autonomy of groups of consociation (3) their proportional
representation in politics and civil services and (4) minority veto on the issues
concerning the minority rights and autonomy. Lijphart argues that the success of the
Congress system, coalition government‟s federalism, principles of protective
discrimination, and constitutional provisions of the religious and cultural rights of
minorities, and minority veto through political pressure are indication of the success
of Indian democracy, in a consociational way. Indian democracy has survived on the
principles of "power-sharing system" - as it prevails in Austria, Netherlands,
Switzerland, Lebanon and some other countries. In this system all major groups shared
power in a consociational way. This system prevailed during the first two decades
following Independence. Lijphart, however, concedes that during the past few years
with the decline of the Congress system, and attack on the minorities and the rise of
the BJP, the trends have been in contravention to the consociational theory. Paul R
Brass criticises the consociational model as not applicable to India at all. This is so
both in the context of modem history and contemporary politics. Though different

118
 BPS-1/OSOU

groups might come together to form a consociation or alliances, their internal

squabbling always poses a threat to consociation.

12.6 SUMMARY

Procedural democrats, the aim of democracy is to embody certain procedural virtue.

Procedural democrats are divided among themselves over what those virtues might be,
as well as over which procedures best embody them. But all procedural democrats
agree on the one central point: for procedural democrats, there is no "independent truth
of the matter" which outcomes ought track; instead, the goodness or rightness of an
outcome is wholly constituted by the fact of its having emerged in some procedurally
correct manner.

Substantive democracy is a form of democracy in which the outcome of elections is

representative of the people. In other words, substantive democracy is a form of
democracy that functions in the interest of the governed. Although a country may allow
all citizens of age to vote, this characteristic does not necessarily qualify it as a
substantive democracy.

12.7 EXERCISES

1. What is democracy?

2. Explain procedural democracy.

3. What are the aims and objective of procedural democracy?

4. What is substantive democracy?

5. Explain the difference between procedural democracy and substantive

democracy.

12.8 REFERENCES

1. Barber, B., Strong Democracy, University of California Press, Berkeley CA, 1984.

2. Barker, E. , Reflections on Government, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1942.

3. Barry, B., Democracy, Power and Justice, The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989

4. Bentham, D., (ed.) Defining and Measuring Democracy, Sage, London, 1994.

5. Bell, D., „On the Fate of Communism‟, Dissent, Spring, pp. 186-88, 1990

6. Benn, T. Arguments for Democracy, Cape, London, 1981.

119
 BPS-1/OSOU

7. Birch, A.H., Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy, Routledge, London,

2001

Block-4
THE GRAMMAR OF DEMOCRACY

Unit-13 Deliberative Democracy

Unit-14 The Grammar of Democracy: Political
Participation
Unit-15 The Grammar of Democracy:
Representation
Unit-16 Pluralist Theory of Democracy

120
 BPS-1/OSOU

UNIT-13 DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY

Structure

13.1 Objective

13.2 Introduction

13.3 Overview

13.4 Characteristics

13.5 Joshua Cohen's Outline of Deliberative Democracy

13.6 Gutmann and Thompson's Model

13.7 Strengths and Weaknesses of Deliberative Democracy

13.8 History

13.9 Association with Political Movements

13.10 Summary

13.11 Exercises

13.12 References

13.1 OBJECTIVES

After going through this unit, you should be able to:

• Explain what is deliberative democracy;

• Explain the characteristics of deliberative democracy ;

• Describe and explain the different models of deliberative democracy; and

explain different political movement in deliberative democracy.

121
 BPS-1/OSOU

13.2 INTRODUCTION

Deliberative democracy or discursive democracy is a form of democracy in which

deliberation is central to decision-making. It adopts elements of both consensus
decision-making and majority rule. Deliberative democracy differs from traditional
democratic theory in that authentic deliberation, not mere voting, is the primary source
of legitimacy for the law. While deliberative democracy is generally seen as some form
of an amalgam of representative democracy and direct democracy, the actual
relationship is usually open to dispute. Some practitioners and theorists use the term
to encompass representative bodies whose members authentically and practically
deliberate on legislation without unequal distributions of power, while others use the
term exclusively to refer to decision-making directly by lay citizens, as in direct
democracy.

The term "deliberative democracy" was originally coined by Joseph M. Bessette in his
1980 work Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican
Government.

13.3 OVERVIEW OF DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY

Deliberative democracy holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must

be preceded by authentic deliberation, not merely the aggregation of preferences that
occurs in voting. Authentic deliberation is deliberation among decision-makers that is
free from distortions of unequal political power, such as power a decision-maker
obtained through economic wealth or the support of interest groups. If the
decisionmakers cannot reach consensus after authentically deliberating on a proposal,
then they vote on the proposal using a form of majority rule. The roots of deliberative
democracy can be traced back to Aristotle and his notion of politics; however, the
German philosopher Jürgen Habermas' work on communicative rationality and the
public sphere is often identified as a major work in this area.

Deliberative democracy can be practiced by decision-makers in both representative

democracies and direct democracies. In elitist deliberative democracy, principles of
deliberative democracy apply to elite societal decision-making bodies, such as
legislatures and courts; in populist deliberative democracy, principles of deliberative
democracy apply to groups of lay citizens who are empowered to make decisions. One
purpose of populist deliberative democracy can be to use deliberation among a group
of lay citizens to distill a more authentic public opinion about societal issues but not
directly create binding law; devices such as the deliberative opinion poll have been
designed to achieve this goal. Another purpose of populist deliberative democracy can
be to serve as a form of direct democracy, where deliberation among a group of lay

122
 BPS-1/OSOU

citizens forms a "public will" and directly creates binding law. If political decisions
are made by deliberation but not by the people themselves or their elected
representatives, then there is no democratic element; this deliberative process is called
elite deliberation. According to Fishkin, this process attempts to indirectly filter the
mass public opinion because representatives are better equipped with the knowledge
of the common good than ordinary citizens.

13.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY

Fishkin's model of deliberation

James Fishkin, who has designed practical implementations of deliberative democracy

for over 15 years in various countries, describes five characteristics essential for
legitimate deliberation:

Information: The extent to which participants are given access to reasonably accurate
information that they believe to be relevant to the issue

Substantive balance: The extent to which arguments offered by one side or from one
perspective are answered by considerations offered by those who hold other
perspectives

Diversity: The extent to which the major position in the public are represented by
participants in the discussion

Conscientiousness: The extent to which participants sincerely weigh the merits of the
arguments

Equal consideration: The extent to which arguments offered by all participants are
considered on the merits regardless of which participants offer them

In Fishkin's definition of deliberative democracy, lay citizens must participate in the

decision-making process, thus making it a subtype of direct democracy.

James Fishkin and Robert Luskin suggest that deliberative discussion should be:

Informed (and thus informative). Arguments should be supported by appropriate

and reasonably accurate factual claims.

Balanced: Arguments should be met by contrary arguments.

Conscientious: The participants should be willing to talk and listen, with civility and
respect.

Substantive: Arguments should be considered sincerely on their merits, not on how

they are made or by who is making them.

123
 BPS-1/OSOU

Comprehensive: All points of view held by significant portions of the population

should receive attention.

13.5 JOSHUA COHEN'S OUTLINE OF DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY

Joshua Cohen, a student of John Rawls, outlined conditions that he thinks constitute
the root principles of the theory of deliberative democracy, in the article "Deliberation
and Democratic Legitimacy" in the 1989 book The Good Polity. He outlines five main
features of deliberative democracy, which include:

• An ongoing independent association with expected continuation.

• The citizens in the democracy structure their institutions such that deliberation
is the deciding factor in the creation of the institutions and the institutions allow
deliberation to continue.

• A commitment to the respect of a pluralism of values and aims within the

polity.

• The citizens consider deliberative procedure as the source of legitimacy, and

prefer the causal history of legitimation for each law to be transparent and
easily traceable to the deliberative process.

• Each member recognizes and respects other members' deliberative capacity.

This can be construed as the idea that in the legislative process, we "owe" one another
reasons for our proposals. Cohen presents deliberative democracy as more than a
theory of legitimacy, and forms a body of substantive rights around it based on
achieving "ideal deliberation": It is free in two ways: The participants consider
themselves bound solely by the results and preconditions of the deliberation. They are
free from any authority of prior norms or requirements. The participants suppose that
they can act on the decision made; the deliberative process is a sufficient reason to
comply with the decision reached. Parties to deliberation are required to state reasons
for their proposals, and proposals are accepted or rejected based on the reasons given,
as the content of the very deliberation taking place. Participants are equal in two ways:
Formal: anyone can put forth proposals, criticize, and support measures. There is no
substantive hierarchy. Substantive: The participants are not limited or bound by certain
distributions of power, resources, or pre-existing norms. "The participants…do not
regard themselves as bound by the existing system of rights, except insofar as that
system establishes the framework of free deliberation among equals." Deliberation
aims at a rationally motivated consensus: it aims to find reasons acceptable to all who
are committed to such a system of decision-making. When consensus or something

124
 BPS-1/OSOU

near enough is not possible, majoritarian decision making is used. In Democracy and
Liberty, an essay published in 1998, Cohen reiterated many of these points, also
emphasizing the concept of "reasonable pluralism" – the acceptance of different,
incompatible worldviews and the importance of good faith deliberative efforts to
ensure that as far as possible the holders of these views can live together on terms
acceptable to all.

13.6 GUTMANN AND THOMPSON'S MODEL

Amy Gutmann and Dennis F. Thompson's definition captures the elements that are
found in most conceptions of deliberative democracy. They define it as "a form of
government in which free and equal citizens and their representatives justify decisions
in a process in which they give one another reasons that are mutually acceptable and
generally accessible, with the aim of reaching decisions that are binding on all at
present but open to challenge in the future".

They state that deliberative democracy has four requirements, which refer to the kind
of reasons that citizens and their representatives are expected to give to one another:

• Reciprocal. The reasons should be acceptable to free and equal persons seeking
fair terms of cooperation.

• Accessible. The reasons must be given in public and the content must be
understandable to the relevant audience.

• Binding. The reason-giving process leads to a decision or law that is enforced

for some period of time. The participants do not deliberate just for the sake of
deliberation or for individual enlightenment.

• Dynamic or Provisional. The participants must keep open the possibility of

changing their minds, and continuing a reason-giving dialogue that can
challenge previous decisions and laws.

13.7 STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY

A claimed strength of deliberative democratic models is that they are more easily able
to incorporate scientific opinion and base policy on outputs of ongoing research,
because: Time is given for all participants to understand and discuss the science
Scientific peer review, adversarial presentation of competing arguments, refereed
journals, even betting markets, is also deliberative processes. The technology used to
record dissent and document opinions opposed to the majority is also useful to notarize
bets, predictions and claims. According to proponents such as James Fearon, strength
of deliberative democratic models is that they tend, more than any other model, to
generate ideal conditions of impartiality, rationality and knowledge of the relevant
facts. The more these conditions are fulfilled, the greater the likelihood that the
decisions reached are morally correct. Deliberative democracy takes on the role of an
"epistemic democracy" in this way, as it thus has an epistemic value: it allows

125
 BPS-1/OSOU

participants to deduce what is morally correct. This view has been prominently held
by Carlos Nino. Studies by James Fishkin and others have found that deliberative
democracy tends to produce outcomes which are superior to those in other forms of
democracy. Deliberative democracy produces less partisanship and more sympathy
with opposing views; more respect for evidence-based reasoning rather than opinion;
a greater commitment to the decisions taken by those involved; and a greater chance
for widely shared consensus to emerge, thus promoting social cohesion between
people from different backgrounds. Fishkin cites extensive empirical support for the
increase in public spiritedness that is often caused by participation in deliberation, and
says theoretical support can be traced back to foundational democratic thinkers such
as John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville. Former diplomat Carne Ross writes
that in 2011 that the debates arising from deliberative democracy are also much more
civil, collaborative, and evidence-based than the debates in traditional town hall
meetings or in internet forums. For Ross, the key reason for this is that in deliberative
democracy citizens are empowered by knowledge that their debates will have a
measurable impact on society. Efforts to promote public participation have been
widely critiqued. There is particular concern regarding the potential capture of the
public into the sphere of influence of governance stakeholders, leaving communities
frustrated by public participation initiatives, marginalized and ignored.

A claimed failure of most theories of deliberative democracy is that they do not address
the problems of voting. James Fishkin's 1991 work, "Democracy and Deliberation",
introduced a way to apply the theory of deliberative democracy to real world decision
making, by way of what he calls the deliberative opinion poll. In the deliberative
opinion poll, a statistically representative sample of the nation or a community is
gathered to discuss an issue in conditions that further deliberation. The group is then
polled, and the results of the poll and the actual deliberation can be used both as a
recommending force and in certain circumstances, to replace a vote. Dozens of
deliberative opinion polls have been conducted across the United States since his book
was published. The political philosopher Charles Blattberg has criticized deliberative
democracy on four grounds: (i) the rules for deliberation that deliberative theorists
affirm interfere with, rather than facilitate, good practical reasoning; (ii) deliberative
democracy is ideologically biased in favor of liberalism as well as republican over
parliamentary democratic systems; (iii) deliberative democrats assert a too-sharp
division between just and rational deliberation on the one hand and self-interested and
coercive bargaining or negotiation on the other; and (iv) deliberative democrats
encourage an adversarial relationship between state and society, one that undermines
solidarity between citizens.

A criticism of deliberation is that potentially it allows those most skilled in rhetoric to

sway the decision in their favour. This criticism has been made since deliberative
democracy first arose in Ancient Athens.

126
 BPS-1/OSOU

13.8 HISTORY
Consensus-based decision making similar to deliberative democracy is characteristic
of the hunter-gather band societies thought to predominate in pre-historical times. As
some of these societies became more complex with developments like division of
labour, community-based decision making was displaced by various forms of
authoritarian rule. The first example of democracy arose in Greece as Athenian
democracy during the sixth century BC. Athenian democracy was both deliberative
and largely direct: some decisions were made by representatives but most were made
by ″the people″ directly. Athenian democracy came to an end in 322BC. When
democracy was revived as a political system about 2000 years later, decisions were
made by representatives rather than directly by the people. In a sense, this revived
version was deliberative from its beginnings; for example, in 1774 Edmund Burke
made a famous speech where he called Great Britain's parliament a deliberative
assembly. Similarly, the Founding Fathers of the United States considered deliberation
an essential part of the government they created in the late 18th century.

The deliberative element of democracy was not widely studied by academics until the
late 20th century. Although some of the seminal work was done in the 1970s and 80s,
it was only in 1990 that deliberative democracy began to attract substantial attention
from political scientists. According to Professor John Dryzek, early work on
Deliberative Democracy was part of efforts to develop a theory of Democratic
legitimacy. Theorists such as Carne Ross advocate deliberative democracy as a
complete alternative to representative democracy. The more common view, held by
contributors such as James Fishkin, is that direct deliberative democracy can be
complementary to traditional representative democracy. Since 1994, hundreds of
implementations of direct deliberative democracy have taken place throughout the
world. For example, lay citizens have used deliberative democracy to determine local
budget allocations in various cities and to undertake major public projects, such as the
rebuilding of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

13.9 ASSOCIATION WITH POLITICAL MOVEMENTS

Deliberative democracy recognizes a conflict of interest between the citizen
participating, those affected or victimized by the process being undertaken, and the
group-entity that organizes the decision. Thus it usually involves an extensive outreach
effort to include marginalized, isolated, ignored groups in decisions, and to extensively
document dissent, grounds for dissent, and future predictions of consequences of
actions. It focuses as much on the process as the results. In this form it is a complete
theory of civics.

127
 BPS-1/OSOU

On the other hand, many practitioners of deliberative democracy attempt to be as

neutral and open-ended as possible, inviting (or even randomly selecting) people who
represent a wide range of views and providing them with balanced materials to guide
their discussions. Examples include National Issues Forums, Choices for the 21st
Century, study circles, deliberative opinion polls, the Citizens' Initiative Review, and
the 21st-century town meetings convened by America Speaks, among others. In these
cases, deliberative democracy is not connected to left-wing politics but is intended to
create a conversation among people of different philosophies and beliefs.

In Canada, there have been two prominent applications of deliberative democratic

models. In 2004, the British Columbia Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform
convened a policy jury to consider alternatives to the first-past-the-post electoral
systems. In 2007, the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform convened to
consider alternative electoral systems in that province. Similarly, three of Ontario's
Local Health Integration Networks (LHIN) has referred their budget priorities to a
policy jury for advice and refinement. The Green Party of the United States refers to
its particular proposals for grassroots democracy and electoral reform by this name.
Although not always the case, participation in deliberation has often been found to
shift participants opinions in favour of Green positions, and can even cause a
favourable change of voting intention. For example, with Europolis 2009, at the time
one of the largest deliberative assemblies ever held, which set out to assess the public's
view on a wide range of issues and included representatives from all 27 EU member
nations, the share of citizens intending to vote for the Greens increased from 8% to
18%

13.10 SUMMARY
Deliberative democracy values open and public deliberation on Issues of common
concern. It starts from the assumption of individuals as autonomous persons but does
not view the social relationships between these autonomous persons as relationships
of conflict or interest. Rather, it sees people as relating to each other and seeking to
influence each other through reasoned argument and persuasion. For advocates of
deliberative democracy, persuasion is the best basis for political power, because it
alone respects the autonomy of individuals and values their capacity for self-
government. It also gives individuals control over an important aspect of their lives,
and makes for greater and continuous accountability of political power. Unlike
participatory democracy, which requires individuals to be constantly engaged in
making decisions, deliberative democracy allows for a political division of labour
between citizens and professional politicians, though citizens are involved in
deliberation about public issues.

13.11 EXERCISES
1. What is deliberative democracy?

2. Explain the characteristics of deliberative democracy.

128
 BPS-1/OSOU

3. Explain Joshua Cohen model of deliberative democracy.

4. Explain Gutmann & Thompson model of deliberative democracy

5. Describe the Strengths and Weaknesses of Deliberative Democracy.

13.12 REFERENCES

1. Chakrabarty Bidyut and Mohit Bhattacharya (ed), 2003, Public

Administration: A Reader, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

2. Joshil. R. P. and G.S. Narwani, 2002, Panchayat Raj in India: Emerging Trends
Across the states, Rawat Publications, Jaipur, New Delhi.

3. Bhattacharya Mohit, 1999, Restructing Public Administration: Essays in

Rehabilitation, Jawahar Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi.

4. Arora Ramesh K. (ed). 2001, Management in Government: Concerns and

Priorities, Aalekha Publishers, Jaipur.

5. Arora Ramesh K. (ed), 2004, Public Administration: Fresh Perspectives,

Aalekha Publishers, Jaipur.

6. Siva Subrahmanyam K. & R.C. Chowdhury, 2002, Functional and Financial

Devolution on Panchayats in India, NIRD, Hyderabad.

7. Sivarama Krishna K.C., 2003, Power to the People: The Politics and Progress
of Decentralisation, Konark Publishers, , New Delhi.

129
 BPS-1/OSOU

UNIT-14 THE GRAMMAR OF DEMOCRACY: POLITICAL

PARTICIPATION

Structure

14.1 Objective

14.2 Introduction

14.3 The concept of Political Participation

14.4 Forms of Political Participation

14.5 Political Participation, Democracy and Political Party

14.5.1 Theoretical Debate and Practical Variations

14.6 Political Participation and Political Parties in India

14.6.1 Political Participation through an increasingly competitive party

System

14.7 Social nature of the party-led political participation

14.8 Non-Party Institutions and Political Participation

14.9 Political Participation and Indian Democracy

14.10 Summary

14.11 Exercises

14.12 References

14.1 OBJECTIVES

After going through this unit, you should be able to:

• Explain what is political parties and what is political participation

• Explain the concept and forms of political participation

• Describe and explain political participation in India ; and

130
 BPS-1/OSOU

• Explain different political participation in Indian democracy

14.2 INTRODUCTION

Participation is both an activity and an attitude. As an activity it is a social activity.

Someone taking a morning walk is not participating in anything. Someone taking part
in a 100-meter race does. Someone staying in a neighborhood for a long time without
knowing any of one's neighbors is not having a participant attitude. What then is
political participation? Of course, we mean a kind of political activity and a kind of
political attitude. Since the 50's however it has attracted widespread attention and there
seems to be a general agreement among the Political Scientists on the value and
necessity of further political participation. But this apparent agreement conceals major
disputes both at the levels of political theory and practical politics. Before we explore
these we should begin with the concept of political participation itself.

14.3 THE CONCEPT OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

The concept of political participation has been popularised in Political Science by the
Behaviouralists. Of course arguments in favor of greater political participation had
been advanced by republican and democratic theorists from Rousseau onwards and are
still in use by contemporary political theorists. The behaviouralist paradigm rides on a
liberal view of politics. Classically, such a view draws a distinction between state and
individual on the one hand and public and private on the other; it also leans on the side
of the latter categories. Accordingly, when participation is seen as an attitude, it is
taken as an individual's favourable orientation to the state or government. That was the
basis use of culture and political culture as social science concepts dates only from
1950s.

Here the political culture is seen as a shorthand expression to denote the set of values
within which a political system operates. It is something between the state of public
opinion and an individual's personality characteristics. According to Gabriel Almond,
it is the 'particular pattern of orientations' to political objects in which a political system
is embedded. Orientations are predisposition to political action and are determined by
such factors as tradition, historical memories, motives, norms, emotions and symbol:
the culture, therefore, represents a set of propensities. These orientations may be
broken down into cognitive orientations (knowledge and awareness of the political
effects), affective orientations (emotions and feelings about the objects) and evaluative
orientations (judgment about them). Almond (with Verba) later developed a typology
of ideal political cultures or citizen types . Where most people are oriented to the input
processes and see themselves as able to make demands and help to shape policies, the
political culture is participant; the British, American and Scandinavian political
systems best represent this ideal. Similarly, government as the point of reference of
individual's activity becomes the feature of political participation as an activity. Thus
writes Birch : ' political participation is participation in the process of government, and

131
 BPS-1/OSOU

the case for political participation is essentially a case for substantial number of private
citizens (as distinct from public officials or elected politicians) to play a part in the
process by which leaders are chosen and/or government policies are shaped and
implemented.' The Communitarians find problem with this Liberal concept of
participation because of its 'individualism' and government as the locus of participation
. They argue that more important than participation in the process of government
through the 'politics of right' is participation at community level for 'politics of
common good. They argue that more important than participation in the process of
government is exercise of autonomy which can be developed and exercised in a certain
kind of social environment, an autonomy-supporting community, not a government.
Thus, Political participation can, then be seen broadly as participation in the political
life of the community or civil society with different agents and levels of participation
such as running a community health club by a religious group or participating in a
N.G.0.sponsored campaign for literacy. Following the same logic political
participation may be for serving political obligation of a democratic citizen to lead a
participatory social life and just not for the civil obligation to the government on the
question of law and order. Wider political participation must include some degree of
democratic control either over or within large-scale economic enterprises,
decentralisation of government to smaller units, such as region or locality,
considerable use of referenda etc.

14.4 FORMS OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

The concept of political participation accommodates the following main forms of

political participation:

1) voting in local or national elections;

2) voting in referendums;

3) canvassing or otherwise campaigning in elections;

4) active membership of a political party;

5) active membership of a pressure group;

6) taking part in political demonstrations, industrial strikes with political

objectives, rent strikes in public housing, and similar activities aimed at
changing public policy;

7) various forms of civil disobedience, such as refusing to pay taxes or obey a

conscription order;

8) membership of government advisory committees;

9) membership of consumers' councils for publicly owned industries;

132
 BPS-1/OSOU

10) client involvement in the implementation of social policies;

11) various forms of community action, such as those concerned with housing or
environmental issues in the locality.

If we take into account the broad concept of political participation, we can probably
increase the list by adding such forms as:

1) Performing social duties such as jury service and military duties;

2) Town/ village meetings and public debate on controversial issues;

3) Various forms of codetermination, such as student-faculty committees in the

universities and government advisory committees;

4) Shared project management involving full-scale partnership, delegation or

empowerment such as benefit-sharing arrangements or developmental
projects;

5) New social movements seeking and promoting personal and collective identity,
such as women's movement and movements for ethnocultural identities.

On the whole there are several levels and forms at which and through which people
may participate politically, as involved objects of a process of economic and political
transformation set in motion by someone else, as expected beneficiaries of a
programme with pre-set parameters, as politically co-opted legitimisers of a policy or
as people trying to determine their own choices and direction independent of the state.

14.5 POLITICAL PARTICIPATION DEMOCRACY AND POLITICAL

PARTY

Howsoever the forms of political participation are conceived, political participation

represents a political action and naturally involves many social agents that act within
definite structural parameters. The structures may be conceived as embedded
structures, relational structures and institutional structures. Political party is only one
of so many social agents associated with or responsible for political participation.
There are other agents such as voluntary organisations, institutional groups and
sociocultural communities. The roles of these agents for political participation are
influenced by the nature of variations in the structural arrangements. The relative
significance of political party as an agent in relation to other agents is also influenced
by such structural arrangements, as is the nature of political participation through the
agency of political party. That historically embedded structures affect the form and
nature of political participation is obvious. For instance, the emergence of such parties
as Jan Sangh or Muslim League in modern India could easily be linked with the
concretisation of fuzzy communal consciousness during the British colonial rule,
which, for the first time, introduced census and mapping in India. As examples of the

133
 BPS-1/OSOU

influence of relational structures on political parties one may refer to the caste conflict
in Indian society or agrarian relations, the former explaining rise of caste-based parties
like Justice party or B.S.P. and the latter, party like the Lok Dal. From this angle the
political parties ensure participation of different structurally articulated interests and
ideologies. How the political parties ensure political participation also depends on the
nature of the institutional structure. The nature of participation through political
parties, for example, varies according to the nature of the political system. In a few
modern dictatorships, such as Hitler's Germany, mass membership in a ruling party
was encouraged as a way of mobilising support for government policies. Again, the
institutional arrangements such as the electoral systems in a democracy influence the
participating role of political parties. The world of electoral systems has been divided
into three main families; Plurality-majority systems, Proportional representation (PR)
systems, and semi-PR systems. First- Past- the -post (FPTP) system under which
candidates are chosen from single-member districts, tends to handicap third parties,
and by doing this it helps to produce two-party system. It tends to do this if the support
of the winning party spreads evenly across the electoral districts. For example a party
with 52 percent of votes may win 60 percent of the seats. Naturally in such a situation,
the political parties become limited agents of political participation. The usual outcome
of PR is a multi-party system and therefore offers the voters greater freedom of choice
but tends to make the government less effective as the majority coalitions, in the
absence of amplified majority of FPTP become highly unstable. However it would be
wrong to suppose that the nature of the party-system is rigidly determined by the nature
of the electoral systems. The embedded structures and relational structures have
significant effect on the institutional structure in general. Take the case of India. Here
we have had regular elections every five years both at national and state levels. If we
want to judge the level and nature of political participation in purely institutional terms,
we would count number of parties, voters' turnout, election results, number of
candidates and so on with the idea that more the number, greater is the participation.
However we would miss out the massive level of political participation by party
workers and nonvoters to the extent we fail to recognize that elections in India is a
political festival where participation is more a peaceful demonstration of public will
than an exercise of individual's rational calculation that involves every stage of
election: getting a ticket, the campaign, and marking the ballot.

Here we have a FPTP system. But there have been wide social and regional variations
in India. When the support for the 1ndian National Congress evenly spread across the
country, the Party got the benefit of amplified seats. But whenever the social and
regional variations were mobilised by new parties, inter-district variations in electoral
support reduced that benefit and made way for a somewhat multi-party system. The
federal structure with its system of state-level elections aided that process. We would
discuss the significance of this change for political participation in subsequent section.
But before that it may be of interest 1,) have some idea about the value of political
participation in a democracy.

134
 BPS-1/OSOU

14.5.1 Theoretical Debate and Practical Variations

In theory participation is not only a behavioural concept but also a normative concept.
Most people think that participation is a good thing but many actually differ regarding
the levels of participation desired or relative importance of this or that form of political
participation. Participation is often justified in terms of the functional requirements of
the political system as leading to better communication or greater compliance on the
part of the citizen; Participation is often considered beneficial for the individual while
the benefits may be perceived as profit minus cost, non-material rewards or meeting
the psychological needs. Some consider participation itself as valuable, participation
in one sphere enhancing participation in other spheres. Most of those who are in favour
of restricted participation in democracy tend to adopt a conservative position and doubt
the ability of the average citizen but some express reservation against it because
participation provides the authorities the opportunity to legitimise their decisions.
Some doubt the efficacy of political participation in the area of electoral democracy
and favour participation through various forms of community self-government. In
practice also we note wide variations about the nature, levels and forms of political
participation. In some countries like Australia, Belgium and Italy voting has been made
compulsory. The sanctions or penal measures are very mild. But in these cases voter
turnout in national elections is very high, involving almost over 90 per cent of the
electorate. By contrast the turnout figures for national elections in the United States
are very low. However the low voter turnout in the United States is also accompanied
by an increase in the number and vitality of single-issue pressure groups.
Organisationally, many European parties have developed mass memberships with
branches in every town and intensive programmes of local meetings and social
activities. Examples of this type of parties may be the British Conservative Party and
the German Social Democratic party. The American parties are Lilliputs by
comparison. In terms of activity also, the American parties are pale shadows of many
of their European counterparts. For instance both the British Conservative party and
the Labour Party are heavily into publishing business, have discussion groups, and
youth movements. Both in the United States and Europe however there has been a
marked rise in the use of referendums. In the former the campaign for the initiative
and referendum began in the Populist Movement of the 1880's and the 1890's. In 1978
the most dramatic change in state laws occurred through the adoption in California of
Proposition 13, a proposal to cut property tax by more than half. This tendency proved
widespread and between 1970 and 1986 there were 158 statewide initiatives passed by
voters in 22 states and the District of Columbia. In Switzerland, the voters have
decided that their country should join the IMF and the World Bank but not the UN and
the European Union. In 1992, Denmark and France held referendums on whether they
should ratify the Maastricht Treaty. If we take into account the broad view of political
participation, then we may note some recent forms of non-party oriented political
participation both in Europe and the United States. In Britain, client-participation has

135
 BPS-1/OSOU

developed many forms like local community health councils, 'patients' participation
groups association of tenants, parents and pupils in school's governing bodies. In the
USA, the anti-nuclear groups have been very active, while in Germany it is the
environmental groups.

14.6 POLITICAL PARTICIPATION AND POLITICAL PARTIES IN INDIA

The above discussion cannot provide an immediate basis of a comparative

understanding of the nature and extent of political participation in India or the role of
political parties in that regard. For that we must note the specificity of Indian politics
and party politics in India. Indian politics are distinctive among contemporary
developing societies in having had democratic durability for about fifty years-
excepting the brief emergency period-with many paradoxical features like high voter
turnout amid high rate of illiteracy and agrarian population, multilevel electoral
process with many electoral areas not yet fully dominated and controlled by organised
political parties, coexistence of various organised interest associations with
intermediaries between people and bureaucracy, non-party movements. Specifically
Indian types of interest associations, including religious and caste groups. The Indian
party system is also distinctive, showing major differences with its European and
American counterparts. Paul Brass writes: 'Party politics in India display numerous
paradoxical features, which reveal the blending of Western and modern forms of
bureaucratic organisation and participatory politics with indigenous practices and
institutions. India's leading political party, the Indian National Congress, is one of the
oldest in the world, yet it has not succeeded in providing the nucleus for an
institutionalised party system which can be fitted easily into any one of the
conventional categories of party system in the west. The social heterogeneity of India
has added to the complexity of the Indian party system. This has increasingly made it
impossible for a single set of parties to emerge across the country. Major
transformations have taken place since Independence in India's party system. At the
center of change in the party system is the rise of the BJP. Irrespective of the nature of
changes in the party system, parties have continued to remain in the centre of Indian
politics. Opinion polls in India have repeatedly shown that people generally vote more
for the party than for the candidate. In some cases parties have been solid, creating
deep loyalties that continue from generations to generations, giving ele on symbols of
parties‟ tremendous psychological significance. After the 73rd and 74th Amendments,
parties have found a new level of operation in the Panchayat and Nagarpalika
institutions. This has widened the reach of election machinery and made political
parties even more significant as agents of political participation. Keeping these points
in mind let us now note the role of the Indian political parties as agents of political
participation.

14.6.1 Political Participation through an Increasingly Competitive Party System

136
 BPS-1/OSOU

Any observer of Indian political scene would not miss the tremendous growth of
po1itical parties in power. This growth has taken place both at the national and state
levels. This growth has been fuelled by fragmentation of existing parties in terms of
vote share, seat share and evolution of electoral alliances at both the national and state
levels; the emergence of new political parties like BJP, BSP etc. and new coalitions of
parties like NDA. A long-range overview of the Congress Party reveals an increasingly
narrowing scope of political participation at within-party level as well as widening
political participation outside. Before the transfer of power, the Congress was
synonymous with the nationalist movement and represented a mass wave by including
within its fold different political groups such as the Communists and the Socialists.
This ensured a truly broad-based political participation by the Indian masses because
the objective of the nationalist movement was an abstract one of Independence. Some
restriction of the participatory role of the Congress party took place between 1946-
1950 when the party changed from the earlier one that fought for independence. With
the knowledge that after the Second World War, independence was forthcoming
certain realignments started taking place within Congress. Several secessions took
place from the congress involving the Communists, Muslim separatists and the
socialists as a result of which within-party participation got somewhat restricted. The
most influential account of congress organisation after independence was given by
Rajni Kothari in his Politics in India (1970). He presented it as a differentiated system
in which the different levels of party organisation were linked with „the parallel
structure of government, allowing for the dominance of a political centre as well as
dissent from the peripheries, with opposition functioning as dissident congress groups.
Kothari gave it the simple name 'Congress system'. This ensured political participation
mainly through factional conflicts. On this, Brass writes:

Factions contested for control of the important committees at each level through
formal elections preceded by membership drives in which competing faction leaders
attempted to enroll, even if only on paper, as many member-supporters as possible.
Although the factional conflicts which developed often became intense and bitter and
were accompanied by frequent charges of" bogus enrolments," they also served to keep
the party organisation alive and to compel party leaders to build support in the districts
and localities throughout the country.

The 1967 elections marked the trend of political fragmentation sharply. The Congress
vote was dropped by almost 5 per cent. It had managed to win only 54 per cent of the
seats. Earlier in the previous parliament it had 74 per cent of the seats. In many states
it failed to win a majority. In as many as nine states- Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh,
Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Orissa, Madras and Kerala-there came
nonCongress governments. Within the party also conflict grew between the Syndicate
and Indira Gandhi leading to a split in 1969. The newly formed Congress derived its
identity from its leader in real terms. Elections within the party were stopped. Chief
Ministers were appointed by the central high command. The massive electoral victory
of the party in 1971 further increased political centralization that culminated into the

137
 BPS-1/OSOU

Emergency in 1975. The popular reaction against this was a landmark in terms of
political participation. It brought for the first time a non-Congress coalition
government, the Janata government, at the centre. The Congress took the opportunity
of coming back to power in 1980 against a divided opposition. The eighth general
election took place in December 1984 in the shadow of Indira Gandhi's assassination
and brought Rajeev Gandhi into power as the leader of the Congress (I). This did not
alter the trend of political centralization within the party. Growing political dissension
in the country and controversies of Bofors kickback formed the background of 1989
general elections. The Congress (I) was defeated, securing only 197 seats in the Lok
Sabha. The National Front, though it could not win support of the BJP and the Left
parties.

That government lasted only a year and paved the way for the Chandrasekhar
government with Congress-I support that was quickly withdrawn and the ninth Lok
Sabha was dissolved less than a year and a half after its formation. Halfway through
the general elections, Rajeev Gandhi was assassinated and Congress (1) recovered its
position somewhat due to sympathetic and favourable electoral support. Even then it
failed to win a majority and became the single largest party with 232 seats. P. V.
Narasimha Rao, elected leader of the party was appointed Prime Minister. The Rao
regime eventually secured majority by winning over the Ajit Singh faction of the
Janata Dal. But the party failed to regain its organisational strength and was set in a
path of steady decline which culminated in its removal from power after 1996
elections; when BJP emerged as the single largest party but short of majority, and
various regional parties like Telugu Desam Party, the DMK, the AGP and Janata Dal
the breakaway Congress group in Tamil Nadu, led by G. K. Moopanar and the left
parties came together to form a bloc-NF-LF bloc, later called the United Front.
However with President S. D. Sharma deciding to invite A. B. Vajpayee of the BJP to
form government despite Congress (I) support to the United Front, he formed the
government but only for seven days. H. D. Deve Gowda of the Janata Dal next formed
the United Front government with Congress(1) support where for the first time in
history a left party-the CPI-- joined a government at the centre. In 1996 itself BJP
forged alliances with Shiv Sena.

In 1998 it strengthened its alliances by a soft Hindutva image and became attractive
as a partner for a regional or state-based party opposed to the Congress or congress
allied regional rival( Punjab, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Haryana, Orissa)
or to a Congress faction (Trinamool congress) versus major regional party(West
Bengal). It managed to adopt a national agenda and win post-election allies (Chautala's
Haryana Lok Dal) and external supporters (TDP, NC) for coalition government at the
centre. The Congress failed to return to power as the BJP managed to sustain and
expand the same coalition, now formally called the National Democratic Alliance
(NDA) adding the TDP, Goa's MGP, and the Pate1 faction of the Karnataka Janata
Dal, switching partners in Tamil Nadu and Haryana. The above trends showing the
decline of the Congress and rise of new contenders for power at the central level make

138
 BPS-1/OSOU

it clear that a pattern of fragmentation of the party system has been taking place
together with electoral alliances, adding to competitiveness of the party system and
participation of increasing number of parties in power, maybe towards a loose
bipolarity at the national level. The above trend has not been limited to the national
level only, but has also affected the states for the general elections between 1967-
1989. The phenomena of consoled action of non-Congress vote (Madhya Pradesh,
Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh etc.), Congress-led alliances of state-based minor parties
(Kerala, Tripura), a left-front coalition versus Congress (West Bengal) and so on could
be seen. The same could be seen for State Assembly elections. Here the Congress
party's position eroded even more than for parliamentary elections, and the
consolidation of principal challenger parties or alliances at the state level was marked.
The process of alliance formation has been complex and multidimensional at state
level but it could be noted that they were driven 1ess by ideological considerations or
social divisions and more by the imperative to aggregate votes. On the whole, it could
be argued that as agents, political parties in India have not only multiplied, but also
have also been participating more effectively in the sharing and management of
powers.

14.7 SOCIAL NATURE OF THE PARTY-LED POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

In a sense the increasingly competitive party system is a product of the rise and
assertion of regional and state-based parties. However to overstretch this point would
mean ail uncritical acceptance of the social cleavage theory of party systems. In a study
oil Congress some alignments of party organisations were found to be associated with
acute social divisions. Congress was found not to be a heterogeneous national party
but a coalition of state (and ultimately local) groups whose political rationale are the
divisions and conflicts of the state and community in question. However, equally
important is the geographical specificity of intergroup conflicts. The political
significance of group conflicts varies from state to state, to the extent there is variation
in the strength of the link between, social groups and the parties. In different ways the
characterizations of Indian democracy as 'consociational', and 'adversarial' admit that
through political party competition, the social divisions of a deeply divided society get
expressed. A case to the point is the political assertion of the historically disadvantaged
castes in the 1990's. Almost together with the acceptance of the Mandal Commission's
recommendations, recent years have witnessed the emergence of the Dalit-Bahujan
castes, often trying to encompass the Muslim minority in its fold. The political parties
representing these social groups are identified as the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), the
Samajwadi Party, and sections of the Janata Dal-a phenomenal increase in caste-based
parties since the old Justice Party, to the point that social pluralism in India gets
increasingly reflected in the competitive party system which serves as the agent of
political participation. That is to say, a given political party while acting as the agent
of political participation often shows internal pluralism in its organisation. In a recent
study of Dravidian parties, Narendra Subrarnanian demonstrates that the internal
pluralism of parties, and not simply social pluralism, promotes greater representation

139
 BPS-1/OSOU

and participation of emergent groups, the reconstruction of public culture and

tolerance. This does not of course mean that in India all parties show equal amount of
organizational or internal pluralism.

The social nature of the increased voter's turnout has not followed many clear patterns.
The turnout among men has always been higher than women but the participation rate
has improved faster among women than among men. Female turnout increased 20
percentage points from 38.8 per cent in 1975 to 57.3 per cent in 1980. However, it has
been noted that the involvement of women in politics is still largely separate from men.
Both the number of women contestants and of representatives show a declining trend
in parliamentary and assembly elections, though at local level, due to reservations,
women's participation has increased. Since the 1980's there has been a proliferation of
autonomous women's groups in most parts of the country and this has added a new
social dimension to political participation in India. Voter turnout in urban areas was
higher than in rural areas. The state-wise turnout figures broadly indicate that turnout
tends to be higher in the southern states, Kerala, in particular, and West Bengal Yadav,
however, notes that one of the characteristics of the new democratic upsurge has been
that practically everywhere rural constituencies report a higher turnout. While Muslim
turnout in Muslim concentrated constituencies and turnout in reserved (SC)
constituencies were not higher than the past, the reserved (ST) constituencies recorded
higher than average turnout in Andhra, Gujarat and Maharashtra. So did some
backward regions like Vidarbha and Marathwada in Maharashtra, east Delhi and
Bundelkhand in UP. If the theory of new social constituency participating in Indian
elections is not fully borne out at least there is hardly any doubt that such a
constituency is now more intensively mobilised by political parties wherever possible.

14.8 NON-PARTY INSTITUTIONS AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

It would certainly be wrong to completely detach such institutions as trade unions,

affiliations with these and have even today. But many have noted a growing inefficacy
on the part of these institutions as agents of political participation and as controlling;
influences over the political parties. From the 1980s the change has become
perceptible. One consequence of the Green revolution was to localise and disparate
existing peasant movements. The globalising forces on the other hand have made the
trade unions weak and this in turn reduced their influences on the party organisations,
a fact reflected in the lack of importance attached by the parties, even left parties, in
naming the trade union leaders among their sponsored candidates for election. The rise
in the number of universities and their falling standards has also limited their
influences as participating institutions in civil society. Of course several new actors,
sometimes called NGOs, have emerged as agents of political participation mainly in
regard to the implementation of official programmes or sponsored developmental
projects. Their combined volume i:; not insignificant but it is still too early to assess
their significance for popular participation. There has however been somewhat rising
political participation through what have come to be known as 'new social

140
 BPS-1/OSOU

movements'-movements that have arisen as a response to, among other things, the
violations of civil liberties and human rights, violence on or gender bias to women ,
the degradation of environment, destruction of tribal culture: or way of life. Some have
described these movements as 'counter hegemonic' and noted the following major
categories: Women's Movements, Forest Struggles, Anti-Big-dam movements.
Usually each of these movements develops independently of the other and keeps itself
detached from traditional political parties. There have also been increasing cases of
identity assertions and 'autonomy movements', some employing violent means, which
represent non-party based channels of political participation in contemporary India.

14.9 POLITICAL PARTICIPATION AND INDIAN DEMOCRACY

There has indeed been an upsurge in political participation in India with increasing
competitiveness of the political parties, increased voter turnout, emergence of new
forms of participation such as new social movements, institutions of grassroots
politics, local level democracy and political assertions of the historically
disadvantaged castes and ethno-regional groups. Apparently this represents a healthy
trend towards further deepening of Indian democracy. Do we have a participant culture
now in India? Though higher political mobilisation and higher electoral participation
do not by themselves contribute to a participant culture, there has been a significant
change of popular orientation form dependence on regular administration and
traditional authority-symbols of society to people's representatives in everyday life,
whether for certificates, aids or arbitration. But this upsurge in participation needs to
be understood in the complexity of Indian process of democratisation. It is doubtful as
to how much space has been created for a rational individual who exercises his/her
sovereign power of citizenship in the electoral arena. This doubt arises not from the
non fulfillment of the basic requirements of procedural democracy like Universal
Adult Franchise, rule of law and fundamental rights but from constraints on
meaningful rational participation of the individual in democratic process. First, with
numerous small parties that are not properly institutionalized and under total control
of charismatic leaders, and some big parties showing no interest in promoting
institutionalization, the individuals participate with severe constraints because parties
are still in the centre of Indian democratic process. Second, several developments
tend to constrain voters' right in recent years, such as the aborted attempt to make the
qualifications and holdings of the election-candidates transparent, increasing use of
electronic voting machines which make it impossible for a voter to 'waste' his or her
vote and thereby express disapproval about the candidates.

Third, instead of social cleavages being neutralised by political cleavages the latter
tend to be grafted on the former in India due to unprincipled mobilisation leading to a
'crisis of governability'. This type of mobilisation and politicisation of masses by
parties may have made Indian democracy not more deepening but 'more inclusive. But
the trouble with this inclusiveness is that the terms of inclusion are not always inclusive
or modern but often exclusive and promote a step furthering the 'effective creolisation

141
 BPS-1/OSOU

of the modern ideas, ideals and institutions of democratic politics in a non-European

setting' (Yadav, 1998,p. 187). Finally, the institutional space for nonelectoral modes
of efficacious political activity has not grown to a degree found in European settings.
On the whole however political parties have proved to be the most effective agents of
political participation in India. Indian democratic experience has witnessed new forms
of political participation in recent years and a rise in the quantity of political
participation- though the exact nature and significance of that for Indian democracy
can be disputed.

14.10 SUMMARY

The concept of political participation has assumed a new significance in the Indian
democratic process. The credit goes to the Behaviouralists for espousing this concept
as an essential aspect for the democratic process. Various forms of political
participation include voting in referendums, membership in political parties and
pressure groups, government advisory committees, involvement in the implementation
of social policies etc. The proliferation of political parties in an increasingly
competitive system also contributed to the widening political participation across
various sections of society. The non- party institutions like the NGOs have also been
addressing the concerns of the people in the form of women's movements, anti-big
dam movements etc. Other major factors of political participation include increased
voter turnout, political assertions of the caste and religious groups and also
disadvantaged groups. The final assessment of an effective participation and its impact
on the Indian democratic process is subject to various interpreiations and disputes.

14.11 EXERCISES

1) Summarise the behaviouralists concept of political participation.

2) Analyse the impact of the political participation on the political parties in India.

3) Write a short note on the social nature of party- led political participation.

4) What are the non-party institutions of participation? How do they complement

the democratic process?

5) "Political participation has made the Indian democracy more inclusive". Justify
this statement.

14.12 REFERENCES

1. Robert A. Dahl, Democracy and its Critics, Orient Longman, New Delhi,

2. Jon Elster (editor) (1998). Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge Studies in the

Theory of Democracy). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-59696-3.

142
 BPS-1/OSOU

3. James S. Fishkin (2011). When the People Speak. Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-960443-2.

4. Roger Osborne (2006). Civilization: A New History of the Western World.

Jonathan Cape Ltd. ISBN 0-224-06241-7.

5. Carne Ross (2011). The Leaderless Revolution: How Ordinary People Can

Take Power and Change Politics in the 21st Century. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-
84737-534-6.

143
 BPS-1/OSOU

UNIT-15 THE GRAMMAR OF DEMOCRACY: REPRESENTATION

Structure

15.1 Objectives

15.2 Introduction

15.3 Meaning of Political Representation

15.4 Types of Representation

15.5 Summary

15.6 Exercises

15.7 References

15.1 OBJECTIVES

After going through this unit, you should be able to:

• Analyze the significance of representation in a democratic set up.

• Understand the functions of a representative in a democracy.
• Formulate the theories regarding the non-representation of marginalised
sections.
• Understand the views of various thinkers on the Representative system.
• Offer some remedies to the limitations of the present representative system.

15.2 INTRODUCTION

The word “representation”, in ordinary language means portray or to make present for
instance we would say an author‟s book represents‟ certain values. Or the painters
picture represents‟ a school of painting here what we mean is that by studying that 182
book or looking at that picture we can understand the values the writer want to project,
get an idea of the historical significance of a particular period. When we say Moghul
painting, we tend to identify that picture as pertaining i.e. culture of Moghul timings.
In a way it is a miniature of larger thing. However in politics the term has a different
meaning. It means an individual or group stands on behalf of a larger group. For
instance it has been said that Gandhiji “represented” India at the Round table
conference. By this statement we mean the hopes, aspirations and desires of the vast
„population of the country were being reflected by Gandhi. When Gandhi spoke, he
spoke for the entire country. Through Gandhi people saw India so he represented India.
Similarly, a lawyer represents his client. Since the client has no legal knowledge he

144
 BPS-1/OSOU

entrusts his case to a lawyer who for all practical purposes represents his client. The
examples could multiply. As with the case of a client who has no legal knowledge or
time, so is a modern citizen in a democracy. He is too preoccupied with his day-to-day
problems to effectively participate in public affairs. This work is assigned to
professional politicians. They would win his confidence and become his
representatives and will participate on his behalf. They are his delegates, and
representatives but not masters. The real meter is the citizen. Since the days of direct
democracy are no longer possible, most democracies have opted for the representative
model.

15.3 MEANING OF POLITICAL REPRESENTATION

In the common view, political representation is assumed to refer only to the political
activities undertaken, in representative democracies, by citizens elected to political
office on behalf of their fellow citizens who do not hold political office. However, the
lack of consensus in the political literature on political representation belies this
common view. Theorists of representation differ not only in their definition of
representation but also, among other things, on what the duties of a representative are,
who can be called representative and how one becomes a representative.In her seminal
work on political representation (The Concept of Representation), Hanna Pitkin
defined political representation as, "a way to make [the represented] present again"
and identified four views of political representation which, since her book's
publication, have shaped contemporary debates on political representation. Recently,
Jane Mansbridge has identified four other views of specifically democratic political
representation which, although they are distinct, share some similarities with Pitkin's.
On the other hand, Andrew Rehfeld has critiqued the failure of theorists like Pitkin
and Mansbridge to articulate a purely descriptive view of political representation and
has proposed a general theory of representation that recognizes that political
representation can be and often is undemocratic.

15.4 TYPES OF REPRESENTATION

Modern democracies based on the system of representation is called representative

democracy. Here citizens rule through their delegates. Delegates have a minimum
tenure of 5 years or less. Citizen can either renew it or terminate the contract depending
upon the performance. In some cases a mandatory provision would prevent a delegate
from seeking reflection. For instance in USA, no president can seek office for more
than two terms. This mandatory provision is to prevent misuse of office by
perpetuating it. Representation broadly is of two types‟ territorial representation and
functional representation. In the territorial representation, the country is divided into
geographical areas with nearly equal populations. They are known as constituencies.
Voters in these constituencies will exercise their franchise and elect their
representatives. Normally each citizen has a single vote. Equality of voting rights is an
institutional guarantee. In a democracy, all citizens have an equal share in the running

145
 BPS-1/OSOU

of administration But we find some traditional liberals like J. S. Mill while arguing for
extending franchise rights to the working class and women, were not prepared to give
the same weightage to the opinion of workers that of the educated 183 class. In
particular, he believed the opinion of the educated class is superior to that of the
uneducated or illiterate. So he suggested a “plural voting” system. The scheme
envisaged four or five votes for holders of learned diplomas or degrees two or three
for the skilled or managerial workers, a single vote for ordinary workers and none at
all for those who are illiterate. Such a policy of discrimination would not be accepted
in modern democracies. Though each country prescribes certain minimum
qualifications regarding age residential necessity and a clean record with police to get
voting rights.

It so happens that sometimes the boundaries of a constituency may be redrawn, like

creating a new district, or there may be an influx of population and the area may have
to be divided for administrative efficiency. Under these eventualities, all care should
be taken that such redrawing of boundaries does not result in undue advantage or
disadvantage to any political party. For instance in India, if a separate district is carved
out where a majority of people belong to one particular caste or creed, a party that
speaks for that particular caste can easily get elected. That is not good for democracy,
where representation believes in equal opportunity for all. The people who argue for
the system of territorial representation, argue that this system provides a rapport
between people and the representative. He can nurture his constituency by constantly
touring it. He will know their problems by first-hand. People also know their
representative more closely. But the critics point out, that a society consists of many
interest groups-like farmers, merchants, and labourers who cannot be represented by a
single person. So they argue for functional representation. Under this scheme people
belonging to different occupations or functions, will elect their representative based on
profession. For instance, doctors will elect doctors to represent their case and so on.
The voting would be on the basis of the interest of the profession.

A labour representative would participate in the deliberations of labour policies and

would vote as a representative of labour. Such a system would really, represent the
interest. Moreover in the geographical/territorial representation some strong leaders
will virtually take over the constituency and no alternative leader would emerge. The
way Nehru family nurtured Raibareli is a classic example. It becomes monopoly of a
clan and certainly not conducive to democracy. There is also a problem that in
territorial representation, the local issues may dominate national issues and compel the
representative to take a narrow view. But the critics of professional representation
point out the system is too narrow to cater the general interests of a community. Most
of the issues are inter-related and could at best be represented by a general candidate.
Although in Britain the Guild Socialists compaigned for functional representation, this
system actually is not being practiced in any democratic country. It was in the fascist
countries around 1930-40 that such types of functional representation was practiced.
They were called corporations. The corporation was not democratic, the fascist

146
 BPS-1/OSOU

dictators would 184 nominate experts in each field to frame polices. It was a functional
division but no representation by people. People had no say in the nomination of such
representatives. These representatives were far removed from people and their
aspirations. They were elite whose main function was to make be rulers happy.
Efficiency and quick results rather than people's sentiments and ambitions were the
sole guiding factors of this corporation. Since people have not elected them, cannot
question their actions they cannot remove them. These corporations may represent a
particular section in a society – mostly economic and business groups but in no way
can be called representatives of the masses.

There is another aspect of representation known as communal representation. In this

system people belonging to one particular community will elect a representative from
their community. Other members have no right to vote. The idea behind this system is
only a community member can represent the community interests. Since other
members of a different community may not have either interest or sympathy for the
problems of the community being represented, their power to elect a representative is
denied. During British rule this system was introduced by MacDonald and came to be
known as “Communal representation”. Under this scheme in those areas where
Muslims were in majority, only a Muslim could stand for elections and all the voters
will be Muslims only. Similar communal electorates were made available to the Sikhs,
Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians and the Dalits. However, because of the stiff
opposition of Gandhiji the separate electorates were surrendered by Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar under the provisions of Poona Pact. While some areas were called general
areas where a mixed population would vote. The policy was a design by the imperialist
powers to weaken the forces of Indian Nationalism and has implications of creating
deep divisions in the country. The demand for a separate state for Muslims in the name
of Pakistan had its seeds sown in the separate electorate system.

There was also a similar demand for separate electorate system for lower caste Hindus,
but Gandhi successfully prevented that demand and suggested a policy of
“Reservation”, under which certain percentage of seats will be reserved for backward
sections of Hindu society. While the candidate should be from that caste, voters will
have a composite entity. This is a method of proactive policy to provide political power
to the marginalized and weaker sections. As a matter of policy the reserved
constituencies will be rotated after some period to prevent them from being monopoly
of a few sections. There are critics of this reservation policy. Their argument is it is
against natural polity of equality. A person may be political activist and quite popular
in an area. For him it is the easiest thing to get elected. But if that area is reserved for
a particular caste and he not belonging to that caste would lose an opportunity of
winning elections some cynics also claim that the 185 representatives elected under
reservation are dummy. The real power is exercised by big landlords who control them.
These types of criticisms will only point out certain shortcomings. In principle
reservation is a policy of giving political empowerment to disorganized and
marginalised sections. In the spirit of democracy and social Justice such policy of

147
 BPS-1/OSOU

Reservation in Representation is required. There is a policy of nomination in

representation. The executive nominates certain people representing a particular
section or group. In India president nominates two members from Anglo-Indian
communally to Lok Sabha and some artists Sports persons to Rajya Sabha. These
nominated representatives safeguard particular group interests. We can say while the
elected representatives represent a broad general view, the nominated one would speak
for a specific field. It is same as corporatism but with a democratic touch. A lot of
consultation, debates goes on before a decision is taken on nomination.

All types of representative methods have their advantages and limitations. But the
need for representative system is inevitable because of large scale democratic systems.
The method of Reservation is a safeguard against monopolization of political power
by powerful sections. But reservation itself cannot guarantee political empowerment.
It is only a means. It gives an opportunity for marginalised sections to be politically
more active and to create second line leadership. Using these methods they should
create a mass-based political structure, so that in future they could capture political
power out of their own efforts without reservations. Ultimately the honesty, integrity
and hard work of a political leader will make political empowerment of a community
possible. If the leaders are selfish and use the reservation of representation to
perpetuate their family rule we will return back to feudal system. In democracy
equality of opportunity is necessary.

15.5 SUMMARY

Political representation is at the heart of democracy. Whether democracy is understood

as popular rule or as effective fate control by the people, representation is the means
to realize the democratic idea of giving people a voice in large states. Thus, from a
normative point of view, there should be a causal relationship between citizens‟
interests and policy decisions of representatives. Elections are the major link
establishing causality between the wishes of the people and acts of governance.
However, how and whom citizens elect varies considerably across democracies. The
two ideal types or “two visions of democracy”. In a proportional electoral system,
citizens elect parties voting for lists and parties determine by candidate selection how
those lists are composed. The causal link between citizens and representatives differs
clearly between the two kinds of elections. The mandate in the majoritarian model is
given to a person, and this person is held accountable in the next elections for her
performance. In the proportional model, the mandate is given to a party, and the party
is held accountable in the next elections. Thus, different actors have the duty to deliver
representation in different electoral systems: individual deputies in the majoritarian,
political parties in the proportional model. This implies that representatives should
have different roles and foci of representation depending on the mode of their election.
The two visions of democracy embedded in the two electoral systems carry distinct
normative ideals about good representation. Looking at political representation in
democracies from a comparative perspective, electoral systems seem to induce the

148
 BPS-1/OSOU

respective orientation toward the mandate and whom to represent by different

incentives for candidates running in single-member districts or on party lists. The role
of a party delegate is more frequent in proportionality, and the delegate and trustee
roles more frequent in majoritarian systems. In majoritarian systems, representatives
are very much inclined to represent the median voter of the district; in proportional
systems, representatives rather tend to represent their party voters.

15.6 EXERCISES

1. What is representation?

2. What is political representation?

3. What is communal representation?

4. What is territorial representation?

5. Describe different types of representation.

6. Explain the role of representation in a democratic country like India.

15.7 REFERENCES

1. Dovi, Suzanne. "Political Representation". The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). Retrieved 21 March 2018.

2. Pitkin, Hanna (1967). The Concept of Representation. Berkeley and Los

Angeles: University of California Press.

3. Rehfeld, Andrew (2006). "Toward a General Theory of Political

Representation". The Journal of Politics. 68: 1–21.

4. Political Representation - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

5. Pitkin, Hanna (1967). The Concept of Representation. Berkeley and Los

Angeles: University of California Press.

149
 BPS-1/OSOU

UNIT-16 PLURALIST THEORY OF DEMOCRACY

Structure

16.1 Objectives

16.2 Introduction

16. 3 The Pluralist theory of Democracy: Meaning of the Pluralist theory of

Democracy

16.4 Factors responsible for the development of Pluralism

16.5 Importance of Pluralism

16.6 Features of the Pluralist Theory of Democracy

16.7 Criticisms against the Pluralist Theory of Democracy

16.8 Summary

16.9 Exercise

16.10 Reference

16.1 OBJECTIVES

After studying this units students should be able to understand about:

 The Pluralist theory of Democracy: Meaning of the Pluralist theory of

Democracy
 Factors responsible for the development of Pluralism and Importance of
Pluralism
 Features of the Pluralist theory of Democracy
 Criticisms against the Pluralist theory of Democracy

16.2 INTRODUCTION

As a response to the marked success of the democracy as an ideology and development

of counter-democratic ideologies, a number of other variants of democracy emerged
all over the world. In this context, a new interpretation of democracy was offered
which sought to accommodate a specific space for a particular section of the society
(elite) or in terms of concentrating power in several groups (plural). These new variant
of democracy tries to contest that instead of power being concentrated in the hands of

150
 BPS-1/OSOU

the people, it is better to be in the hands of a few elites. This concept developed
towards the second half of 19th century by Vilfredo Pareto and Mosca and a number
other political sociologists with their different perspectives of the elitist theory of
democracy. However contesting the elite concept of democracy ,towards the 1950s
and 1960s, another concept emerged in the form of the pluralist theory of democracy
which believed that powers actually lay in a number of associations both government
and non-government and not in the hands of a few. This unit tries to discuss in depth
these two theories of Democracy namely:

1. The Elitist Theory of Democracy

2. The Pluralist Theory of Democracy.

16.3 THE PLURALIST THEORY OF DEMOCRACY: MEANING OF THE

PLURALIST THEORY OF DEMOCRACY

Questioning the traditional and classical model of democracy which was stood on the
concept of egalitarianism, the Elitist theory emerged during the 19th century in the
writings of Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941), Robert
Michels, C.Wright Mills (1916-1962), Floyd Hunter, G.William Domhaff, James
Burnham, Robert D.Putnam, Thomas R. Dye and others. This theory developed to
accommodate the contemporary condition of the society. This theory concentrates on
a small minority consisting of the politically and economically influential individuals
holding maximum of power which is free from the democratic election process. The
elite theory consists of those persons who are at the top most positions of the society.
Elites are the select group of successful persons available in every walk of life. In the
political field, they are those who wield political power in the political system
controlling all the effective centres of politicalpower. This group exercises immense
power in the society. It may be acquired democratically or otherwise. It is known by
different names in the society like power elite, political elite, governing elite, etc.

Pareto was the first to use the term elite in his work “The Mind and Society”(1916),
where he regarded elites as those powerful minority in the society that are
psychologically and intellectually superior and therefore they are the highest
accomplishers in the society. They are in the form of either the governing elite or non-
governing elites. Mosca, on the other hand, regarded elite as an organized marginal
group which is subdivided into ruling elite and ruled elite. The ruling class is again
subdivided into ruling

 elite and sub-elite. He produced his ideas in his work “The Ruling
Class”(1896). Mosca opined that elites have intellectual, moral and material
superiority that greatly helped them in acquiring and assuring their position in
society and thus help them secure preponderance both in the government as
well as in the society. Another important contributor to the development of the
elite theory is Robert Michel who in his work “Political Parties: A sociological

151
 BPS-1/OSOU

study of Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern democracy” (1911) stated that

rule of minority is natural , necessary and safe because the masses are apathetic
towards governance. He even said that all organizations are elitist following
three basic principles:

(i) Need for leaders, specialized staff and facilities.

(ii) Utilization of facilities by leaders within their organization.

(iii) Importance of psychological attributes of the leaders.

The important fact is that these political scientists gave more importance to the rule of
a few rather than rule of many (democracy) on the following grounds :

 The general population i.e the masses are ignorant (lack personal resources like
intelligence and skills). They are intellectually, psychologically , morally and
materially inferior to the elites.

 They lack the attributes essential for governance and are not competent to rule.

 Their massive participation in governance results in degradation of quality of

democracy. The masses are not adequately equipped to handle democratic
processes which often results in manipulation of them by demagogues
resulting in the misuse of people’s democratic capacities. The masses are
generally indolent, apathetic and slavish hence completely incapable of ruling
themselves.

Thus, this particular theory is extremely against popular rule and does not accept
people being capable of ruling themselves, therefore rule of the elite is a necessity.
This theory developed as a reaction and opposition to popularism questioning
democracy as a utopian idea.

16.4 FEATURES OF THE ELITIST THEORY OF DEMOCRACY

The Elite theory is based on two basic assumptions:

1. Power lies in position of authority in key economic and political

Institutions.
2. The psychological difference that sets the elite apart is that they have
personal resources, for instance, intelligence and skills, and a vested
interests in the government; while the rest are incompetent and do not
have the capabilities of governing themselves; the elite are resourceful
and will strive to make the government work. For in reality, the elite
have the most to lose in a failed government.
 In every state and society (democratic or undemocratic) there is a
governing elite or the power elite who actually enjoy very high prestige

152
 BPS-1/OSOU

and widespread influence. They are generally the minority (the chosen
element in the society).
 There are large variants of elites. There may be a governing elite, a power
elite, a national elite, elites occupying high status, social elites, political
elites, economic elites etc. Whatever may be the variants of elites, they
occupy highest position within that particular society and they control the
decision making mechanisms.
 As regards political elites, they occupy a significant position by contesting
elections and exercise their power through their superior skills and
intelligence. Since they acquire power through elections they generally
have a mass consent and support base. So, in the name of popular will,
general will or consent of the governed, democracy in actual practice is a
kind of elite rule only.
 Elites grow and develop within a particular system in a society and there
is an intra elite competition for power within the elites which results in a
continuous alteration of elites. The membership of the elites are always
open and in flux, hence it is seen that a particular leader will remain in
power for a limited period of time and there is every possibility that a new
leader will replace the old one.

16.5 CRITICISM AGAINST THE ELITIST THEORY OF DEMOCRACY

The following points describes how the theory has been criticized by different
thinkers at different points. These points have to be taken into consideration while
analyzing the elite theory. Elite theory assumes that the society is based on
inequality. However, all human beings are equal in the sense that all are capable
of developing their faculties openly which is evident from the fact that all public
offices are open for all in terms of opportunities. The theory totally excludes the
ability of the masses, tagging them as ignorant which is wrong as most of the
political systems today are striving only because of the power of the masses, who
cannot be regarded as ignorant. They been ignorant then democracy could not have
been successful over the world. This theory is based on the institutional and not
the ideological aspect of democracy. It is mainly descriptive in nature. It believes
in the ‘End of Ideology’ theory and maintain that ideologies are meaningless
because every political system is bound to be governed by the iron law of
oligarchy. The Elite theory wrongly advocates the view that the object of
democracy is not the welfare and development of the people. It excludes the people
from the ruling functions and talks of elite rule as the ideal condition of rule
involving subjugation of the masses to the leaders. To the elite , they are superior
and absolute in power, so they are not responsible and accountable to the people
for their acts . This goes against the principle of equality, which has been adhered
to by contemporary civil society. The present society stands on the the principle of
equality, rights and liberty, so this theory does not hold good in the present society.
Elite theory failed to recognize the importance of people and public opinion in the

153
 BPS-1/OSOU

determination of the rules, policies and programmes and decisions of the

government of a state. This theory is one-sided, particularistic and partial. It lacks
objectivity. All its exponents have been guilty of following a set of principles
without subjecting it to empirical testing and critical evaluation. It fails to suggest
remedies for the prevailing defects of the democratic political systems. On the
contrary, it builds up a defence of some of the evils practices characterizing
contemporary political systems Despite the limitations, it cannot be denied that it
focuses attention on the real working and actual behavior of the leaders of a
political system. It is evident from the fact that irrespective of whatever the
political system is power is always exercised by a minority. That minority may be
in the form of elected representatives (in democracy) or a few, but the minority is
inherently superior to the masses. So, in practice, every form of government is
actually an oligarchy. Presence of an elite structure in a democracy also implies
the same. It is this sense that in democracy also there is presence of elites. This is
best described by Manrheim as, ‘the conditions for the development of democracy
require in addition to the competition between elites , changes in the structures
and composition of Elites, in their self-conceptions and in their relations with the
rest of the population.

16.6 THE PLURALIST THEORY OF DEMOCRACY

The concept of pluralism emerged in response to the traditional theory of democracy

which believed in the concept that sovereignty rests only with the state. It also rejected
the view that power rests with an elite group. The pluralist are of the view that power
resides in several organizations rather than in one. The power resides not in the hands
of the rich neither in the hands of the poor. Power resides in every social, political and
economic groups. Hence power exists is in a decentralized form in a pluralist society.
They justified it on the ground that social structure is pluralistic or federal and that is
why the power structure of the society is also pluralistic.

16.6.1 Meaning of the Pluralist theory of Democracy

The Pluralist doctrine was developed by English writers like John Figgis, F.W.
Maitland and G.D.H. Cole, Robert Dahl, Sartori, Presthus,Hunter, Bartelson,Agger,
etc. The Pluralist theory of democracy refers to a model in which power is not
concentrated in the hands of a group or class but is diffused among many interest
groups competing against each other for power. During 1950’s and 1960’s in America
the concept of pluralism gained importance as a reworked version of liberal democracy
challenging the rule of the elite on the ground that this model tries to establish that the
function of policy making is actually not indulged in by elected representatives or any
elite. Rather it is an outcome of the interaction among the various groups in a society.
This model is perfectly suitable for a plural society. They are not against democracy,
rather they hold that the notion that democracy is best realized in a plural society
through the decentralization of power among plural elements. This theory has been

154
 BPS-1/OSOU

derived from pluralist theory of sovereignty. The main content of the theory has been
derived from the postulate that–“rejecting the indivisibility of the sovereignty and
monopoly of the state they held that social structure is plural and that is why power
distribution must be plural. State is divided into certain structure and power must be
distributed among these units of the state. Groups are a very important component of
a society and all activities of the state is actually activities of these groups that is why
they must be equally empowered. This is essential and natural for upliftment of the
society.”

16.6.2 Importance of Pluralism

Miss M.P.Follet in her famous book, ‘The New State’ has summed up the highlights
of pluralism in following manner. The points are: The pluralists prick the bubble of
the present state’s right to supremacy. They see that the state which has been slowly
forming since the Middle Ages with its pretences and unfulfilled claims has not earned
either our regard or respects. They recognize the value of the group and they see that
the variety of our group life today has significance which must be immediately
reckoned with in a political way. They plead for revivification of local life. The
pluralist see that the interest of the state is not always identical with the interests of its
parts. Pluralism is the beginning of the disappearance of the crowd. Pluralism contains
the prophecy of the future because it has with its keenest insight, seized upon the
problem of identity, of association and of federalism. In relation to the above cited
points, Gettle describes the contribution of the pluralists in these words, “their
emphasis on the fact that states, in spite of legal omnipotence should be subject to
moral restraints is a desirable reaction against the idealization of the state and the
doctrine that state is an end in itself free from moral restraint. The pluralists also make
a timely protest against the rigid and dogmatic legalism of the Austinian theory of
sovereignty”. He further remarks that the pluralists emphasises the necessity of
studying the actual facts of political life in a rapidly changing social system. In this
connection,they point out the growing importance of non-political groups, the danger
of over interference by the state, the proper functions of groups and the desirability of
giving to such groups greater legal recognition in the political systems.

16.6.3 Features of the Pluralist Theory of Democracy

A pluralist democracy is actually operational through different associations rather than

through only the government and the people. The government in such a system is
formed collectively representing different groups emerging in the social process. The
political power is however exercised only by the government which is formed by the
people representing a large number of private associations, groups and organizations.
Pluralist democracy also works on the basis of consensus. They are of the view that
people are rational so they are capable of good and desired decision making and they
can participate in politics through their organized group. These groups are primary
units of politics. Elections are very important in a pluralist democracy. Elections are
reflections of public opinion. They are not only the means of electing the elites but of

155
 BPS-1/OSOU

ensuring participation of people to realize the real meaning of democracy.

Decentralization of power, separation of power and federal division of power in the
system allows proper functioning of the government. Adequate representation in the
government from all sections of the population facilitates continuous communication
between the governors and the governed as well as the government and the masses.
Open competition for power provides a platform for every association or group to
participate in the government. Instead of one there are several centres of power and
hence all groups have an equal share and participate in policy making and decision
making.

16.7 CRITICISMS AGAINST THE PLURALIST THEORY OF DEMOCRACY

The theory challenges the concept of state sovereignty and supreme power of the state.
On the contrary it is observed that state sovereignty maintains law and order situation
and absence of state sovereignty may lead to anarchy in the state. Traditional theorists
are of the view that the pluralists do not have faith in popular sovereignty (sovereignty
of the people). They do not support the pluralists because the latter give undue
importance to the groups than individuals. One of the important conditions for the
maintenance law and order in society is activeness of the state which is possible only
when state is legally supreme and indivisible. If power is decentralized everywhere
there is every possibilities that conflict and chaos will break out leading to the failure
of constitutional mechanisms. There is presence of groups and individuals which are
constantly opposed to each other. Their presence after results in conflicts and chaotic
situations. So, it did only the presence of a unitary and centralized power like the state
which can only maintain an orderly society. Therefore instead of numerous groups and
association the overriding power should be with the state. To the Marxists conferring
power in the hands of the people, that too in associations or groups is a mistake as they
are incapable of ruling a state properly. Instead there should be one political party to
control power in the state. In spite of being levelled with numerous criticisms, the
pluralist theory is accepted on the ground that it supported the idea of politics of
consensus and necessity of public opinion and popular government. This theory,
though does not have much significance independently, yet the emergence of multiple
groups in terms of interest and pressure groups as well as corporate groups is an
indicator of the fact that this theory still stands valid, taking the form of neo-pluralism.
In the words of Robert Dahl, it is to be called polyarchy.

16.8 SUMMARY

During the 19th century through the writings of Pareto, Mosca and Michels, the elite
theory emerged accommodating the contemporary condition of the society. Pareto
regarded elites as those powerful minority in the society that are psychologically and
intellectually superior. Mosca is of the view that elites are those intellectuals, having
moral and material superiority which holds powers in a society. Michel’s, on the other
hand regards elite rule as natural and necessary and safe because masses are apathetic

156
 BPS-1/OSOU

towards governance. The elitist theorists justified the rule of the few on the ground that
masses are ignorant intellectually and psychologically inferior, not equipped to handle
democratic processes and as a result they cannot act as responsible leaders. The Elitist
theory is criticized on the ground that it excludes the ability of the masses as today
mass government is regarded as the popular government.

16.9 EXERCISE

1.Discuss the Pluralist theory of Democracy?

2.What are the Factors responsible for the development of Pluralism theory of
Democracy?

3.What is the Importance of Pluralism?

4.What are the various features of the Pluralist theory of Democracy?

5.What are the Criticisms against the Pluralist theory of Democracy?

16.7 REFERENCE

Dovi, Suzanne. "Political Representation". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(Winter 2017 Edition). Retrieved 21 March 2018.

Pitkin, Hanna (1967). The Concept of Representation. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.

Rehfeld, Andrew (2006). "Toward a General Theory of Political

Representation". The Journal of Politics. 68: 1–21.

Political Representation - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Pitkin, Hanna (1967). The Concept of Representation. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.

157