qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui

opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer
Political Science
Paper I
tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
Philosophy

dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
Umair Azam

cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
 CONTENT
Western Political Thought
• Plato 3
• Aristotle 7
• Montesquieu 17
• Machiavelli 22
• Thomas Hobbes 25
• John Locke 30
• J.J Rousseau 35
• Karl Marx 41
• Jeremy Bentham 53
• John Stuart Mill 60

Muslim Political Thought

• Al Farabi
• Al Mawardi
• Al Ghazali
• Ibn E Khaldun
• Allama Muhammad Iqbal
 Plato

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

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

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

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

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

Plato’s Republic known as “Respublica” in Latin is translated from Greek word “Politeia or
Polity” which means a political constitution in general. It is an achievement of
comprehension, perfection and universality of thought. It presents a picture not of any
existing state in Greek but of an ideal state in which weakness of the existing states
were to be avoided.

Rousseau said, “The Republic is not a mere work upon politics but the finest
treatise on education that ever was written.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Republic of Plato is interpreted as Utopia to end all Utopias, not because it is a
romance, but because he constructed an ideal state in it. He compares the construction
of an ideal state with an act of an artist who sketches an ideal picture without
concerning himself with the fact whether individual characteristic features of imaginative
picture are to be found anywhere or not? In the same way, Plato never thought of the
possibility of the institutions of his ideal state, being capable of ever becoming a reality.
He never thought of the impracticability of this idea concerning his ideal state.

Plato built his state on the analogy of an individual organism. He believed that the
virtues of an individual and of the state were identical. He was of the view that an
individual presented almost the same features and qualities on a smaller scale as society
on a bigger scale.
 Features of an Ideal State
1.Rule of Philosophy
Plato was of the view that in an ideal state the philosopher-ruler should be prominent.
He should has a broaden vision of unity of knowledge. Philosopher-kings are immune
from the provisions of law and public opinion.

2.No unqualified absolutism

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

3.Control over the education system

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

4.Justice in ideal state

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

5.Censorship of art and literature

In ideal state, there should be a complete censorship of art and literature. It is
necessary so that nothing immoral things might falls into the hands of the young
individuals.

6.System of Communism
Plato was of the view that guardian class should live under the system of communism of
property and family. The rulers and soldiers do not possess any property of their own.

7.Equality among men and women

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

8.Principle of Functional Specialization

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

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

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

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

unethical.

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

5.By the system of functional specialization, Plato tends to dwarf the personality of the
individual. There is no possibility of any full development of human personality in his
ideal state.

6.Plato completely ignores the lower class in his ideal state which forms the great bulk
of population. Such negligence may divide the society into two hostile groups.
 Aristotle (384-322 BC)
Aristotle was born in 384 BC. His father was Physician. He studied in Plato’s Academy for about 17 years. He
was attached to Plato’s Academy for two reasons:

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

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

He served as tutor of Alexander the Great in 343 BC and kept his school in the Lyceum for 12
years. After the death of Alexander the Great, the Athenians revolted and prosecuted the
accused persons of whom Aristotle was one of the many. He was charged for impiety but he fled
to avoid punishment.

During the middle Ages, he was simply considered “the Philosopher”. The recovery of his
manuscripts in the thirteenth century marks a turning point in the history of philosophy.
According to Dunning, “the capital significance of Aristotle in the history of political
theories lies in the fact that he gave to politics the character of an independent
science.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aristotle was of the view that state is a “Political Koimonia”, an association which
represents a functional unity of varied and reciprocal parts made by the pursuit of a
common aim in which their nature, their habits and their training lead them all to
join. Maclwain said, “The state is a kind of Koimonia which is a supreme over all
others, and embraces them all.” State is an association of human being and the
highest form of association existing for the sake of perfect and healthier life.
 Functions of the State

1.The state is not merely an association of associations but it is a highest natural

association for pursuits of spiritual class of common life of virtue.
2.The state is based on the element of justice
3.It also aims at the highest good of the community for its proper realization of
demands and needs in it.
4.The state functions to ensure a perfect and self-sufficing life of all its components
members.
5.The state also ensures to fulfill all the natural needs of its members and to provide
opportunities to the individuals for the attainment of moral, intellectual and physical
excellence.
6.According to Aristotle, “Man is essentially good and the function of the state is to
develop his good faculties into a habit of good actions.”

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

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

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

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

1.First part is a practical manual of conduct advising democrats, aristocrats, monarchs and
oligarchs and even tyrants as how to keep themselves in power.

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

What is Revolution?

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

General Causes of Revolution:

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

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

Particular Causes of Revolution:

1. Desire for gain and profit.

2. Universal desire for honor and prestige

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

apprehension in the minds of the subject

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

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

6. Elections intrigues and moral degradation kept up in the selection of some people
7. Carelessness shown in granting public offices to disloyal citizens and undue favoritism shown
to the individuals

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

9. Dissimilarity of different elements in the state

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

11. Dynastic quarrels and conflicts

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

Revolutions in Particular kind of State:

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

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

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

Remedies for Revolution:

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

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

3.Honors and rewards should be distributed as fairly as possible only to deserving ones because
inequalities of offices and honors drive men to revolt.
4.Political offices should be within reach of every individual who is able of performing his
functions best.

5.The Government should be so vigilantly organized that the political office-holders cannot make
money out of their offices. Bribes and other kinds of illegal gratification should be made quite
impossible to accept.

6.A Government would gain popularity and political stability if it so arranges things that the
internal details of the administration, particularly the administration of public finances is open to
public scrutiny.

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

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

9.The habit of obedience and submission to law should be instilled. Lawlessness and anarchy
should not be allowed to creep in even in small and trifling matter.

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

Aristotle also suggested various methods in making oligarchies and tyrannies-stable which are to
be followed by a tyrant.

a)A tyrant must employ spies particularly females to trace out disloyal persons to gallows the
concerned.
b)He should follow an aggressive policy abroad
c)He should always warn people about constant fear of invasion from outside
d)He should keep the people busy and never allow them to remain in vertigo and lethargy.
e)He must extend enthusiasm in religion
f)He should punish the guilty so that crimes must be ended for the peaceful order in the state.
g)He should increase the material well-being of the citizens.
h)He should perish the intellectual life of the citizens to perish revolutionary tendencies.
i) He should adorn his city and must work for its glory
j)He must have respect for the good.

Aristotle put the security of the state above everything else. He even permitted
interference in the privacy of individual’s life when necessary in the interests of the
state. According to Aristotle “A revolution constitutes more a political than a legal
change. It had the effect of reversing ethical, social and economic standard."
 Comparison between Plato and Aristotle
Aristotle, the favorite and most brilliant pupil of Plato, is more conscious of his differences than
of the points of agreement with him. The differences which these giants of philosophy were not
the outcome of any grudge or ill-will, but reflected their own way of solving the existing
problems of their state.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.Where Plato is visionary, imaginative and utopian, Aristotle is logical, realist and
scientific in his approach of propounding theories.

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

5. Plato believed in the phenomenon of unity through uniformity. On the other hand
Aristotle was of the view that unity could be achieved through diversity in universe and
men.

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

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

7. Plato was the propounder of new philosophy; Aristotle was a systemiser of already
existing knowledge, and made freshly streamlining and fascinating by his powerful
influential and charming style for practical adoption for state functions.
 Montesquieu (1689-1755)
Montesquieu was born in 1689 at Chateau de la Bordeaux in a noble aristocratic family.
His father was an eminent French lawyer. At the age of twenty seven he became
president of Parliament of Bordeaux, the most important of parliaments in France except
that of Paris. For a long period of twelve years he continued as chief magistrate at
Bordeaux, but he was not satisfied with the job because he was an extensive reader of
literature and history and had deep sympathetic ties with the intellectual movements of
his days. At last he left presidency and moved to Paris. In 1728 he visited Austria,
Hungary, Venice, Rome, Switzerland, Holland and lastly England where he remained for
above two years. During his tour, he came across the leading politicians and political
thinkers in England and he was deeply impressed by the English conception of liberty
and by the English system of Government.

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

Important works of Montesquieu are:

1.The Persian Letter: He published these letters in 1721. it embodied a brilliant satire on the
existing political, religious and social institutions in France.

2.Reflections and the causes of the Greatness and Decline of the Romans: This
book was published in 1734.

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

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

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

According to Montesquieu there are three kinds of power:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.Mill was of the view “the separation of powers will result in a clash between the three
different organs of the government because each one will take interest only in its own
powers.”

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

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

Montesquieu forms the government into three types:

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

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

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

Each of the form is associated with its peculiar principle:

a) Democracy is based upon political virtue

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

Relation between Forms of Government and religion & Size of State:

Montesquieu was of the view that certain religions had a definite affinity for certain types of
governments. Islam goes well with Democratic Republican form of government, wherein
fundamentals of religion i-e., equality, fraternity and freedom are deeply inculcated and
practiced for the security of mankind and glory of the state. Roman Catholicism is closely
affiliated with monarchial form of government with arbitrary rule and Protestantism even in this
modern age is deeply attached with despotism and cruel expansionism.
Republican form of government is possible only in a state of small size; monarchy suited the
moderate-sized state while a big country or an empire must have despotic government. Real
democracy is possible only ion small city-state. France of Montesquieu’s time was too large for a
republic form of government, Monarchy would suit her best. Montesquieu declared monarchy, a
worst form of government and he unlike Machiavelli discarded the doctrine of aggrandizement
and expansion.
Criticism:

1.It is quite wrong to assume, as Montesquieu does, that democracy and aristocracy are sub-
types of republican form.

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

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

Montesquieu as the Aristotle of

18th Century

1.Montesquieu follows the inductive and historical methods of Aristotle and like him, takes keen
interest in the practical political activities.

2.Like Aristotle, Montesquieu too pays his attention on the influence of physical environment on
the life of man and social institutions.

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

4.Montesquieu closely follows Aristotle when he says that the fundamental types of political
constitutions are fixed once and for all but they are different to some extent under the impact of
the local conditions.

5.Montesquieu’s observation that the law of a society gives to its unique and particular
character, has its parallel in Aristotle’s statement that the constitution of a state determines the
very life and character of its people, if there occurs a change in the constitution, the state itself
becomes altogether a different state.
 Machiavelli (1469-1527)
Machiavelli, the hated beloved prophet of secularism, had one of the enigmas of modern
history, whom Allama Iqbal has characterized as the “Sharp Agent of Devil” was born
in Florence in 1469. Little is known about his early education. However he was known as
a well-read fellow in Italian and Latin classics. The Florence was ruled by the Medici
family in 1494, the Medicis were expelled from the city and Florence became a republic.
In the same year, Machiavelli first joined public life as a chancery clerk. In 1498,
Machiavelli became second chancellor and secretary of the Council of Ten, a body which
had responsibility for war and interior affairs. He held that post for fourteen years.

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

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

The reasons of Machiavelli’s moral indifferences are following:

1.Machiavelli does not believe in any ethical dogmas or in any divine law because of
intentional segregation of politics from religion.

2.In Machiavelli’s philosophy, moral judgments are wholly subordinate to the existence
of political and temporal existence and welfare.

3. Machiavelli calculated that the institution of Papacy brought decline and destruction to
the glory of Rome. He wanted to practice pagan virtues of cunningness, duplicity and
knavery for achieving successful goals.

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

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

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

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

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

In modern world, some of the States Heads acted as “Prince of Machiavelli” by freezing
all channels of human progress and liberty and also by reducing the citizens to that of
animals and slaves. The Prince and the Discourses are still modern theories and are
being practiced in many secular countries of modern age.
 Machiavelli and State Diplomacy

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

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

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

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

“Cruelty is better than mercy.”

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

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

1.Impart priority to your own interests. The strong must impose

intimidatory laws upon the weak to arrest their rebelliousness.
2.Honor to nobody but to yourself. He who aspires to acquire mastery can
afford to have no rivals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10.Concentrate all your efforts on war. In the Machiavellian state, all

regular channels of human activities are barred and all roads lead to war.
 Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679)
Thomas Hobbes was born near Malmesbury in 1588. He was the victim of broken home.
His father, the Vicar of Westport, deserted his wife and children when Hobbes was still a
boy. Hobbes received his early education in Wiltshire, a place in Malmesbury. At the age
of fifteen years, he joined Oxford. He got the degree of graduation at the age of
nineteen. His soul remained insatiate with the University education and found it
worthless.
On leaving Oxford, he became tutor to the heir of William Cavendish who later on
became Earl of Devonshire. His contact with royal family brought him into contact with
most important personalities of the period. He left England during the horrors of civil war
and was forced to take refuge in France, where he joined the supporters of royal
absolutism. He lived for about twenty years in France whose autocratic Government
appealed him considerably.

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

Hobbes built up a systematic philosophy of state, taking his stand neither on tradition
nor on theology but on his study of human nature. It was the crucial period when
upholders of constitutional rule were fiercely fighting for the annihilation of the
supporters of Divine Right of Kings. Hobbes saw the miserable condition of his beloved
country and ardently advocated for the maintenance of authority and order, and he
constructed a system of strong and responsible sovereign Government on the basis of
the then very popular doctrine of social contract. Hobbes was, thus, as much a creature
of his times as Machiavelli was. However he found a link between Renaissance and the
Restoration.
 Hobbes’s Conception of State of Nature
Hobbes was of the view, “The only basis of human action is a perpetual and restless
desire of power after power that ends only in death. By nature man is selfish and
egoistical. Every one is striving for the gratification of his appetites and these
appetites are different from individual to individual because of physical constitution,
education and experience."

Hobbes’s man lived originally in state of nature without the benefits of Government. All
human actions were regulated by two things:

1.The instinct of self-preservation

2.Individual egoism

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

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

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

According to Hobbes, man undoubtedly wanted peace and tranquility; but his fear of others, his
anxiety to retain what is already had and his never ending desire for self aggrandizement on the
basis of ‘mine and mine’ led him to perennial conflict and anarchy in the state. Man is the state
of nature becomes the slave and tool of impulses and passions. Later on man realized that peace
had definitely more utility than constant was and fear of violent death brought man’s passions
into line with his reasons. Man could live in harmony and peace with one another either through
fear of punishment or desire for profit. And this purpose could only be achieved by establishing a
strong and stable Government capable of inspiring awe and fear by using harsh and arbitrary
methods who disobey its laws and of giving attractive rewards to those who do conform.
 Hobbes and Theory of Sovereignty
Hobbes’s sovereign was presented as a Mortal God vested with absolute and unchallenged power
to rule over his subjects arbitrarily. He was the smasher of the regular channels of democracy, a
way of life. Hobbes’s sovereign suffocated all the social and cultural communication between the
people bringing about a reign of oppression and harshness.

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

Features of Sovereignty

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

2.He is the singular law-making authority.

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

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

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

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

7.Sovereignty is indivisible; inalienable and unpunishable.

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

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

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

According to Hobbes the difference of commonwealths consist in the difference of the

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

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

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

democracy.

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

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

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

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

Criticism

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

1.The whole conception of social contract and an organized society resulting from it is
unhistorical. There are no examples in history when Hobbes’s men gathered together
and signed a contract for the formation of a civil society.

2.Hobbes portrays a dismal picture of the state of nature, which is far from satisfactory.
He paints a darker side and completely ignores a brighter side of human nature. His
picture reflects the evils of his man. He declares man selfish, solitary and brutish. But
human nature has two essential aspects, good and bad. He always speaks of the
badness of human nature.
3.Hobbes was of the view that the state of nature is a state of war, the war of all against
all, in which the cardinal virtues are force and fraud. How could such a man go against
his own nature and suddenly enter a “state not of war, but of peace, not of force and
fraud but of right and justice.”

4.Hobbes says that there were no laws in the state of nature. This is baseless.

5.Hobbes’s sovereign appears to be the representative of the people, who follows public
opinion and looks after public welfare. This is the only one aspect in which Hobbes has
recognized the limitations of his Leviathan.

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

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

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

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

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

Hobbes was a materialist and rationalist to the core of his heart. His political philosophy
indicated the absolute sovereignty of whatever Government happened to be in power.
He bade people render unto Caesar and unto God whatever Caesar commanded. His
state absorbed the will of all its members in matters secular and spiritual and it was
wrong to will or act against it.
 John Locke (1632-1704)
John Locke was born at Wrington in north Somersetshire in 1632. His father was an
attorney and land-owner of modest means. He got his early education at home and later
on he was admitted to Westminster School. In 1652, he was sent to Oxford for higher
education. At that time he was only twenty-two and entered Christ Church College
(Oxford). His university career was not very shining because the narrow discipline of the
place dulled his enthusiasm for formal studies. In 1660, he got the degree of Master of
Arts. After taking the M.A. degree, Locke was appointed as a tutor in Greek. Locke did
not like teaching profession and he started medicine. He was greatly influenced by
Descartes and became physician. Later on he became the confidential Secretary of Lord
Shaftsbury, the founder of the Whig Dynasty. He went over to the Parliamentary side
and was later on made a field marshal in the rebel forces. When Charles II became king,
he was made Earl of Shaftsbury in 1672.

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

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

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

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

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

Optimistic Conception of Human Nature:

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

Rejection of Absolute Monarchy based on Divinity and Heredity:

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

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

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

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

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

natural rights.” (Dunning)

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

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

According to Locke, “God, who has given the world to men in common, has also
given reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience.
The earth and all that is therein, is given to men for support and comfort of
their being and all the fruits it naturally produces and beasts it feeds, belongs
to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of
nature, and nobody has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of
mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state. Whatsoever he
removes out of the state that nature has provided and left it in, he ahs mixed
his labor with and joined to it something that is his own and thereby makes it
his own property.”
 Locke’s Conception of Popular Sovereignty
Locke is regarded as the champion of people’s rights and a harbinger of their sacred and
fundamental liberties. His social contract did not create the irresponsible, cruel and
absolutist “Leviathan” of Hobbes, but reserved the sovereign rights to the final judge of
all actions, the community. The ultimate supreme power is not vested in the scepter of
king; but it remains in the hands of the people.

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

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

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

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

Locke’s Government created by the unanimous consent of the majority should have
freedom of speech, of election and of religious worship and in order that it may be
prevented from becoming too autocratic and arbitrary. This democratic government
should be run by a system of checks and balances. In other words, the government
should be divided into three main organs i-e, legislature, executive and judiciary. And of
these three, the legislature should be supreme, as is evidently available in the modern
constitutions.
 Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778)

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

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

The publication of his book “Social Contract” aroused the indignation of the French
Government, which ordered his arrest. He escaped to Geneva, where the Democratic
Council burned his book and threatened his life. He took refuge in Germany, where an
angry mob almost strangulated him. He fled to England where only one man, Hume,
took him into his affection. By this time, however, Rousseau’s suffering had greatly
perturbed his brain and he was tormented by a prosecution mania. He suspected that
Hume was plotting to poison him. He thought that “Everyone hurts me because of
my love for mankind.” Finally his fear of being murdered drove him to commit suicide.
 Rousseau’s State of Nature
“Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains. Many a one believes himself
the master of others, and yet he is greater slave than they. How has this
change come about? I do not know. What can render it legitimate? I believe
that I can settle this question.” (Rousseau)

Man is born free only in the sense that freedom is his inborn right; it is the necessary
condition for the development of the various potentialities of human nature. We can say
that he is born for freedom that he ought to be free. The second part of the first
sentence that he is everywhere in chains imply that customs and conventions of society
and state regulations imposer upon him certain artificial and unnecessary Rousseau, a
philosopher of the heart rather than of the head, presented his State of Nature to be an
earthly paradise though he himself confessed that the conception of the State of Nature
was quite hypothetical. As Rousseau says, “A state which exists no longer,
perhaps never existed, probably never will exist and of which none the less it is
necessary to have just idea in order to judge well our present state.” He always
maintained that the natural state was also better than the social state. For, in it, the
natural man, or the noble savage, lived a solitary, happy and carefree life of the brute
was independent, contented and self-sufficing.

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

But with the appearance of fixed homes, family and property, the knell of human
equality was sounded. But even this primitive society was tolerable. The least subjects
to revolutions, the best for man. Only when the serpent entered into the society in the
form of private property, was the life of man changed from prosperity to adversity.
Rousseau was of the view “the first man having enclosed a piece of land he
thought himself of saying this is mine and found people simple enough to
believe him the real founder of social inequality and injustice.” The institution of
private property created a sense of jealousy and struggle, converted usurpation into an
acknowledged right and led to the promotion of society. He became subject to violence,
bloodshed, crimes against property and person and all the evils of society and civilization
including slavery. Thus the life of man became pitiable, miserable and intolerable.
As Rousseau says, “the problem is to find a form of association which will
defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each
associate and in which each while uniting himself with all, may still obey
himself alone and remain as free as before.”
 Rousseau’s General Will

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

Dr. McDoughall defines General Will as “The General Will is conceived as coming
to be when every individual in a group or society has a conception or idea of
the group as a whole and identifies his good with the good of that whole.”

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

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

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

Rousseau’s whole arguments depended upon the fact that a community of citizens is unique with its
members, they neither make it nor have rights against it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism:

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

2. It is in actual practice difficult to distinguish the General Will from the

Will of all. The General Will is not the unanimous Will of the whole people
because that might be the Will of all. General Will has its own merits and
demerits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. This theory is not applicable to the bigger state in population and

territory, and does not admit of representative government.

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

10. Where we are determined to decide what are the visible manifestation
of this Will, Rousseau leaves us in the realm of darkness. He stresses that
General Will always tends to the public advantage and that is infallible. But
it does not follow that the deliberations of the people are equally correct.
 Karl Marx (1818–1883)
Karl Marx born in a prosperous family became a victim of misfortunes, a prey of
perpetual crushing poverty and a painfully sensitive to see the incredible sufferings of
humanity because of economic inequality, social disparity, incalculable violence and mal-
treatment towards laborers at the hands of feudal lords and industrialists. He was born
at Treves in Prussia on 5th May, 1818. His aristocratic Jewish parents embraced
Christianity when Karl Marx was only a child. At the age of 17, he became a law student
at Bonn University. In 1826, he left for the University of Berlin. In 1843, he married
Jenny, a member of petty nobility who remained a faithful counterpart throughout his
life.

In 1841, Karl Marx got his degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Jena on
the tropic of “The Difference between the Natural Philosophy of Democratus and
Epicurus.” He mixed with the revolutionaries and his radical thinking made him
suspicious which created obstacle in the security of employment as a university teacher.
Then he entered into the field of journalism. Karl Marx studied Hegel very thoroughly
and noted basic fallacies in his idealistic philosophy.
In early 1845, Karl Marx left Paris for Brussels. But before he left France, he got an
ever-lasting friendship with Friedrich Engel which brought many changes in his life.
Marx-Engel collaboration was one of the history’s most unique prominent and enduring
collaboration. Friedrich Engel became the friend, disciple and passionate seeker of
knowledge and a warm partner. In the summer of 1845, Friedrich took Karl Marx to
England and there he was introduced to the founders of the “German Workers
Educational Union” that had recently started in London. After remaining for sometime in
London, he again came back to Brussels. Marx had to flee from one country to another
on account of his conspiratorial activities. Then he steeled down in London till his death.

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

1. Communist Manifesto immortalized Karl Marx. He wrote this with the assistance
and help of his faithful friend Friedrich Engel. This is considered the Bible of the
Communism all over the world.
2. Das Kapital is considered as the foundation stone of communism.
3. Poverty of Philosophy
4. A Contribution to the critique of Political Economy
5. The Holy Family
6. Revolution and Counter Revolution
 Political Philosophy of Karl Marx
Karl Marx is rightly called the Father of Modern Communism. The theory of communism
owes its birth to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel. According to the theory of communism,
the only practical thing was to acquire mastery over the governing laws of society. Apart
from this, Karl Marx and Engel wanted to know the causes of economic changes in
human society. They also wanted to explore what further changes are required. They
concluded that the changes in human society were not the least accidental like changes
in external nature. They worked out a scientific theory of society based on the actual
experience of men. Karl Marx applied this theory to the society in which he lived mainly
Capitalist Britain. He was of the opinion that it was quite impossible to separate his
economic theories from historical and social theories. Marx attacked the existing
capitalist institutions. He did not believe in the essential goodness of man. He conceived
of a man more as an economic as a political animal.

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

1. A purely philosophical section on dialectics

2. Pure economics
3. Historical materialism

Hegel’s influence over Karl Marx:

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

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

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

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

Karl Marx was a social scientist. As a social scientist, he made efforts to look at this
injustice quite impersonally. But these consequences according to Karl Marx were
essentially involved for the accumulation of capital. Karl Marx viewed that in each and
every society industry, “the wages paid to the workers are not the equivalent of
the full value they produce, but only equal to about half of this value or even
less. The rest of the value produced by the worker during his working day is
taken outright by his employer.”
 Proletarian Dictatorship
The Proletariat class comprises of the workers, laborers or wage-earners would naturally be in
the vast majority in every society. Karl Marx was of the view that it is then quite natural that the
dictatorship of the proletariat would be a democracy of the majority. The “Communist
Manifesto” also says “The first step in the working class revolution is the raising of the
proletariat to the position of the ruling class, the victory of democracy. The proletarian
movement is the conscious movement of the immense majority in the interest of the
immense majority.” Karl Marx believed in the inevitability of this class struggle and the
ultimate victory of the proletariat after a successful bloody revolution, he did not like to leave
this development to the forces of economic evolution. He wanted that this revolution should be
precipitated through organization and energetic sophisticated action on the part of workers. All
the confronted titanic forces should be crushed by the laborers.

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

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

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

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

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

The proletarian dictatorship in the transitional period is not a fluctuating period of “Super
Revolutionary” deeds and decrease. On the contrary, the dictatorship of the proletariat
must be regarded as an entire historical epoch full of external conflicts and civil wars. In
the dictatorship of proletariat there is a constant organizational work along with
economic progress. In the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletariat will be given full
opportunity to educate itself.

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

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

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not an end, but a means to an end the creation of
society in which the basic principle of life and social organization would be, “from each
according to his capacity, to each according to his needs.” The dictatorship of the
proletariat is transitory in nature. After the establishment of the society, dictatorship of
the proletariat will not remain. The state will wither away. All functions of the state will
administer themselves and administration will be a matter of technical and scientific
knowledge instead of exercise of political will and authority. There will be an ideal
society of the free and the equal without any internal disruption and mutual dissension.
 Karl Marx and Capitalism
Karl Marx devoted a great part of his life to the study of capitalism I order to describe
the capitalist method of production of his own age and for all ages to come. By studying
capitalism, Karl Marx wanted to know the guiding principle of its change. Karl Marx
studied the capitalism with missionary spirit to make a scientific forecast on its
development. The salient feature of the feudal production was production for local
consumption. In the age of feudalism, persons used to produce for themselves and for
their feudal lords. In those days, production was meant for consumption. Gradually
feudal units of production began to break up. Profit became the only aim of production in
the modern world. Production for profit required two things, capitalists’ means of
production, and the laborers whose only chance of getting a livelihood was to sell his
labor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the Communist theory, the state is nothing but a tool of the dominant
class in society. Economic is the domineering factor which becomes the base of all
structures of the society. According to Aristotle the state came into birth for the sake of
life and state continues to exist for the sake of good life. According to classical view,
state is an institution meant for the proper development of the personality of its each
and every citizen. Laski said, “State strives to hold a just balance between the
different elements in society. It strives by its policy to effect such an
adjustment of the relationship between citizens and will enable each of them to
realize, if he so desires, the fullest implications of human personality.”

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

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

Karl Marx viewed state as a product of class antagonism. Lenin said, “Where, when
and to what extent, the state arises depends directly on which where and to
what extent, the class antagonism of a given society cannot be objectively
reconciled. And, conversely the existence of the state proves that class
antagonisms are irreconcilable.” Karl Marx was of the view that the state will be
able to wither away completely when society has realized the value, “From each
according to his ability: to each according to his needs.” Then there would be no
problem of production and its distribution. There would be no question of mine and
thine. Every one will work voluntarily according to his ability and capacity and will get
share according to his needs and requirements.

Classless Society:
Karl Marx was of the opinion that class struggle is perpetual and constant between man
and man and consequently man always fought for his own existence. It ends only if the
final and ultimate victory of the labor is achieved. This is a known factor that in the
capitalist structure of society, but not over the means of production and its direction was
vested in the hands of the capitalist. Proletariats in that society are neglected people
always living at the sweet mercy of capitalist. When violent bloody revolution in the
name of communism bring about complete and ultimate victory to the proletarian
revolutionaries, and the complete annihilation of the aristocratic and capitalist class in
the society ushers a new epoch of social equality and economic parity. With the advent
of proletarianism, a new system of legal, economic, political and production world
emerges out. In this new system, all the functions of the government and the means as
well as technique of production were to be controlled by the society.

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

Criticism:

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

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

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

4. The conception of Karl Marx that victory of proletariats over the capitalists would
result in the disappearance of class distinction is absolutely incorrect and untrue for
glaring reasons that he had created class distinction i.e. bourgeoisie and proletariat, two
great hostile camps and two prominent classes constantly indulging in class struggle and
warfare which culminated into oppression and chaos.
 Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
Jeremy Bentham was the intellectual leader and the real founder of English
utilitarianism; whose deep interest in public affairs covered the period from the
American Revolution to the Reform Bill of 1832. He was born in a rich lawyer’s family in
1748 in London. From the very childhood, Bentham was scholarly and pedantic. He
learnt Latin when he was only three years old. He also learnt Greek and French and later
on he devoted to the study of Jurisprudence and legal philosophy. He received the
degree of graduation at the age of fifteen from Queen’s College Oxford. He had an
instinctive interest in science and a distinctive talent for introspective psychology. From
his youth he showed a passionate devotion to social welfare, identifying himself in
imagination and determining to apply to the social sciences the methods that were being
worked out in the natural science.

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

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

Jeremy Bentham was a prolific writer and he collected works comprised of twenty-two
volumes. His writings cover a wide range of interest including ethics, theology,
psychology, logic, economics, penology etc. he wrote following most important books:

1. Fragments of Government
2. A Defence of Usury
3. Discourse on Civil and Penal Legislation
4. Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
5. A Treatise on Judicial Evidence
6. A Theory of Punishments and Rewards
7. Essay on Political Tactics
 Importance of Bentham in
History of Political Thought
Bentham holds a distinctive place in the history of political thought. He was more a legal
reformer and jurist rather than a political philosopher. He had nothing original in his
political doctrine and also he did not create new ideas. Bentham was the first to
establish the utilitarian school of thought. Maxey said, “Here was a doctrine to rock
the foundations of all accredited political theory. With ruthless logic he brushed
aside the ancient varieties of both radical and conservative thought; had erased
all distinction in principle between free and despotic politics: had put it down
that divine, feudal right, historical right, natural right and constitutional right
equally and like were rubbish and nonsense. There was no right to rule and no
right to be free, there was only the fact of power and the circumstances which
made that power a fact.”

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

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

1. Reform of law and legal procedure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kinds of Rights:

1. Legal Rights:
A vivid and intelligible expression means a faculty of action sanctioned by the will of a
supreme law-maker in a political society.

2. Moral Rights:
It means vivid and intelligible expression than the other. Its sanction is the opinion or
feeling of a group of persons who cannot be precisely identified, but who nevertheless
are able to make their collective or over age will unmistakably manifest.

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

According to Bentham, duties of following kinds:

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

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

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

Bentham denied natural rights and natural law, yet he carried both these things in his
political philosophy.
 Bentham’s Views on Sovereignty and
Government

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

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

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

Bentham seems reluctant to agree with Blackstone’s characterization of the British constitution as perfect,
and suggested some amendments to it. He was for the promulgation of universal manhood suffrage, annual
parliaments and voting by ballot. He disliked oth the monarchy and the House of Lords in Britain. A republican
government was best because it ensured efficiency, economy and supremacy of the people and brought about
the greatest good of the greatest number on the basis of the identity of interests between the ruler and the
ruled. Democratic constitution is presented by him.
Theory of Punishment:
Bentham held that punishment should be preventive and corrective rather than
coercive and retaliatory. It should be calculated to prevent the spread of evil and
to secure the extension of good. Punishment must not be inflicted where it was
ineffective, groundless, needless or unprofitable. It should be obviously justifiable
and proportionate to the offence committed but it must be sufficient to secure its
ends. It ought to be able to prevent the offender from repeating the offence. It
should be individualized, qualitatively and quantitatively, to suit the individual
offender. The basic principles of punishment are:

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

According to Bentham, the only valid test of the adequacy of a punishment was its
ability to secure public welfare. He believed that the English criminal law was
inhuman. He was in favor of the reform of the criminal and the prisons and
suggested the building of his moral Panopticon, a wheel-shaped building for the
housing and proper observation of the criminals. He had a great faith in education
as he wanted to bring about adult franchise, a responsible executive, universal
education and a representative parliament.
 John Stuart Mill (1806–1873)
John Stuart Mill was born on May 20, 1806 in London. He was the eldest son of his
father James Mill who was the disciple of Bentham. J. S. Mill started the learning of
Greek language at the age of three and then Latin at the age of eight. As a young boy of
twelve, he had studied the philosophy of some of the great philosophers, such as Plato,
Herodotus, Homer, Aristotle and Thucydides. He also learned French language and
acquired a great fluency.

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

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

He wrote following books:

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. He supported universal suffrage granting the right of voting to women also, with a system of
proportional system.

4. He opposed the secret ballot because it led to favoritism and corruption and vigorously
proposed for open ballot system.

5. He recommended a second chamber. He believed that the final legislative authority should
rest with the House of Commons, but at the same time he assigned the task of drafting bills,
before they come to the parliament for consideration to the House of Lords.

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

7. Bentham thought of quantitative pleasures. Mill believed in qualitative pleasures. He drew a

distinction between several kinds of pleasures, considering some as higher while others as lower.
 Mill’s Views on Individual Liberty

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

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

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

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

Mill apprehended that the growth of democracy and the increasing legislative powers of
the state tended to reduce individuals to a common type and to swamp them in the
tyranny of collectivism. He believed that social progress could not be achieved if each
and every individual is imparted with fuller opportunity for free development of his
personality. Mill favored freedom of thought, speech and action. He believed in toleration
of opinions and unhampered freedom of discussion. He had confidence that truth would
definitely survive in the struggle of ideas.
Freedom of the Individual:
Originality in conduct and thought and individuality are essentially basic features
efforting towards social welfare. When individuality is quelled by the law of a monarch or
an aristocrat, the evil of it may be counteracted by the custom of the masses, but when
the masses make the law of repression, custom unites with legislation to confirm the
evil. Individual development enriches the world by a variety of characters. But he
imposes two limitations on this liberty:

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Insistence on the view that spontaneity and individuality are essential elements in
individual and social welfare.

3. Revolt against the tyranny of custom, tradition or public opinion which might hinder
the expression and development of individuality.
Important points of Mill’s Individual Liberty:
1. Mill advocated that individual is sovereign over his body and mind. He must be left
free in all actions that concern himself alone. And society has no right to impose any
restraint over the individual because restraints as such in an evil and retards the
progress of the individuals.

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

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

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

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

5. The freedom of action and association was to be limited by the condition that none
should jeopardize other’s rights and freedom.

Criticism:
Mill was bitterly criticized because of his certain inconsistencies on the doctrine of liberty
at the hands of Earnest Barker who said, “Mill was the prophet of an empty liberty
and an abstract individual.”

Mill’s theory was criticized on the following ground:

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

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