UNIT- 1

What is Politics: Theorizing the ‘Political’

What is Politics?
Politics is the most important activity of organized life in society. If one tries to argue that on
a macro basis life without social or political thought is than one wrong.
Why and in what manner people behave in their economic and political activities, should be
systematically studied. That is what the study of politics seeks to do and political behaviour is
almost entirely linked to economic and social behaviour and interests and vice-versa.
Nowadays young people often pompously declare: “I am not interested in politics”. To them
politics is some disreputable art of manipulating one’s way into positions of state power for
personal and party gains. And they don’t look forward to being called a “politician” ever in
their working lives. In fact, the word has almost gradually become a term of abuse.
As far as the concept of politics is really concerned this is a most naive and dumb notion.
Actually, we are all politicians. In everything we say or do, we are taking a position that is
actually a political position whether we like it or not. For politics concerns everything in life.
What and whether you will be educated, what and whether you will get a job, how much
money you need to pay your bills and run your life and that of your family, how much money
you can or should earn and from it how much you need to and should surrender in taxes to
the state etc are all political questions. Should your education and preparation in life be the
same as of everybody else or should some people other than you have more or less
opportunities than you have? Even whether what you call your private property is or should
be strictly your own or is or should be owned ultimately by the whole of society and the nation
and what rights you can or should have to dispose of your property as you like are political
questions. In other words, one’s level of individual and collective freedom, equality vis-à-vis
others, justice, rights and duties are all part of the realm of politics.

You are not living in a ‘no man’s land’ or in the middle of the ocean or on some planet in
outer space. You always exist within and under the jurisdiction of a state that has its own set
of laws, rules and policies with its own bias. So, when you take the stance, as many do, that
you are only following the rules of the game and trying to live your life, that is also a political
position because that only means you have by your actions (by default) accepted the status
quo whatever it is. If you are advantaged in society relative to others then you have accepted
that deal (probably happily) and don’t want to touch politics for things are fine with you. If you
are not advantaged on the other hand or you are exploited or are otherwise getting a bad deal you
have still accepted the state of affairs as they are without trying to change your lot. So, when you say
you want to keep away from politics and do nothing, you are actually taking a political position in
favour of the system as it is. If you do decide to do something then of course you are in politics in one
form or the other. Even if you don’t you still are in politics because you are helping the status quo to
prevail and be as it is by accepting it and working under it.

Frankly therefore whatever you do or you don’t is political one way or the other whether you like it or
not.

So, you might as well start thinking and pondering politics systematically. How about staring out by
looking at how mankind has been thinking on politics conceptually from earliest times to the present
day. Then maybe you can decide for yourself what you think politics is or more accurately what your
politics is or should be?

The route that the evolution of human thought took was substantially determined by history. The
political structures of the times often egged on the growth of some streams of thought in political
philosophy.

Generally, politics has always been about state and government at it' s most basic and has involved
the study of formal political institutions such as parliament, executive, judiciary and the bureaucracy
etc. Politics is thus a science and art of government and the basic political relationships: between state
and individual and between states.

The Greek View-

In fact, the word politics itself has its origin in the Greek word polis, which means the community or
populace or society. Greek thinkers like Plato and Aristotle saw politics as everything that is concerned
with 'the general issues affecting the whole community'. According to the Greek view the participation
of each and every citizen in the life of the community is necessary for the self-realization of each
human being. In fact, Aristotle argued he who did not live in a polis is to be considered 'either a God
or a beast'. He also commented that basically man is a political animal. It has to remembered that
Greeks were organised into small city states or communities where each and every male was a citizen
and attended parliament styled meetings for deciding the affairs of the community and so the
distinctions that we make nowadays between what is private for an individual and what is public in
his necessary relationships with the state and government organs were not quite what they are today.
So much of the Greek view has to be seen as emanating from those circumstances and sociological
realities. Thus, in the Greek view all behaviour of a citizen was his political stance and nothing was
private. The Greeks also stressed that the purpose of politics is to enable men to live together in a
community and also to lead a high moral life. Or in other words the aim of Politics was also to foster
the adoption and following of ethical goals leading to spiritual self-realization. Thus, the Greek concept
of politics included the study of man, society, state and ethics and the subject was treated as a
combination of religious and moral philosophy, metaphysics, a course for civic training of citizens and
a guide to power.

The View of Politics as Study of the State-

With the decline of city-states of the Greek sort and the rise of large empires, beginning with the
Roman empire, the notion of politics inevitably began to be more and more linked to the state. The
idea of the state became accepted as the principal mode of human organisation and developed with
the rise of nation states particularly since the close of the Middle Ages. Hence subjects like
international law also became a part of part of politics. The state, it became accepted would have
monopoly of coercive power and the right to enforce obedience using police and military force. The
state in practice meant the government because whatever was done in the name of the state was
done by the government and hence the study of government organs like and institutions became a
part of the study of politics. Also, different forms of government like monarchy, aristocracy,
democracy, federalism also became a part of the study of the state. In the twentieth century, the
effect of public opinion, political parties and bureaucracy on government institutions were also
included. Works like Modern Democracies (1909) by Herman Finer represented this trend.

Politics as a Dimension of the Social Process-

It was realised over time that politics as a study of the state and institutions of the state like the
government bodies does not go deep enough into various aspects of the political life of a citizen. The
ordinary citizen and his political life is an interaction between him and the society and polity of which
he is a part. To understand politics therefore one has to understand the whole social process and
phenomenon.

To study politic as a social science and as a dimension of the social phenomenon and social process
however leads to divergent views. Different schools of thought view the social process differently.
Many people and thinkers at different times in history have propounded on the social process of
politics but the main schools of thought that have made an impact are as follows: (a) The Liberal View
(b) The Marxist View, (c) The Common Good View and (d) The Study of Power View.

The Common Good View - Politics as Common Good-

There is a way of looking at politics, which views the purpose of politics to be the pursuit of the
common good. The problem of course is no two people can most of the time agree on what constitutes
the common good. It is suggested that when individuals live together in a society their common life
creates common interests which constitutes the common good. And the pursuit of these common
interests is the job of politics.

The idea of politics as common good is very old. Plato and Aristotle in the Greek city-states, the
political theologists of the Middle Ages, the utilitarian philosophers like Bentham and Mills, Karl Marx
a socialist, the positive liberals like Green and Laski in relatively recent times and even the thoughts
of Gandhi in India all fundamentally propose a notion of politics for the common good. But of course,
they have differed on what constitutes common good.

The Greek notion of Common Good-

Plato viewed politics as a process through which men debate matters concerning the whole populace
and take decisions to realize the common public good. Aristotle saw common good as an objective
thing for man for it existed in nature. He said: "The end of polis is not mere life; it was rather good life.
Polis came into existence for the sake of bare means of life but it continues its existence for the sake
of good life.... If all communities aim at some good, the political community which is the highest of all
and which embraces the rest, aims in a higher degree than any other at the highest good. The
individual is for the state. The task of politics is to decide the Good'. Plato called 'Justice' as man's
highest good and the task of politics he argued is the dispensation of justice. He further said the
common good is realised by each man sticking to his station in life. Interestingly that meant slaves
should serve their masters without complaining. So, the essence of the common good according to
Plato lay in for instance in that the good of the slave in serving the master and the good of the master
lay in serving the polis.

The Liberal view of Common Good-

Within Liberalism the notion of common good changed from the early to the later positive. The early
liberals were fanatical in their belief that all that was needed for achieving the common good was for
each individual to pursue his own happiness in his own way so long as it did not interfere with the
happiness of others. In this he needs to have the total freedom to do as he pleases with only societal
institutions like courts and a constitution existing only to solve disputes and fights. They invented the
concept of utility maximisation to explain their theory. Later liberals took a positive and constructive
view of the common good and suggested it was not enough for each individual to blindly seek his own
selfish interest in a state of free competition. That way the common good would never be realised.
T.H. Green who is believed to have provided the ethical foundation to liberalism, argued that the
individual is a social being and he comes to 9 acquire his capacities by being a part of the larger social
whole. For a free, rational and moral life one has to live in accordance with the common good which
may or may not be the individual's good. It is only this wider common good defined in a more real and
benevolent sense which provides the context for rights. He suggested the common good is served
when the external conditions prevailing within in a society provide the conditions for the internal
development of man. This can be achieved not just by making provisions for rights, liberty and justice
but also by such things like providing public education and health care, factory and minimum wage
legislation, food adulterations laws etc. For the sake of the common good meant in this sense the state
needs to intervene and regulate the economy and even should stand in the way of free competition if
necessary. The liberal thinker R.H. Tawney even went to the extent of suggesting that common good
is served by proper distribution of resources and regulation of the economy for social purpose. Thus,
they supported the idea of a welfare state rather than a free market economy.

The Communitarian View of Common Good-

In the middle of the last century there was a certain revival of classical liberalism also referred to as
neo-liberalism, which advocated values away from those of the positive liberalism of the early decades
of the twentieth century. Partly as a reaction to this there arose a revival of the idea of the state as a
political community in the 1980s and 1990s. This school of thought is known as Communitarianism.
The most important thinkers of this school have been writers like Charles Taylor, Michael Sandal,
Walser etc. The communitarian view advocates the necessity of attending to the community along
with individual liberty and equality because they feel that the value of the community is not
sufficiently recognised in the individualistic liberal theories of politics. Usually, the community already
exists in the form of social practices, cultural traditions and shared social understandings. It is
important to take the reality of existence of this community into account and protect it. Unlike free-
for-all Liberalism or revolutionary rebuild-it-all Marxism, in contrast Communitarianism asks that what
already exists be valued and protected and within it the common good be identified and promoted
without an obsession for individual political and economic freedom. In fact, the communitarians
suggest the rights of the individual should be replaced with the 'politics of common good' and common
good should mean that which is in conformity with the natural way of life of the community. The
Common Good should conform to the three tests: (a) it should help build a cultural structure that is
determined not by the individual or the market economy but by the community's values as a whole,
(b) the individual's judgement of the good is replaced by the shared vision of the community and (c)
political legitimacy in the community should identify with the common good. The communitarians like
the Positive Liberals or the Marxists also believe that man is a social being and true freedom of the
individual is only possible in the community. The task of politics they argue is not the good of the
individual or the protection of his rights 10 but the good of the society as a whole. Politics should be
an activity that encourages the cultural concept of a good life for the community in a participatory
social set up. Gandhiji had also proposed what must be regarded as a communitarian notion of the
common good in his notion of Sarvodaya. He meant by Sarvodaya a harmonious welfare and goodwill
to all. He also suggested the purpose of politics is to create a society based upon the principle of Saman
Vaya, i.e., harmony among classes, groups and individuals and institutions, idea and ideologies. This
common good can be achieved through six principles: Equanimity, non-violence, decentralisation,
satyagraha, synthesis and world peace.

The Study of Power View - Politics as the Study of Power

Even though from the earliest times it has been recognised that politics is in many ways fundamentally
a study of power, it is an American school of politics called the Chicago School of Political Science
which suggested that to make the study of politics scientific it is necessary to make politics a study of
power as the essence of politics. In all the traditional classical schools thought politics focussed on the
common good, but in this new proposed scientific study of politics more emphasis was laid on
methods and techniques and on creating a study based upon facts. This school asserted that political
science had been influenced by ethics, morality, religion, patriotism etc but it needs to base on
behavioural psychology, empirical sociology and economics studied as a science as opposed to
political economy. They also argued that studying politics as a study of the state is insufficient.

There is no single accepted definition of power. Many people have defined power differently.
Sociologist Max Weber defined politics in terms of power as follows: "Politics is the struggle to share
or influence the distribution of power, whether between states or among the groups within a state.
Max Weber defined power itself as 'the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be
in a position to carry out his own despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability
rests'.

Power can be of different natures. It can be the simple relationship where one party attempts to
mould the will of the other in a direct visible manner and if he succeeds, we can say he is powerful. It
can also be of an indirect nature where for instance where one party controls the other not directly
but indirectly by limiting the agenda of their interaction to his convenience and suitability rather than
of the other. lastly and this is the most complex power can be exercised by shaping other's beliefs
about what is and is not in their best interest which may have nothing to do with the reality of what
is really in their best interest. Thus, exerting power by creating a false consciousness. Luks for instance
observed that in many capitalist societies, workers accept the system even though their real interest
lies in radical change. Tools like the process of education and mass media etc can all be used in exerting
this form of power and control.

Even though the concept of power is one of the most important concepts in political theory there is a
lack of agreement among thinkers about its scientific definition and the conceptual context in which
it should be placed. Hence the view of politics that relies on a study of power is to that extent weak
and limited.

All forms of power whether of money-power, muscle-power (legal or illegal), derived from social
customs etc can be broadly categorized according to John Kenneth Galbraith in three categories: (I)
Condign power or the power of punishment (ii) Compensatory power or the power of winning
submission by an offer of reward, i.e., by giving something to those who bow down to the power and
(iii) Conditioned power which is the most subtle because it is exercised by changing beliefs and
includes persuasion, education, culture etc.

Basically, there are only three forms of power: Political, Economic and Ideological.

Political Power

The power of political coercion and political authority is referred to as political power. This power is
based on the power of force or muscle power ultimately - exerted by the state or potentially capable
of being exerted by the state. In fact, Law is nothing but a set of rules according to which the coercive
physical power will be exercised by the state. It is this power which is used to implement policies in
democracies and punish those who disobey whatever the consequences and hardship that it causes
to the people on whom it is forced. For instance, many shopkeepers in Delhi and their staff might lose
their livelihoods if sealing due to implementing for urban planning rules is done but that is o
consequence and the power of state coercion is used to make everybody fall in line. In Marxian
analysis, political power is basically a derivative of economic power and does not stand on its own.
Those who control the economic production in society always inevitably corner it and appropriate it
to themselves. Thus, also unlike power theorists who believe in the decentralisation of political power
Marxist thinkers emphasise the unified power of a particular class.

Economic Power

A powerful minority can exercise its will over a powerless majority even more than by political or legal
power than by exerting economic power. The holders of economic power can influence submission of
others by offering rewards or denying them and thus can be more powerful than political or legal
power. In India we often get the feeling that the rich and the powerful get away with legal violations
but it is the poor who have to suffer. This is because economic power always leads to political power
in the end. As mentioned above Classical Marxist theory considers economic power as the source of
all other dimensions of power According to the Marxist definition economic power consists of the
ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange of material goods and services in
society. political power is the concentrated expression of the economic 12 power but at the same
time, it exerts a great retroactive influence upon the latter. No class can establish its lasting economic
influence without the active help and protection of political power. To that extent political power
becomes more important than economic power.

Ideological Power

Apart from political and economic power, there is another form of exerting power known as
ideological power. The Marxist thinkers were the first to point out the reality of this form of power
and pointed out its subtle power. Later even the liberal schools of thought accepted this form of power
and called it by various names like 'political culture', 'political socialisation' etc. Developing and
exerting of ideological power is a process where the attitudes, values, symbols, traditions etc of the
masses are gradually moulded and shaped by a minority leadership according to their own plans and
agendas and thereby a certain level of deference, loyalty and obedience is established. This gradual
process of achieving persuasion is even done sometimes by using the mass media like newspapers and
television channels or rallies, meetings and yatras etc. Some liberal thinkers like Max Weber, Lucian
Pye, Sydney Verba etc associated this ideological power with religion, education, culture, literature
and history.

Marxist thinkers have however taken the position that ideological power acts like a mediator in the
context of other powers in the society. Economic power transforms itself into political power using
ideological power as a means to achieve this goal. Marxism has focussed on how the dominant
economic classes in society, in a situation of open free market competition is able to achieve and
secure its dominance always. Marx had said that the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the
ruling ideas because that class, which is the ruling material force in society, is at the same time its
ruling intellectual force. The class, which has the means of material production at its disposal, has
control too of the means for influencing minds and attitudes. This control can create what Marx called
a 'false consciousness' which is used to hide the underlying economic factors and make class
exploitation legitimate.

• What is Political Theory?

• The relevance of Political Theory?

• Why is it important to study the history of political thought?

The word theory refers to a body of logically collected and analysed body of knowledge. And Politics
as we know is about many things including relationships among individuals and groups and classes
and the state, and state institutions like the judiciary, bureaucracy etc. So, one definition of Political
Theory given by David Weld sees political theory as a network of concepts and generalisations about
political life involving ideas, assumptions and statements about the nature, purpose and key features
of government, state and society, and about the political capabilities of human beings. Andrew Hacker
defines it as 'a combination of a disinterested search for the principles of good state and good society
on the one hand, and a disinterested search for knowledge of political and social realty on the other'.

What is Political Theory?

A rather comprehensive definition has been given by Gould and Kolb who defined political theory as
a 'sub-field of political science which includes: (i) political philosophy - a moral theory of politics and a
historical study of political ideas, (ii) a scientific criterion, (iii) a linguistic analysis of political ideas, (iv)
the discovery and systematic development of generalisations about political behaviour'. We can
conclude that political theory is concerned basically with the study of the phenomenon of the state
both in philosophy as well as empirical terms. An attempt is made to provide explanations,
descriptions and prescriptions regarding the state and political institutions. Also of course there is an
underlying theme of studying the moral philosophical purpose. The thinker Weinstein had put it very
succinctly when he had suggested that political theory is basically an activity, which involves posing
questions, developing responses to those questions and creating imaginative perspectives on the
public life of human beings. the questions that are asked are like what is the nature and purpose of
the state and why should we prefer one form of state over another; how do we judge the ends, aims
and methods of political organisation; what is and should be the relationship between the state and
the individual. Throughout history political theory has been answering these questions. It has been
regarded as important because the fate of man is dependent on the kind of system of rulers and the
ruled that is achieved and whether it leads to united action for the common good.

Political Theory and Political Thought

Political theory is sometimes synonymously regarded with political thought but it is important to
understand they don’t necessarily mean the same thing. Political thought is a generalized term which
comprises all thoughts, theories and values of a person or a group of persons or a community on state
and questions related to the state. Any person expressing his views whether he is a professor,
journalist, writer, novelist, poet etc and of course if he is a politician that has a bearing on our lives
and that is about the state and governance and related questions then he is engaging in political
thought. His thoughts may or may not comprise a theory if it is not a systematic logical hypothesis
advanced to explain historical and political phenomenon related to political rule of the state and
governance etc. Political thought thus is always of persons or groups while political theory is a self-
contained and self-standing explanation or speculation or theory attempting to answer questions and
explain history and the predict likely events in the future. Of course, this theory is always some
individual thinker' s creation. Barker had commented that while political thought is the immanent
philosophy of a whole age, political theory is the speculation of a particular thinker.

Political Theory and Political Philosophy

Philosophy is all thinking really on anything and everything in search of the truth and wisdom. When
this search is on political topics, we call it political philosophy. Hence it may not necessarily have a
theory to propose and that is the distinction between political philosophy and political thought. So,
while political theory is a part of political philosophy mostly political philosophy is much wider and
need not necessarily be comprised of any theories.

Thus we can say political philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about the state,
government, politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law and the enforcement of a legal code by
authority etc: what they are, why (or even if) they are needed, what makes a government legitimate,
what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law
is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately
overthrown or not. We often refer "political philosophy" to mean a general view, or specific ethic,
belief or attitude, about politics that does not necessarily belong to the whole technical discipline of
philosophy.

Political philosophy is often not concerned with contemporary issues but with the more universal
issues in the political life of man. But a political theorist is looking at contemporary political life mostly
and while he is interested in explaining the nature and purpose of the state and general questions like
that he is also looking to describe and understand the realities of political behaviour, the actual
relations between state and citizens, and the role of power in the society.
While studying political science one gets the feeling political theory has to be supplemented by
political philosophy. Otherwise, it appears barren and irrelevant.

Political Theory and Political Science

Political Science is a comprehensive subject or field of study of which political theory is only a sub-
field. Political Science includes everything: political thought, political theory, political philosophy,
political ideology, institutional or structural framework, comparative politics, public administration,
international law and organisation etc. Some thinkers have stressed on the science aspect of political
science and they suggest when political science is studied as a science with scientific methods political
theory to the extent it is a part of political philosophy cannot be regarded as political science because
whereas there is no room for abstract intuitive conclusions or speculations in political science, political
philosophy relies on exactly those un-exact methods. Political theory is neither pure thought, nor pure
philosophy, nor pure science.

Some Basic Characteristic of Political Theory:

1. A political theory is generally the creation on individual thinker based on his moral and intellectual
position and when propounding his theory, he is looking explain the events, phenomenon and the
mysteries generally of mankind's political life. The theory may or may not be accepted as true but it
always can be regarded as one more theory. Generally, we find the political theory of an individual
thinker is put forward in a classic work y the thinker like Plato did in his Republic or Rawls in A Theory
of Justice.

2. A political theory attempts to provide explanations on questions relating to mankind, the societies
he formed and history and historical events generally. It also suggests ways of resolving conflicts and
sometimes even advocates revolutions. There are also often predictions made about the future.

3. Political theory thus is also sometimes not only providing explanations and predictions but also
sometimes actively influencing and participating in historical events particularly when they propose
political action of a particular kind and that line of action is widely adopted. The great positive liberal
thinker Harold Laski had commented that the task of political theorists is not merely of description
but also of prescription on what ought to be.

4. Political theory is also usually discipline based and thought the subject of study remains the same
the theorist might be a philosopher, historian, economist, theologian or a sociologist etc.

5. Political theories are often also the basis for a whole ideology. The liberal theories became the basis
for liberalism and Marx's theory became the basis for Marxian socialist ideology. A political theorist
proposed by a thinker is usually always reflecting the 16 political ideologies of the thinker too. That is
also the reason why when there are conflicts between ideologies it leads to debates about the theories
underlying those ideologies.

Issues in Political Theory :

The issues that have held prominence in political theory have changed over time. Classical and early
political theory was mainly concerned with the search for a morally perfect political order and focused
on questions like the nature and purpose of the state, the basis on which political authority should be
used and the problem of political disobedience. The rise of the modern nation state and changes in
the economic structure and the industrial revolution gave rise to new priorities and he focus shifted
to individualism and liberty of the individual and his relationship to society and the state. Issues like
rights, duties, liberty, equality, and property became more important. Gradually it also became
important to explain to the inter-relation between one concept and the other such as liberty and
equality or, justice and liberty or, equality and property. After the second world war a new kind of
empirical political theory emerged which studied the political behaviour of man and believed in
making theoretical conclusions on that basis. Also, the behavioural scholars created new issues for
study often borrowed from other disciplines Some of these issues are political culture and legitimacy,
political system, elites, groups, parties etc. In the last two decades a number of different issues have
emerged like identity, gender, environmentalism, ecology and community etc. Also there has been a
resurgence of value-based political theory with a new focus on the basic issues of freedom, equality
and justice. The traditional twin ways of looking at issues - liberal and Marxist - therefore is also
changing.

Relevance of Political Theory:

 We humans as social beings live together and societies where we share the resources, jobs and
rewards. We are also individuals needing some basic human rights. The process of organising state
and society therefore becomes important to maximize harmony and prosperity and to allow the
circumstances for individual self-realisation. So, to facilitate the unity and integrity of human societies
or the collective needs of society political theory becomes important it tries to study and find solutions
to problems in this process. The relevance lies in evolving various approaches regarding the nature
and purpose of the state, the basis of political authority and the best form of government to practice,
relations between the state and the individual in the context of his basic rights. Apart from this political
theory also seeks to establish the moral criterion for judging the ethical worth of a political state and
to suggest alternative political arrangements and practices. To sum up in brief the relevance of political
theory lies in the following: (a) In providing an explanation and description of political phenomenon
(b) helping select the political goals and actions for a community and (c) helps in providing the basis
for making moral judgments. Also, it has to be remembered increasingly at least in contemporary
times states face challenges of poverty, corruption, over-population and ethnic and racial tensions,
environment pollution etc. This is not to mention international problems like conflicts etc. Political
Theory seeks to study the present and future problems of political life of the society and to suggest
solutions for dealing with those problems. David Held has commented that the task of the political
theorist is very great in its complexity because in the absence of systematic study, there is a danger
that politics will be left to the ignorant and self-seeking people who are in pursuit of power.

Thus, if one has to systematically think about the nature and purpose of the state and the problems
of government while looking at the socio-political reality and keeping in mind the ideals and political
philosophy, then one has to take the route of theoretically studying the problem. Thus, political theory
is relevant. Also studying political theory at an individual level makes one aware of one's rights and
duties and helps one understand and appreciate the socio-political realities and problems like poverty,
violence, corruption etc. Political theory is also important because it can go forward basing itself on
the theories and propose the means and directions for changing society to establish an ideal society.
Marxist theory for instance is an example of a theory which not only proposes the direction but also
goes so far as to advocate a revolution for establishing an egalitarian state. If the political theory is
sound and it can be transmitted and communicated to people then it can become a very powerful
force or the advancement of society and mankind.

The Important Schools of Political Theory

The most important schools of political thought that have lasted in importance and have stood the
test of time so to say are as follows:

1. Classical Political Theory

2. Liberal political Theory

3. Marxist Political Theory

4. Empirical Scientific Political Theory

5. Contemporary Political Theory

Classical Political Theory

 The political theories that emerged starting from the 6th century B.C. and evolved through the
Greeks, Romans and early European Christian thinkers and philosophers is referred to as Classical
Political Theories. Among the Greeks, Plato and Aristotle are the two thinkers who are studied and
who have great influence till today. Classical political theory was deeply dominated by philosophy and
the whole focus was on taking a holistic gaze searching for the most general of truths. So, there was
no clear distinction between philosophical, theological and political issues and political science or
thought was not separately recognised as a discipline as such. Political theory was concerned with
probing 18 into issues, asking important questions and serving as a sort of conscience keeper of
politics. The underlying quest was to arrive at the best possible form of government. The state and
government were also viewed as a tool for realising the moral goals of man and society and for
promoting the good. Thus, the state was to serve as some sort of promoter to foster high moral
standards among the members of the community. There had some debate about whether the
individual good should be the priority or the common good. The common good was required as more
complete than the private good of the individual. The classical tradition also sought to search ways for
an ideal state and a stable system. The main questions that the classical tradition was asked was what
is the best form of government? and who should rule and why? Also, how should conflict situations
be resolved.

Liberal Political Theory

With the historical period referred to as Renaissance and Reformation in Europe which was followed
by the Industrial Revolution, the dominance of the classical tradition came to an end. This new
philosophical wave was led by thinkers like Hobbes, Locke, Thomas, Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Jeremy
Bentham, J.S. Mill, Herbert Spencer and a host of other writers. The main thrust of the liberal tradition
was the individual's rights and the state was merely regarded as a contract between individuals to
benefit from the conflict resolution mechanism that a system of rule of law provides. The main aim of
the state in the liberal tradition is to help individuals realise their fundamental inalienable rights. In
fact the liberal thinkers went so far as to propose that when the basic contractual relationship
between the individual and the state is violated, the individuals have not only the right but the
responsibility to revolt and establish a new government. Social control is best secured by law. The new
liberal theories also dismissed the idea of common good and an organic community and instead
advocated that the government should govern as less as possible for individual rights to reign supreme
and free him from political, social and economic restraints as far as possible.

Marxist Political Theory

The fundamental changes that industrial revolution brought about caused inequality and a large class
of impoverished industrial workers emerged. The basic liberal position that supported total economic
freedom was challenged by Karl Marx and Engels and their followers who in the latter half of the
nineteenth century proposed what they called 'scientific socialism'. Socialism predated the theory of
Marx but he gave it a strong theoretical foundation. Marx offered a new way of looking at the history
up to that time and suggested that the task of knowledge is not just to understand the world but also
to change the social life of mankind for the better. For that he suggested a revolutionary path. He
suggested that to win the basics of life for their emancipation he working class has to take over the
means of production and the means of production should be controlled by the state. This takeover
will need to happen via a revolution he suggested because the upper classes will use the power of the
state to crush any attempts for 19 liberation and emancipation of the lower classes. Marx saw societies
that liberal capitalism helped create as fundamentally unequal as a consequence of property
concentration with a few families of fortune. Hence, he wanted to create a society where "man shall
not be exploited by man" and where each individual will have the full opportunity to develop his or
her personality and potential. He also was the first major thinker to stress on the historical exploitation
of the female gender and the need for women's liberation. The most important themes of Marxist
political theory are class division, class struggle, property relations, modes of production, state as an
instrument of class domination and revolution by the proletariat. Marxism also suggests that rights,
liberty, equality, justice and democracy in a capitalist liberal democracy are really only enjoyed by the
rich and properties classes because the state is controlled by the upper classes who use the institutions
of the state as a tool for class exploitation. He believed real liberty and equality can only be achieved
in a classless and stateless society. Thus, whereas Liberal theory provided the theoretical basis for a
capitalist free market system, Marxist political theory provided the basis for the establishment of a
socialist state through revolutionary action.

Empirical-Scientific Political Theory

In America a new kind of political theory was developed particularly in the post second world war
period that suggested relying on the scientific method (instead of philosophical) and base theories
upon facts (rather than on values). Political Scientists at the Chicago University (known as the Chicago
School) such as Charles Merrimu, Harold Laswell, Gosnell, David Easton, Stuart Rice etc focused on
studying politics in the context of behaviour of individual human beings as members of a political
community. The task of political theory according to this new school of thought is to formulate and
systematize the concept of science of political behaviour in which emphasis is placed on empirical
research than on political philosophy. The behavioural scientists suggested a political theorist should
clarify and criticise systems of concepts which have empirical relevance to political behaviour.
Behavioural schools differed fundamentally from all the previous schools because they suggested that
the job of political theory is only to explain political phenomenon and extrapolate from that and
predict the future. It is not to make philosophical and moral judgements. It is not at all to advocate
revolutionary action. Thus, political theory is not to question or propose who rules, should rule and
why but rather who does rule and how? Or in other words it should not question the basis of the state
but should be happy with the status quo, stability, equilibrium and harmony in the society. It should
focus attention on the study of political behaviour of man, group and institutions irrespective of their
good or bad character. Practical political theory is not only concerned with the study of the state but
also with the political process.

Contemporary Political Theory

Since the 1970 the sole focus of the empiricists and behavioural scholars on science, value-free
politics and methods came under criticism and lost popularity because it failed to address pressing
political and social issues. So, there has been a revival of interest in political theory in USA, Europe and
other parts of the world. Thinkers like John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Habermas etc made noteworthy
contributions and took up basic issues like liberty, equality, justice etc again. Theory again regained
the status of a legitimate form of knowledge and enquiry. Also on the question of what exactly is
science there emerged many views that challenged the old notions. Further many scholars opined
those social sciences throw up distinctive problems that cannot be grasped by scientific models. This
is because perceptions and resulting actions of men vary and the same phenomenon can be viewed
differently by different minds who may interpret the social issues differently. Hence it is difficult to do
an objective scientific analysis of social issues and events with scientific rigor.

The publication of John Rawls 1970 book A Theory of Justice was important because he examined
basic issues like rights, duties and obligations with great brilliance and offered a justification of civil
disobedience, and with an original enquiry into intergenerational justice. Scholars like Peter Haslet,
John Pocock, Quentin Skinner and John Dunn were called the 'new historians' of political thought.
Juergen Habermas and the Frankfurt School gave important theories and Ronald Dworkin focused on
the philosophy of law. David Held has opined that contemporary political theory has four distinct
tasks: Philosophical: to focus on the fundamental philosophical positions of the normative and
conceptual framework; Empirical: to empirically understand and explain the concepts; Historical: to
examine the important concepts in the historical context; and Strategic: to assess the feasibility of
moving from where we are to where we might like to be.

Why study History of Political Thought?

As has been mentioned above political thought concerns the state and its policies and decisions and
activities. the various terms political science, political theory, political thought and political philosophy
have not been used consistently in the same sense by scholars at all times. They have even been used
as synonyms popularly. Political thought is the most general term of all these, which can be easily used
to refer to the whole discipline easily and if we do that then political science and political philosophy
become specific sub-categories. Also, political thought also accommodates ethics and moral
philosophy, theology, role of politics in human development and the dignity of political activity.

On the question which is the best way of studying political thought, Gould and Thorsby have opined
that there are two ways to study political thought.

The first is to list the all the political thought considered to be classic such as Plato's Republic,
Aristotle's Politics, Machiavelli's Prince, Hobbes' Leviathan, Locke's Two Treatises on Government,
Hegel's Philosophy of Rights, Marx's The Communist Manifesto, Rawls’s A Theory of Justice and to
make a note of the constant questions and approaches in them like: What is the meaning of freedom
and equality? , Why men should obey the government at all? , What are the ideals and goals of a state
and what is the meaning of democracy? etc. The problem in this method one can' t not easily decide
what should be classified as a classic.

The second method is of general philosophical methodology and applying it to political matters which
means picking the central concepts problems, methods, questions etc from the classics and adding to
that list important omissions if any. The items selected should then be arranged in an order from
general principles to specific ones on the basis of importance. That way a coherent and comprehensive
general account of political thought can be built.

The study of any social science is impossible without an understanding of the historical evolution of
the subject. The political institutions and systems of political behaviour which we observe today are a
result of evolution of centuries. A political theorist needs to study history to understand this evolution.
He does not need to study the dates and colourful historical details of kings and princes and the battles
they fought and the lives they led but rather the growth and changes in the economic structures, in
technological capabilities and the impact that had and in political institutions and ways of governing.
Social classes, political power and economic processes do not emerge overnight and cannot be
understood by examining them in isolation in their contemporary settings. One needs to study the
history of political thought to understand the evolving relationships between man, society and
political authority and indeed the popular perceptions of those relationships through history. The
study of the views and theories of past political thinkers enables one to go beyond the dominant
contemporary political orthodoxies and draw intellectual resources from the past. A reflection on the
thoughts of past thinkers provides a guideline to actual theorising. Political theories thus emerge not
from nowhere but is constructed by building, expanding and developing the vocabularies of the past
author's texts. This also enables easy comparison and judgement between past and contemporary
works.
Ideology has been inseparable from political thought and proceeding historically it has been possible
to build theories that are supportive of a particular ideology. Of course, history can be both used and
misused but is has been always used to buttress theoretical constructions. For instance, the same
history of Europe led Marx and Engel to support their arguments that the political history of mankind
is a history of class struggle but the liberal thinkers saw it differently and some like Burke and
Tocqueville glorified the past and saw it as an age of harmony, civility and ordered liberty.

Whatever the ideological pre-dispositions a study of the history political thought allows for evaluating
the social and economic circumstances in which the political institutions arose and maintained
themselves. Without a sense of history political theory cannot be constructed because it would then
not take into account the full range of human social behaviour. Taking the historical route often throws
up patterns and order for the theorist to discern.

Another reason to study the historical development of political thought is to examine if the political
thoughts of a particular time influenced the actions of men and if so how. Some thinkers like Plato and
Marx have argued that ideas and philosophical thoughts have little no effect on the conduct of men
in power. But there are other thinkers who have argued that the history of political thought and the
history of political action are quite related and the thoughts of thinkers do significantly influence
actual political action.

The reverse - that is whether political thoughts are influenced by political events and historical
circumstances is equally important and another reason for studying from the historical point of view.
It has been argued for instance that the thoughts of Plato were influenced by a decline in the moral
standards of the city-states and that of John Locke by the Glorious revolution and that of Marx by the
economic inequality created by industrial capitalism. Thinkers are also men of their times and are
influenced by the events and circumstances of their times. But the lasting value of their theories only
is only there if it points out at some general truth which can transcend societies and classes and ethnic
communities. For instance, the political thoughts of Plato, Aristotle, J.S. Mill or Marx throw up
principles, which often have universal value over time.
Social sciences like Political Sciences and Thought are meant to improve our understanding of the
world and history is a part of social sciences. Historical view is essential to create theoretical
constructions of human life and social phenomenon that transcends time. We need to ask though
while studying a theory from the past (which inevitably drew on the historical circumstances present
at the time the theory was proposed) what meaning has political thought in the contemporary world
that we live in. In answering that question, we are able to test the lasting validity of the theory. But it
has to be realised ultimately the history of political thought is important because the central theme is
timeless.

Neal Wood while commenting on the importance of studying the classical texts of political thought
has commented: '...these texts reflect and comment upon that nature of the Western state with all its
blemishes and deficiencies as well as benefits. Some of the texts call for radical recognition of state,
others for its reform and in so doing grapple with fundamental social and political problems which we
share with past. Whether we like it or not, these works have indelibly stamped our modern culture
and the world today'.

‘Theorizing the Political’

Politics is used as the science and art of Government. It deals with the issue of public affairs and
governance. Two words that are used in correlation with the word and are also instrumental in shaping
the meaning of the world are government and public affairs. The two in turn are themselves related,
where the government has to deal with the public affairs. This understanding is a very broad notion
and does not give a concrete and compartmentalized understanding of the word politics. Politics as a
term has been widely discussed and debated upon. A common understanding of ‘What is Politics’ has
not been agreed upon. However, it is a realm that has been understood in some way or the other, by
every individual. One cannot be devoid of an opinion on the essence of what is actually politics. There
can be diverse opinions and often opinions that are at loggerheads, but by the essence of being a
human, one is bound to think about the realm of politics. The expanse of politics is wide and can range
from one’s existence, to its nature of being a human, a social being, and a political creature. The
expanse goes beyond the virtue of existence to one’s social and political identity. Politics has been
defined by various scholars. Harold J Laswell defines Politics as the idea of Who gets what, when and
how? His idea advocates the rights of citizens and institutional procedure of the state in granting the
rights of the people. David Easton describes Politics as the ‘authoritative allocation of values for a
society’. His conception of values talks about a set of values that is broadly agreed upon by the state
to adhere to. The idea of core values that guide the state is inherent in the idea of politics. The idea of
value, Easton talks about can be anything that is valued by the society, ideology, goal, social ranking
or any core essence that is deemed as the benchmark for carrying out governance. The term value is
a dependent variable and can be allocated a character as per the requirements, demand or
preferences. Bernard Crick defines politics as a distinctive form of rule where people come together
through institutional mechanism to deliberate and resolve differences to articulate public policy for
the common good. The proposition of Bernard Crick, lays emphasis on the idea of reconciliation,
bargaining and shared understanding. The culmination of the aforesaid understanding is manifested
in the policies formulated by the State. Seemingly, Politics comes across as an idea that falls within
the juxtaposition of state and society. The state often resonates with the government and the society
with the group of individuals. The two are linked by the idea of governance, which in turn is linked by
the aspects of politics. However, the idea of politics disintegrates the basic concept of State and
Society. The cardinal distinction between the two is usually overlooked and draws one’s attention to
the relationship between the two that in turn underlines the realm of political. As per the distinction,
the intra state affairs fall under the ambit of politics, but the intra-societal affairs 2 that are concerned
with the sanction of reallocation and legitimation of power are extraneous to the idea of Politics. What
is Politics is often defined by a null hypothesis. It is the absence of a variable that validates the
presence of the politics.

The Political is not Social

The variable whose absence validates the presence of politics is ‘social’. Before examining the
interdependency of the two variables, let us look at what is political? Is it different from Politics? The
word politics comes from Aristotle’s classic work ‘Politika’, which means ‘affairs of the cities.’ Political
is the nature that politics imparts. It is the characterization that comes from the virtue of politics.
Politics can be defined as a static term, but political is dynamic and reinventing because it imparts
attributes and characteristics to an individual and institution. The notion of how the society has been
perceived and understood over years, has often tried to envelope the social into political. The origin
of the word social comes from the Latin word ‘socius’ meaning friend. The perception of the word
social lies in being amicable, empathetic and enduring. It has the virtue of coexistence and thus is
about the idea of people coming together. The idea of Aristotle of man being a social being, has delved
on the understanding of the social nature of individual as a cooperative entity who has shared
purposes and meanings of existence. The identity of a human does not arise from the state but from
the virtue of being a social entity. The political institutions, its attributes and functions are inherently
social in its tendency. However, the claim is that the political is not social. But can the political have
certain attributes of social? If it has characteristic features of social, then does it become social? These
questions lie at the helm of understanding what is essentially political?

Does citizenship confer the identity to the members of state? Does the idea of membership and
citizenship differ in its orientation? The basic rights of an individual by the virtue of a citizen are
enshrined in the constitution, whereas the interpersonal approach of an individual emanate from the
consciousness of being a social being. The attributes of social membership are distinct from the rights
an individual imbibes as a citizen of the state. A citizen is a member of a community but a citizen of
the state. Membership is acquired whereas citizenship is granted. There is an external authority
granting the sanctity of citizenship. It is the state that regulates citizenship but community that one is
a member of. Community is a collective conscience but state an authoritative position.

Contributing in the well-being of the society through benevolent act of charity, donations, or any other
form of physical help. Nurturing a peaceful, habitable and tolerant society by assimilating people from
various caste, colour and culture. Maintaining amicable relations in the society by respecting one’s
neighbour and pursuing social justice. Spreading a sense of responsibility by spreading environmental
awareness and nurturing an eco-friendly and sustainable way of life. These attributes come by the
virtue of being a good human and not by the identity of being a law-abiding citizen. A citizen can
adhere to the duties enshrined by the state and avail his rights. However, citizenship is not a
precondition for being contributing to the social enrichment of a group of people. Not every section
of the society 3 was citizen of Aristotle’s State, but everyone did imbibe a sense of belonging to the
land they inhabited.

The discourse on nationalism has blurred the boundaries between social and political. The discourse
of Nation and State in itself a question of social and political. Nation is the feeling of belongingness. It
has the element of race, religion, ethnicity, caste. It is submerging of identities in a unanimous
umbrella of Nation, whereas State is the territorial boundary bound by an authority of Government.
Nationalism as an idea takes the orientation of a state towards that of a community where the
individuals are united by a bond of togetherness and knit by a sense of belongingness to a common
set of beliefs and ideas. The more the state expands its realm of functions and takes over the attributes
of a voluntary association like a community or a family, the weaker the society will become (Etzioni,
2003). The difference between citizenship and membership can be demarcated and realized if an
analogy is drawn between the relationship of a state-society and state-individual.

The difference between the social and political, if built upon leads to a larger dialogue in the society
culminating into social welfare policies. Public policies that go beyond the administrative concerns,
and provide a safety-net to the people by being a benefactor of the marginalized, downtrodden and
weaker sections of the society. This idea of reaggregation and convergence of interest of individuals
has been brought forth by Bernard Crick, in his famous work ‘In Defense of Politics’. The idea of policy
making actualizes the politics of the state. Assimilating of the social context in the political
underpinning, resulting in the formulation of a public policy is the premise on which Crick has built up
his idea of politics. However, the demarcation between the social and political also indicates a line
where the distinction between the two is transgressed. The Political and social are distinct in its
orientation and approach but are reinstating condition for each other.
The Conception of Moral

Moral rests on the idea of conception of ‘good’. The idea of good is subjective but in the moral
paradigm, there is only universal good that forms the base of morality. The acceptance that comes
with the good is the idea of morality the state and society practice. If there is no subjective good in
morality, can the state and society be good at the same time or do they differ in their orientation of
good. Social Conservatives consider it as the prerogative of the state to go beyond the idea of
citizenship to inculcate social virtues to make a good society. The state harbours the potential to
regulate the human behaviour, and bring out a moderation in the attributes of an individual. The
people are self-indulgent by nature and have a tendency to exploit their liberty and become insensitive
towards the needs of others. A belief that has been endorsed by social conservatives is the need of a
‘strong national government’ that will mould the attributes of an individual and counterbalance the
weaker aspect of the citizens. (Brooks/Kristal 1997). The idea of virtuous behaviour has come to be
shaped by the state in the conservative discourse.

A dilemma that comes across in the conception of good is also prevalent in the idea of a good law-
abiding citizen and a good person in general. Social Conservatives view the state as an institution, that
imparts the orientation of being good to its subjects. The idea of ‘good state’ does not focus on
containing the state to undermine individual liberty. Communitarians perceive society as an agency of
promoting moral behaviour. The conduct morally good behaviour goes beyond the stipulated
permissibility of an agency, into the personal realm. The moral attribute of behaviour transcends
beyond the apparatus of state. It moves beyond the fiduciary relationship of state and its citizens, to
a relationship of trust, harmony and camaraderie between the members of the state. Societal
orientation of a just and equitable society, where not the state but the citizens extend their hand to
the weak, vulnerable and deprived sections of the society. The good society, reaches the private realm
but with only a limited set of core values. It is not as expansive and holistic as in a liberal state or a
government centred society. The scope of good is limited and particular in the societal perception of
good. The formulations of good may differ in the outlook of political and society respectively.
However, what shapes the dynamics is that if there is a contestation between the formulation, how is
the gap counterbalanced in maintaining an unequivocal idea of good.

The Political is Moral

Every political action has a moral underpinning. There are no political deliberations devoid of moral
pretext. The usage of ‘moral’ is related to a broad range of moral social values that are imbibed in the
normative considerations of justice and equality. The idea is not restricted to a limited and personal
understanding of morality. According to the Liberals understanding of political theory, the ambit of
morality should not pervade the realm of public and political. The moral deliberations are more
confined to the private realm. Liberals fear that the intrusion of morality in the public domain can
trigger a cultural war. The public arena falls in the ambit of the State, where the orientation of state
and the idea of politics should essentially remain neutral. The endorsement of morality in the public
forum is likely to be perceived as coercion and propagation of shared values.

The conception of the extent of ‘neutrality’ and the essence of ‘autonomy’ of the state differs among
liberals. A section of liberals believes that individual virtues like critical thinking upholds the merit of
the state (Gutman, 1987). A counterpart of liberals also upholds the premise of what Isaiah Berlin
followed, a limited set of values that are deliberated, discussed and agreed upon in the public forum
form an underlying idea of morality that the state professes and propagates. For instance, Stealing,
Rape and Murder being reprimanded in any society. The nature of punishment however, can have a
discrepancy in the acceptance by a particular society. State can either believe in capital punishment,
or it can be neutral about it. Euthanasia or mercy killing is another issue that has been a point of
contention and differs in how the different states have perceived it. The most contemporary example
of acceptance is evident in the LGBT Rights, where different states have a different take in the various
aspects of the community. However, endorsing different values is not divided into watertight 5
compartments. Subscribing to divergent and irreconcilable values does not lead to a political deadlock.
Public Policy is formulated in accordance, to reconcile the difference of opinion and adopt a middle
path for optimum suitability.

Communitarians come from a vantage point that politics should rearticulate shared values and
understanding of morality. Contemporary politics of free and democracy societies rests on the pillar
of demand aggregation and articulation. The absence of broad consensus and common ground of
values, beliefs and demands leads to turmoil and discontent, as visible between Jewish and Arabic
citizen of Israel. The consensus between the communities in a state plays a vital role in maintaining
the peace and sanctity of a democracy. The reasons for conflict arise from difference in opinion and
the lack of consensus in the governing the different group of citizens defined by their caste, class,
caste, region and language. The law acts as a neutral arbiter and acts as a conscience of the state
apparatus by upholding the essence of morality. The law can never be morally neutral but it has to be
unbiased and wise in adjudicating the matters of state. The law has to be neutral in terms of its
preferences and affiliations. It does not have to impose the will of majority on the populous but uphold
the prerogative for a just and equitable society.

The Political is State

The question that arises is that are there two conceptions of morality, one for the society and one for
the state. If they are different, do they ever converge? What are the repercussions of the differences?
Which notion does the citizen abide by? Are there major differences between the conception of a
‘good society’ and a ‘good state’? A good society harbours a moral voice, where individuals have a
sense of morality and behave in pro-social manner. The pro-social sense can emanate from either an
innate or an acquired sense of morality. An innate sense of morality that arises from the virtue of
being human. The role of parenting and education thus play a pivotal role in shaping the moral
attributes of an individual. Communitarians emphasize on the fact that the idea of morality needs to
reinforced, which comes from the environment in which an individual thrives. The validation and
approval of humans, one holds in great regard and is significantly attached to is of great reverence,
thus community acts as an agency that does not only harbours but also instils a value system. The
significant role is not only played by how the values are enforced but how the values are fostered.

As put forth by John Locke, man is a rational being, who can logically apply a deductive reasoning and
determine the sense of morality, that has been granted by God. Locke’s moral rationalism is based on
the empirical understanding of idea. He believes that human mind is a tabula-rasa, it is the sensory
understanding that builds up the idea of morality. We, as humans construct complex moral
proposition from the simplistic perception of what we imbibe and perceive from our sensory and
reflexive experiences. Locke has knit an interrelation between reason and morality. According to
Locke, the state of nature was pre-political but not premoral. There was already a sense of morality
that existed; thus, a political state needs to have a basic conception of morality.
The point of intervention in understanding morality is to assess if there is a difference in what the
society considers as morality, what the state considers as morality and what an individual considers
as morality. There are contentions between compliance with moral voice and what an individual truly
wants by the virtue of his freedom and entitlement. If an individual deserves to be free from state
control, does he not deserve to be free from the social pressure that emanates from the
conceptualisation of societal morality. This dilemma has been discussed by Jon Stuart Mill, in his work
On Liberty. The dealings of the society with the individual can be understood by the way of compulsion
and control, either in the form of physical punishment or moral coercion that the state asserts. The
morality that the state endorses can differ for various sections. It can be manifested as the popular
will, or the dominant public opinion. The multitude of numbers in a democracy has the power to
coerce by the will of majority. Public disapprobation leads to alienation and despair of the people
whose demands have not been assimilated (Tocqueville, 1991). However, the distinction lies in the
force of coercion, a state can be morally coercive but a community endorses internal moral voice that
is not to be feared but inculcated. The moral choice resonates with individual liberty and the free
choice of man. The internal moral choice is not different from the self. It is a part of one’s existence
and is borne from the roots of one’s being. It defines and shapes one’s moral character. The external
moral choice is community driven and is imbibe from the societal orientation and construct of ‘good’
and ‘bad’. The external moral choice lays the onus on an individual to select or reject the moral
construct being advocated. The final call is with the individual acting. Society has the tendency to
cajole, persuade and censure but it is up to the individual to adhere to the conception being
emphasised upon. However, in case of a state undertaking the responsibility of morality, it has the
force of coercion because of the sanction of legality. The sanction of the state might not be binding in
nature. The state may use the tools to persuade and educate the masses through other institutional
mechanisms that are not coercive by nature and do not require allegiance from the people. However,
the actor does not have a choice but to comply to the state by the virtue of being a law-abiding citizen.
The last recourse of state could be driven by force to command allegiance. A follow up question that
arises out of the proposition is that if the moral voice coercive or the agency enforcing the voice? The
moral voice by the virtue is not coercive but enforcement of the voice can be coercive if has to
command allegiance. The command can have a force of authority which makes the state vociferous
because of the legal and economic sanctions attached to it. It is not the morality but the agency
endorsing the same that comes around as coercive.

The contemporary liberal democratic set up offers the liberty and freedom to manoeuvre the space
an individual holds. An individual has the liberty to choose and reside in a state he aspires to. He has
the reasoning and moral voice to succumb to a state authority he feels entrusted to.

Adhering to the societal pressure also emanates from a vantage point of moral understanding an
individual has. His actions are socially, culturally and morally placed under an ambit because he is a
part of the society, a state and owes allegiance to at least a limited 7 set of people. In case of parents
taking care of their children, the decision is not led by moral coercion that the state enforces but by a
moral voice that the community propagates. The elderly parents being abandoned by their children is
a question of moral voice and personal choice.

The voluntaristic nature of moral voice paves the way for reconciliation of a good society with idea of
liberty. This idea should form the core essence of liberal state and society. Social Institutions play a
pivotal role in characterizing the difference between a good society and good being promoted by the
state. The institutions are not value-neutral, they are embodiment of a particular set of people. Every
social institution has a set of attributes imbibed in it. For instance, a family being a primary social
institution is an evident example of a value-laden entity. A prominent understanding corelates the
freedom of the institution with the quotient of morality that it imbibes and prophesies. Institutions
that are politicised are instruments for serving the state promoted notion of good.

The outcome of deliberations is manifested in public policy. The policies voice the concerns of society
and the outlook of the state in promoting the general well-being of the people. The policies are
deemed to be rational choice of the policy makers to voice the concerns of the citizens in the public
forum. It is perceived as a reasoned outcome for resolving the political conflict (Johnson, 1994).
Deliberations and democracy walk hand in hand and are vital for upholding the moral conscience of
the state. Moral dialogues engage the values of the participant and deduce a rational and logical
discourse for shaping a due course of action. The entire process is substantive and not merely
procedural. The values are not stagnant, they are reorienting and adapting to the advent of time. A
shared consensus is reached for adjudicating the law and order of the state. The consensus is
transformed into policies that form a part of governance. The moral dialogues can pertain to
deliberations about human rights, gender rights, sexual harassment and other important discourses
in democracy. The dialogues occur at a preliminary level in the family, and then it follows at the level
of community. How a society comes together to renegotiate a renewed and reinvigorating set of
values at various levels determines the openness of the society.

The deliberations occur in a chain reaction and have the potential to lead a change in the perception
of values. It starts in small groups across millions of populations. The groups can be of a family, caste,
religion, common ethnicity or common language. The process is carried forward by interlinking of
various such groups, that transforms into shared public forums and think tanks. The chain of
deliberations converts to a wide-net by networking in the form of meetings at the regional and
national levels. The contemporary scenario has aided to the interconnectivity because of the world
being knit by digital infrastructure. The world is not only digital connected but the agendas of
discussions are digitally curated. Media has been instrumentally not only in voicing the opinion but
also discovering voices across sections of society. The dialogues need not be orderly and precise
focussing on a particular change, core value or social intervention. It need not have a clear pattern or
beginning, it only needs a dialogue to trigger a discourse. An example of changing orientation of values
is evident in the environmental awareness across the continents in the contemporary world. The
environmental concern was not a part of the mainstream discourse. It had underlying issues and
concerns being raised by various individuals, groups and communities but was not considered a shared
core value in Western Societies. A nationwide megalogue was triggered by the famous work on
environment by Rachel Carson, named The Silent Spring. It was further talked about at various forums
and upheld by citizens as a prime cause of concern and was included in the normative agenda. From
the proclamation of Earth Day, observation of Earth Overshoot Day to the various protocols and
conventions on environment like the Kyoto Protocol and Montreal Convention, the environmental
degradation and control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions has become an utmost concern across
countries of the nation. The countries often do not come to standard conclusion and have a difference
of opinion in adhering to shared consensus on the measures to be taken. However, the differences do
not differ from the view that environmental concerns have become a shared core values that needs
to be included in the policy making. It is not just the legislative bodies that form a part of the dialogue
in case of established core values, but is undertaken as a distinct social process that are nurtured in
the social realm. The realm can fall under the political realm, but it certainly has a deep and profound
implication on the political discourse of the State.

The law is catalyst in achieving societal change. It is a core outcome of political processes. Moral
dialogues take place in the political realm but do not mature and harbour in the same. It is the society
that nurtures the dialogue and the law that helps in achieving the outcome. The law of the land leads
the social change. However, the nature of morality defines a good society. The law is required to be
in accordance with the moral culture. The law if not in accordance can also the nature of state to an
authoritarian state, or in the worst form a totalitarian state. The law is the first step for ensuring social
change and preserving the order of the state. Law also needs the will and force of moral voice to be
enforced. It is not coercion alone that can prohibit an immoral act. It is the inner moral conscience
that acts a guiding star in directing an individual’s action. Prohibition can regulate moral behaviour
but not imbibe moral etiquettes in individuals. For instance, corruption in the bureaucratic order can
be prohibited, and thus it can be regulated but it is the inner conscience or the moral voice that will
guide an individual’s actions in making the society free of corruption. Fear can command and not
demand morality. It is the force of moral voice that is to be reckoned with even in adhering to the law
of land.

Conclusion

The political and moral though cardinally different are interlinked in myriad ways. The two cannot be
confused to be the same but cannot be compartmentalised too for understanding the two individually.
A free democratic liberal order governs by the sanctity of law. The law is reinforced by the State
apparatus. The political governs by a shared understanding of morality. The state is a part of the
political. The actions of the State have a moral dimension because they also operate on a shared
understanding and a broad consensus of values. The 9 contemporary political understanding is a
reinstatement of morality writ large in the form of social consensus. The idea of state vs community
is now visualised as a political community instead because of the interdependence of the nations,
which has enlarged the ambit of shared understanding to a more holistic, comprehensive and cohesive
understanding of governance. The idea of governance also has a paradigm of social governance. The
various actions of the State are to be understood in nexus with each other rather than in isolation.
The outcome of the moral dialogues have matured and the idea of shared values has also reinvented
itself to be more conclusive in its approach. The sanctity of state emanates from the people because
it is the people that authorise the state to govern. The people are themselves guided by a moral voice
and thus the power of moral deliberations reflects at the level of Government as well. What is political
will never have a compartmentalised understanding because politics in itself is a sum total of
attributes of social, economic and moral virtues that guides the governance of the State.