kkkk

POLITICAL
SCIENCE
INTRODUCTION TO GOVERNANCE
Man is indeed a social and political creature by his nature and obligation. Hence, man follows
the pattern of collective life which forms authority or control is as old as human life itself. Man
as an intelligent being who thought in terms of improving the pattern of his collective and
regulated behaviour of life. This phenomena deals with the features of man’s social and political
existence of the past, present and future perspectives that has led to the revolution of social
sciences. Aristotle is the father of political science and politics; in this one of them would deal
with the subject of man in relation to the phenomenon of rule, control, authority and power. It
covers many ancillary issues like sovereignty, citizenship, obedience, obligation, punishment,
resistance, revolution and reaction. It deals with political reality and critically describe of the
underlying principles of political behaviour that results in an issue of man and state.
 POLITICAL
SCIENCE
INTRODUCTION TO
GOVERNANCE

Political science is a discipline which deals with its CIVIC

POLITICAL SCIENCE
identity through the efforts of solving any crisis that EDUCATION
may arise in the branch of political science which is Introduction to
Civic Education learnt in Universities as a teaching Governance
subject. Its focus is based on the historical
Nature of State and the
background which began as a mere speculations of Theories
the old peoples and their development.

By and large, political science has a lot of definitions

that many scholars have ascribed to and differently
defined. Politics is used to describe the activities by
which public affairs are chosen and public policies
are promoted with actual administration of such
affairs.

Politics is a study of study, government and power

which involves political, economic and ideological.
Politic is therefore concerned with state and 1

government that are required by the society for the

 establishment of conditions ensuring a condition of competition and also maintaining
a system of law and order in which man may have the possible development of his
personality. Society is like a free and competitive arena that is governed by the laws of
free contract, exchange and competition.

In this regard, the possessive quality is found in individualism where an individual is

the proprietor of his own person or capacities owing nothing to society for them. The
individual is seen neither as a moral whole, nor as a part of a large social whole, but as
an owner of himself.

Country, state and nation are widely used to refer to the people who live within a certain
geographical boundary. These three terms are often used interchangeably as if they
POLITICAL SCIENCE

mean exactly the same thing, but there are slight differences. A country is a self-
governing political unit. The term country can be used interchangeably with state, so a
country and a state mean the same. State means all the people who are joined together
in a formal political union (regardless of whether the people are a single or many tribes,
ethnic groups, nationalities). The state decides on a national and official language(s), a
system of law, manages a currency system, uses a bureaucracy to organize itself, asks
its people for loyalty, and is recognized internationally.

A nation, however, is a tightly-knit group of people who share a common culture. The
Maasai people are a nation because they share a common language, institutions,
religion and historical experience. Nations do not necessarily live within a single
country; so the Maasai nation lives in both Kenya and Tanzania. Though, to confuse
matters, sometimes a combined word of “nation-state” is used when a particular tribe
of people, or ethnic group, all more or less live within the exact same borders as a State.
Zambia is an example of a nation-state because the inhabitants of Zambia are all,
2 mostly, Zambian (English languages).
A state is an association of families and villages for the sake of attaining a perfect and
self-sufficient existence. A state is an association of families and their common affairs
governed by a supreme power and reason. The state is the politically organized people
of a definite territory. The state is the people organized for law within a definite
territory. Thus a state is a people permanently occupying a fixed territory, bound
together by common laws, habits and customs into one body politic, exercising through
the medium of an organized government independent sovereignty and control over all
persons and things within its boundaries capable of making war and peace and of
entering into all international relations with the communities of the globe. State is just
a part of the society which implies the relations and associations of all kinds. Political
science is the study of state, government and power.

POLITICAL SCIENCE
Characteristics of a State

The modern world state refers to a legal or political unit that is comprised of – at least
it should have four elements: (i) a permanent population; (ii) a defined territory; (iii) a
government; and (iv) the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The
independent state should have the following:

i. A space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries

(regardless of any ongoing boundary disputes),
ii. People who live there on an ongoing basis,
iii. Economic activity and an organised economy (a state regulates foreign and
domestic trade and issues money),
iv. A transportation system for moving goods and people,
v. A government which provides public services and security (e.g. education,
health, army, navy, police, etc.), 3

vi. Sovereignty (no other state has power over the state’s territory),
 vii. External recognition (the state has to be voted by other countries).

State and Government

State and government are identified as in concrete or practical terms. The state is a
bigger entity that includes all citizens of a country, but the government is a smaller unit
that covers only those who are employed to perform its function. The membership of
state is compulsory while the government is an agency for the fulfilment of the
purposes of the state.

State and Nation

A line is drawn between a nation and state despite the fact that the modern state is a
POLITICAL SCIENCE

nation-state. A nation is a group of people bound together by the sentiments of

nationality. The binding force may draw sustenance from the commonness of race,
religion, language, culture, history and geography. But the state is a political entity
constituted by four elements. Though, the most important point of distinction is that
while the state is a sovereign and a coercive association, the nation is just a group of
people bound by the ties of sentiments. A nation has no force to coerce others but a
state has. The state commands supreme power in that it stands above all other
associations and groups in the society. Its laws demand the compliance of all those who
live within the territory.

Nature of State

Different scholars have explained the nature of state using the theories such as juridical
theory, Organismic theory, Marxian Theory, Idealist theory, Evolutionary theory,
Genetic theory, Divine theory, Social Contract Theory and Force Theory.

Juridical Theory
4
Juridical theory refer a state as a legal person, it can be sued and sue others as make
and enforce the law. It is an institution that creates, interpret and enforce the law; and
act through the means of the law as sole source of law. No other agency has the power
to make and enforce law unless so delegated by the state itself.

In other words, the jurists regard state as a legal person that amounts to the juridical
personification of a political community. Though, it has been argued that the state is
nothing closer to any real thing but a fiction, it is purely created on the amount of
abstract. In practical terms, man alone can be a subject of rights and obligations, a
fiction cannot be a subject either of rights or obligations, nor is it capable of willing or
acting. The state, on the contrary is a reality, the fiction being merely in the mind of the
jurist or the provision of the law which attributes to it a legal quality which in a physical
sense is possessed only by human beings.

POLITICAL SCIENCE
Organismic Theory

This theory has based on a very old idea of establishing an analogy between natural
and social organisms. Cicero a Roman Catholic Cardinal argue that the state and
individual are likened to the human body. It has been further compared that the
sovereignty of the state to the soul of man, magistrates to joints, rewards and
punishments to nerves. He drew an analogy between the weakness and the diseases of
the human body. Rousseau compared the state to the human body both of which
possessed the motive power of force and will (legislative and executive power), where
the other one is the heart and other is like the brain of the state.

The main argument would be of both natural and social organism begin in simple
forms, grow and develop and later assume complex structures. An organism thus
possess the correlative attribute of a high degree of differentiation and a high degree of
integration. The state is not an organism in the strict sense of the term, but it is like an
organism. It is not like a physical organism but it is a mental structure that is like an
5
organism of because the attainment of the common purpose which depends on the
discharge of reciprocal functions by the different parts, and the unity of the structure is
 thus organic and any change in the structure can only come from within and by way of
a development affecting all the parts together, and the growth of the structure is thus
‘organic’.

This can be associated to the alimentary canals (mouth, stomach, etc.) in the former,
and production centres in the distributory system consisting of the circulatory
apparatuses and the transportation system (roads, railways etc.) and a regulatory system
consisting of the nerve-motor mechanisms (brain, nerves, etc.) and government.

One may discover ‘extreme unlikeness’ between the two in some respects. While the
natural organism is concrete in structure as its all parts are bound together in close
POLITICAL SCIENCE

contact, the social organized is discrete, its units are free and more or less widely
dispersed. As every individual in the society is endowed with a uniqueness and
consciousness, it is not man that exists for the society but the society does exists for the
good of the individual.

It should be noted that the organismic theory implies the justification of state
absolutism. The organism is the collection of parts, where each part has its fixed place,
and each part works under the absolute control of the nervous system.

Force Theory

The theory of force demonstrates that justice is the interest of the stronger, might is
right and war begot the king. Man is a creature of lust for power that prompts him to
display the might of his muscle and drag others into his subjection. It is believed that
the tradition is “the strong dominate the weak”. The male in the family, the chief in the
tribe, the king in the state. Thus, every dispute is settled by the use of force that makes
one victor, the other vanquished. The state is neither a creation of God, nor a result of
6
the irresistible social development, it is primarily the consequence of the forcible
subjugation through long continued warfare among primitive groups.
The force theory states that the state is fundamentally the result of forcible subjugation
through long continued warfare among political groups. In its development the state
was the “wolf-state” or “a band of robbers”, but ‘economic impulses’ moved men to
subjugate others and appropriate their labour for the sake of their own nourishment and
material comforts. No state when men were all hunters, but its rudiments emerged
when an organization of the herdsmen developed. However, there are a dominant class
who dominated one class and exploited ones, thus six stages in the genesis of the state.
These are:

i) Robbery and killing in the border areas and endless combats broken neither
by peace nor by armistice.

POLITICAL SCIENCE
ii) Peasants were defeated by the hunters and herdsmen who made
unsuccessful attempts to throw off the yoke of the foreigners and in the end
ceased resistance and reconciled themselves to their fate.
iii) They began to give away their surpluses to the conquerors as tributes and
were happy to be protected from recurring troubles of every day, while the
herdsmen were satisfied because they could depend upon the labour of
others.
iv) Division of labour developed which marked out the class of the rulers from
the class of the ruled. When they settled in particular place and created a
sort of homogeneity in respect of their way of life. It led to the emergence
of the sentiments of ‘nationality’ and ‘nationalism’.
v) Some quarrels among different sentiments of arbitration and adjudication
by the group of the rulers.
vi) Thus, the organized government came into being. The leader became the
king, official deputies his servants. His word was a ‘command’ and his
7
authority became the highest authority of the land.
 Darwin and Spencer of England attested to the principle of survival of the fittest.
Mussolini of Italy and Hitler of Germany frankly admired the course of ‘blood and
iron’.

Divine Origin Theory

This is the oldest or the earliest theory on the subject of origin as well as nature of
political authority. It treats authority as a creation of God and as such, it finds its
expression in the religious scriptures. All religions such as the Hindus, the Jews, the
Christians, the Muslims and others subscribe to the view that origin of political
POLITICAL SCIENCE

authority has a Divine sanction. For instance, in the ‘Santi Parva’ of the Mahabharata,
Bhisma states “The people finding conditions without political authority intolerable
approached God Brahma with the request: ‘Without a Chief, O Lord, we shall worship
in concert and who will protect us.’ Then God granted the request and appointed Manu
to rule over them. However, Manu hesitated to accept the appointment, as it would be
very difficult to rule over people ‘who are always deceitful in their conduct,’ until he
was assured of the financial, moral and spiritual support of the people.”

The King is treated as owing responsibility to God alone for all his deeds of commission
and omission as in Old Testament as God appoints, dismisses and even slays the bad
rulers. So in the New Testament of the Christians, the source of political authority is
contained in the will of God. In every clear and strong terms, the people are enjoined
to render obedience to the powers that be who are ordained of God. St. Paul said to
Romans that let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but
of God. Anyone who resist the power, resist the ordinance of God and shall receive
8 damination.
In other words, this view prevailed that the Pope was the ‘vicar of Christ on earth and
as such his word was a gospel truth’. Therefore, government is an institution founded
by God because of the fall of man. For instance, in Egypt the King was rated as the son
of sun-god; to the people of Japan the emperor is still the son of their sun-god (Nippon);
in China the emperor was regarded as the son of the Heaven; in India the Hindus still
regard some of the earthly rulers like Rama and Krishna as divine incarnate; in the view
of the Muslims, an Islamic state is meant to keep up the reign of God (Allah) on earth.

The argument is that people have discarded their superstitions and come to think and
act rationally in most of the worldly situations. In this light of the doctrine of divine
rights, first the bishops and then the rulers acted in the most despotic manner for

POLITICAL SCIENCE
hundreds of years. Now the people are not prepared to accept that they have no part in
the creation of their political organization, but God prefers monarchical system alone,
or their ruler is not accountable to them for his acts of commission and omission. To
regard the State as the work of God is to give it a high moral status, to make it something
which the citizen may revere and support, something which he may regard as the
perfection of human life.

 The state created by God not only in the general sense in which everything that
exists is said to be the creation of the divine will but also in a special sense of a
deliberate, direct, specific act of creation with a particular end in view; the peace
on this earth for the preservation of human race.
 The ruler is the nominee of God on earth and, as such, he is the vice-regent of
God.
 All the rights of the ruler are a gift of the divine will and as such what he does
in the exercise thereof, his accountability is to his Creator alone. People have
no right to political resistance. 9
 Genetic Theory

The divine origin theory deals with a matter of faith, the genetic theory is based on
sociological facts. The argument is that state is an eventual extension of the family. The
first group of collective human life is the family or the household, the last is the state.
The earliest advocate of this theory is Aristotle in whose view a society of many
families is called a village and a village is most naturally composed of the descendants
of one family, the children and the children’s children for which reason states were
originally governed by kings, as the barbarian states now are, which are composed of
those who had before submitted to kingly government; for every family is governed by
the elder, as are the branches thereof, on account of their relation there into.
POLITICAL SCIENCE

At this point, when many villages so entirely join themselves together as in every
respect to form but one society, that society is state, and contains in itself; the end and
perfection of government. It is certain that family is the first unit of social development.
Its composition is based on residence of authority in the family and its growth into the
clan or tribe and eventually into the state. In the family situation, the eldest male parent
was absolutely supreme in his household and his dominion extended to life and death
and was as unqualified over his children and their houses as his slaves.

The absolute authority (patria potestas) of the pater families (head of the family) was
unqualified to the extent that he could sell or give away his property to anyone, or he
could chastise and even kill a member of his family. In this realm, it would be found
that the original family breaks up and many other families grow out of them with the
same tradition of final and unqualified authority in the hands of the male elder. The
larger unit became a tribe or a clan eventually became a state. The pre-requisite or
elementary group is the family, connected by common subjection to the highest male
10
ascendant.
Further, it should be understood that the aggregation of families forms the Genes and
Houses. The aggregation of the houses makes the tribe and aggregation of tribes
constitutes the commonwealth. The residence and nature of authority in two patterns
of family systems which is a concern of the sociologists. The state is a result of the
evolution that had its first manifestation in the formation of the families. The original
families broke up as a result of which many other families came into existence and that
formed a bigger unit like a clan or a tribe. When the bigger unit assumed the form of a
state, the headship fell into the hands of a person who became their ruler or king.

Prof. Maclver supports the process social evolution as: the first of all societies, in beasts
and birds, and man, is the family, but it cannot exist in mere isolation. Each new family

POLITICAL SCIENCE
is the union of two families. The web of blood relationship is thus woven and rewoven
which creates and sustains the kin with all its potentialities of extension and
subdivision.

Marxian Theory

This theory is fundamentally different from the theories discussed above. State is
neither a product of human consciousness, nor is it an artificial institution based on the
consent of the people, nor is it a mere consequence of a very long evolution effected
by the factors of kinship, religion, consent and force, nor is it an instrument of positive
good. It is nothing else than an instrument of exploitation and oppression by one class
over another. The state has the source of its origin in the evolution of the fact of class
contradictions and it should continue until class contradictions are finally resolved.

Lenin argues that an antagonistic class society the state is a political instrument, a
machine for maintaining the rule of one class over another. Marxism tells us that the
mode of production of the material means of life determines in general the social, 11
political and intellectual processes of life. In the social production of the means of life,
 men enter into definite and necessary production relations which correspond to a
definite stage in the development of their productive forces. The haves would always
exploit the have-nots at the point of production. The first exploiting state was the slave-
owning state. In spite of certain differences all the three had one task in common as to
keep the people in check and crush any attempt of the working people to emancipate
themselves from exploitation. The state is characterized by three basic features or
attributes:

i) A feature of the state is not its power of coercion in general which is to be

found in some form or other in any society, but above all its public power,
that is a power that does not coincide with the mass of population and is
POLITICAL SCIENCE

exercised by a special category of people. Such as the army and police as

organs of the state and corresponding material attributes like prisons,
concentration camps and other places of confinement.
ii) The state organization of society presupposes the levying of taxes that are
needed for the upkeep of the apparatus of power.
iii) The subjects of state are divided not according to blood relationship but on
the basis of territory. The power of the state is exercised directly over a
certain territory and its population. The territorial division of people effects
the development of economic ties and the creation of political conditions
for their regulation. The state protects the interests of the ruling class
primarily within the boundaries of the given territory, keeping the oppressed
classes there in subjection.

The state is thus a political superstructure on economic basis. It is the organization of

power of the economically dominant class which, thanks to the state, acquires political
12 supremacy as well. The essence of the state is thus determined by the relationship of
the ruling class to other classes. The state is the organization of the ruling class for the
protection of its fundamental interests and any form of property which this class
represents. It basic function is exploiting society and hold down the oppressed classes,
for which purpose it relies on force, on the organs of coercion.

The Marxian theory of the nature of state may be criticized on three grounds:

 It is wrong to say that the state is a mere instrument of exploitation and

oppression by one class over another. It is an agency of public welfare and its
ultimate aim is, as Aristotle said, to make ‘good life’ possible for its citizens.
 The factor of exploitation should not be treated as the only or decisive factor in
making and sustaining the entire political structure. The authority of the elders
over the younger kin was not exploitation, but it played a part in the making of

POLITICAL SCIENCE
the state.
 To treat the state as a mere apparatus of coercion is once again a mistake. It is
true that state uses force to deal with it enemies. It exercises coercion to seek
the enforcement of its laws. Though, force is not the only factor that commands
obedience of the people. Thus the role of the other factors like habits, social
customs, good sense of the people, etc. should be given due recognition.

The Marxist theory further takes into considerations of one factor where the state is
divided two hostile classes, each having its own interests. The origin of state, therefore,
should be traced in the fact of class antagonisms. With the invention of agriculture and
creation of private property, the dominant class came into being by virtue of being the
owner of the means of production. It required some authority to protect its interests that
lay in the exploitation and oppression of the class having no ownership of the means of
production but depending upon the sale of its labour power.

Idealist Theory
13
According to the earliest expression in the ideas of Plato and Aristotle of the ancient
period and its recent expressions in those of Rousseau of France, Kant, Fichte and
 Hegel of Germany, this theory justifies a state as a ‘divine institution’, a representation
of the real will of man in an objectified form, a moralizing agency and an infallible
authority, an objectification of reason and an institution that alone can ensure ‘good
life’ to man.

It is evident from the colourful statements of Plato and Aristotle who took state as ‘a
partnership in virtue’ to those of Hegel and Trietschke who identified it ‘with the march
of God on earth.’ While Rousseau affirmed that the ‘sovereign cannot impose fetters
that are harmful and useless to the community’, Green sanctioned that ‘state can use
force to create freedom’.
POLITICAL SCIENCE

Hegel has expressed that the state is a perfected rationality an absolute fixed end in
itself or an ethical substance or a system in which man has raised his outward self to
the level of his inward self of thought. Though, Green argues that reconciling the spirit
of idealist philosophy with the line of British liberalism and advocated for the Will not
Force as the basis of the state.

It has to be understood that human consciousness procreates claims in an environment

of freedom that are translated into ‘rights’ after receiving recognition of the community
and ultimately state is needed to protect the whole system of rights by its machinery of
law. The sovereign authority which uses force must in the ultimate analysis be reduced
to the society itself, or rather to the common consciousness of a common end which
constitutes the society. Thus, anything that creates rights, it creates the sovereignty
which is the condition of their maintenance.

For instance, the Zambian case where some political sympathizers argue that
Presidency come and is given by God. Out of this incontrovertibly sound doctrine was
14 developed a philosophy which idealises the state and glorifies it almost to the point of
deification, which tends to regard it as an end rather than a means and treats it as
omnipotent (almighty or supreme) and Omni competent (capable or able). This places
it upon a pedestal at the foot of which its members are expected to bow down and
worship it, which teaches that it can do no wrong and that whether good or bad, its
authority must be obeyed without question, and that resistance to its commands or
revolt against its authority. This is so whether oppressive or unjust or wicked
(iniquitous).

Furthermore, it regards the state as having an existence apart from the people who
compose it, is a mystical, super-personal entity above the nation organized, it possesses
a will, rights, interests and even standards of morality of its own, separate and distinct
from those of the individuals’ will as the source of all civilization and progress.

POLITICAL SCIENCE
The criticism of this theory has been done with reasons such as the following:

a) Too abstract to e comprehended by a man of average disposition. It leads to the

tendency of state absolutism where the state is identified with an objectified of
human reason or to adulate with the analogy of ‘March of God on earth’ which
is too metaphysical (supernatural).
b) The ultimate result of treating state as an omnicompent institution would be to
reduce people to the status of deaf and dumb-driven cattle. The state calls for
service of extremist loyalty and self-sacrifice. All this true though the state is
set-up as an entity superior and indifferent to component individual, it becomes
a false god, and its worship the abomination of desolation.

Evolutionary Theory

Evolutionary theory of the origin of state, emphasizes two important points. First, the 15

state is not a make but a growth. Secondly, not one but many factors have played their
 part in state-building. Thus, the state is neither a handiwork of God, nor a result of a
superior physical force, nor a creation of a social contract, nor a mere expansion of
(patriarchal or matriarchal) family system and the like. As a result of a very long
process of evolution, it may be asked as to what are the factors that have played their
part in its gradual and imperceptible development. These are:

Kinship: this factor is of blood relationship that led to the creation of family as the first
unit of collective life. A family consisting of a man, a woman and their children became
the first unit of an organized life. The family became a tribe and tribes eventually
became a commonwealth. The blood bond of sonship changed imperceptibly into the
social bond of wider brotherhood. The authority of the father passes into the power of
POLITICAL SCIENCE

the chief. Thus kinship creates society and society at length creates the state.

Religion: Religion emerged out of the way of life of the people living in the families
and tribes. It assumed the form of social practices associated with worshipping some
objects of nature or some mystical forces. Thus, when the bond of kinship became
weak, the bond of religion served the purpose.

Force: The element of force has played its own part in the conflicts and wars. It is the
element of force that placed man (father) as head of the family, the chief as the supreme
authority of the tribe, and the king as the highest ruler of the biggest unit. History is
full of tribal wars in which force decided the issue. The victors became the masters and
the vanquished had to accept the religion and servitude of their lords. The coercive
force exercised by the leader eventually developed into political sovereignty and the
sentiment of loyalty to the ruler was established and sanctioned.

Economics: Man has always performed some economic activities for the sake of living.
16 Economic life has a clear expression, where the institution of private property also
came into being that informed the people to have some arrangement for the effective
protection of their material possessions. As wealth increased and idea of private
property developed, laws were needed for the protection of property disputes.
Differences in occupation and in wealth created social classes or castes, and the
domination of one class by another for purposes of economic exploitation was an
important factor in the rise of government.

Political Consciousness: The needs of the people for the security of their person and
property created need for defence against external attacks and for their social, moral
and intellectual development. All these things led to the emergence of political power
and the conscious adaptation of political institutions to meet certain definite ends.

POLITICAL SCIENCE
Social Contract Theory:

The most important feature of Locke's work is that it analyses the various aspects of
state and government. Locke not only opposed the divine rights of kings advocated by
the Church of England, but also opposed the doctrine of absolute sovereignty
advocated by his predecessor Hobbes. He ridiculed the view that all government is
absolute monarchy that kings have a divine right to absolute power, and that mankind
has no right to natural freedom and equality. Locke adopted the technique of social
contract to explain that legitimate political authority is derived from the consent of the
people, which can be withdrawn when the freedom of the individuals is violated or
infringed. The three cardinal principles that the Two Treatises exposed and defended
were freedom, consent, and property. Men are naturally in a state of perfect freedom to
order their actions and dispose of their possessions according to their will
and wish within the bounds of the law of Nature.
17
The idea that the authority of the ruler is based on some kind of agreement between
him and his subjects is quite old. This can be traced in the Mahabharata and in
 Arthasastra of Kautilya. A faint idea assumed the form of an elaborate hypothesis to
demonstrate that the existence of political authority was based on the consent of the
people. To prove it, they supposed a period without authority of any kind, what they
called ‘state of nature’ and is termination by a covenant whereby the people surrendered
their natural rights to be translated into civil rights by the action of a political authority
instituted by them.

The social contract theory opens with the glorious words as man is born free, he is
everywhere in chains. In Rousseau’s view states that man is a noble savage. His life
was very simple and happy in the oldest phase of civilization, but it was perverted by
the growth of reason that inculcated the sense of distinction between ‘mine’ and ‘thine’.
POLITICAL SCIENCE

This all led to the rise of conflicts and wars as a result of which the peaceful condition
of mutual conflicts. The innocent creatures became selfish and aggressive, natural life
was destroyed. Thus the people living in the state desired a society of free consent and
not of force, a union of each with all on equal terms for common good; a sovereignty
vested in all and voiced by the general will for the maintenance of liberty in law.

In this regard, social contract is meant that to terminate the state of nature, contract is
made by the people. Hobbes argues that the law of nature informs the people to
surrender their all natural rights in favour of a man or an assembly of men as the price
for living in a commonwealth that ensures them liberty, property and the entire
paraphernalia (equipment) of a good life. In other words, such a contract, society, state
and government (commonwealth) come into being a ‘common power’ is instituted that
would keep all in awe and ensure security of their life and possessions.

It shows that each individual agreed with all the others to surrender his right to govern
himself, to some particular man or assembly. By doing this, they established the state,
18
and the person or assembly upon whom they had bestowed their power was the
sovereign of whom they were subjects.
  According to Locke there are two contracts. The first is the open or social
contract done by the individuals to institute a political authority by them. As a
result ‘community’ comes into being that holds the sovereign authority.
 A tacit contract is made by community with a person who takes upon himself
the responsibility of effectively protecting three natural rights of the people.
This is a contract of the society with the government and the ruler is committed
to the discharge of his obligations according to the terms of the contract.
 The motivating force behind these contracts is that men come to understand that
improvement over the natural state may result from the organization of a civil
society and the creation of instruments that will correct the deficiencies of the
state of nature.

POLITICAL SCIENCE
 Hobbes and Rousseau argues that there one contract whereby all surrender their
all in favour of all as a result of which a new authority in the name of ‘general
will’ (common good) is created. Man is not only gains the equivalent of what
is lost but also acquires greater power to preserve what is left.

The state of nature is the ill, unhappy and intolerable condition of life. The life of man
is solitary, nasty, poor, brutish and short. The only standard that determines the way of
life in this horrible state is the law of nature that means a set of rules based on the
principle of expediency for the sake of self-preservation. It is pre-social as well as a
pre-political condition in which there is no peace, no collective life, no other, no
commerce, no science, no learning, no property, no navigation, no culture, no industry,
no arts, no letters, but all warfare, continual fear and danger of violent death. Man is
the enemy of man who is a selfish creature and full of egotistic tendencies man believes
in the cardinal virtues of force and fraud. In this horrible state of war of all against all,
man is a ravening beast and his rights are limited only by his physical power.
19
Naturally there is no distinction between right and wrong, just and unjust, moral and
immoral. The impulses which move man are passions born in him. In man there is no
 innate desire towards transcendental good or any splendid ideal, rather as a material
well-being is concerned with his own satisfaction, man is driven by self-interest
directed to fulfilment of the fundamental urges. In short, it is a condition asking every
man to “kill whom you can and take away what you can and from this spring all
possibilities of internecine (deadly, civil, Domestic) warfare.”

In the regard, Rousseau writes that one who wants to live in a country where
“the interest of the sovereign could not be separated from that of the subject.” When
this condition holds, the movements of the political machine, Rousseau says, that would
always tend “only to the common happiness.” This condition only obtains when “the
people and the sovereign were one and the same person”, which means the government
POLITICAL SCIENCE

must be a democracy. On the contrary Rousseau writes that if he could have chosen his
birth place, “I would have wanted to live and die free, that is to say, subject
to the laws in such wise that neither I nor anyone else could shake off their honorable
yoke.” In a nutshell the themes of The Social Contract are puzzling. Rousseau
announces his project that Man is born free, though everywhere is in chains. In other
words, although man is not born naturally in subjection to others, we in fact observe
ongoing political societies, which issue commands backed by dominating force.
Rousseau is going to characterize the conditions that render the exercise of this political
authority by governments morally legitimate. Notice that one who rules others by force
and threats would seem to have the natural freedom that the individual in the state of
nature as characterized by Rousseau enjoys. Man is not subject to the will of others;
others are subject to his will. Whatever exactly Rousseau means here, this is a hint that
several different notions of freedom or liberty will be in play in this discussion, and we
will need to keep straight what these different notions of freedom are and which ones
Rousseau thinks are worth caring about.
20
One might have the idea that Rousseau’s project is to see whether in society we can
somehow recapture as much as possible of the freedom that individuals enjoy in the
state of nature. This makes it plain that this is not at all what Rousseau is up to. The
state of nature is irrevocably past, we cannot return to it. Nor should we want to. In the
state of nature man is a beast, happy perhaps, but a beast. In society
man becomes capable of morality and capable of a kind of freedom that amoral animals
cannot enjoy. Rousseau also makes it clear at the outset that the project is not to
describe a utopia - an ideally desirable condition that humans cannot reach. Rather we
are inquiring whether there can be a legitimate form of civil order, and in this inquiry
we are “taking men as they are and laws as they might be.” The description of a social
order that it is desirable for humans like us, not angels.

Thus, Rousseau notes that in the state of nature the human animal follows her

POLITICAL SCIENCE
inclinations unthinkingly. In the transition from the state of nature to the civil state
there is a transformation: “Only then, when the voice of duty replaces physical impulse
and right replaces appetite, does man, who had hitherto taken only himself into account,
find himself forced to act upon other principles and to consult his reason before
listening to his inclinations”. Rousseauian state of nature, man is said to be moved by
pity as well as self-love, so he does not only take himself into account in deciding what
to do. But whether one acts from pity or self-regard, one is acting to satisfy one’s
strongest desire of the moment. Rousseau supposes that with moral notions in place for
the individual trained in society, one can be moved to act on rules or principles one
accepts even when their requirements oppose our desires and inclinations.

In leaving the state of nature by contract, one would lose “natural liberty and an
unlimited right to everything” one wants to take or do, and one would gain “civil liberty
and the proprietary ownership of all he possesses”. Civil liberty is the freedom to do
what the laws specify is allowed, it is freedom limited by law. In the state of nature one
has no moral ideas, hence one lacks the idea of anything belonging by right to one
21
person or another. In civil society, one has moral notions, and can regard oneself as
 rightly owning things and others as under duties to respect one’s morally justified
possessions.

In a crucial passage Rousseau adds that in civil society one for the first time gets “moral
liberty, which alone makes man truly the master of himself. For to be driven by appetite
alone is slavery, and obedience to the law one has prescribed for oneself is liberty”.
Here is a reason for thinking the slave master may well be as much a slave, in an
important sense, as the slave. Just acting on one’s desires is slavery - you can be slave
to your own desires. In contrast, moral freedom or autonomy is obedience to a rule or
principle that you impose on yourself. With this idea in hand, Rousseau poses the
“fundamental problem” the problem to which the social contract is the solution. The
POLITICAL SCIENCE

task is to “Find a form of association which defends and protects with all common
forces the person and goods of each associate, and by means of which each one, while
uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before”. The
solution in capsule form is immediately given.

The social contract must require “the total alienation of each associate, together with
all of his rights, to the entire community. For first of all, since each person gives himself
whole and entire, the condition is equal for everyone; and since the condition is equal
for everyone, no one has an interest in making it burdensome for the others.” Of course
this sounds paradoxical. You turn your freedom over to the community, and remain as
free as before. Giving up all rights to the state somehow ensures the protection of all
one’s rights.

By and large, just to get all of the (apparent) paradoxes on the table, Rousseau notes
that each individual has private interests, which might lead her to act against the general
will (the will of all citizens directed toward the common good). When you will to act
22 on your private interests we can say you have a private will. Rousseau writes that “in
order for the social compact to avoid being an empty formula, it tacitly entails the
commitment, which alone can give force to the others, that whoever refuses to obey the
general will be forced to do so by the entire body.

This means merely that man will be forced to be free.” But what exactly does it mean
to be forced to be free? Is Rousseau making a good point or just playing fast and loose
with the language of freedom? When the ruler orders me to give up all my property and
be coerced to obey, and being forced to be free? Maybe if one violate just laws another
forfeit one’s liberty and deserve to be put in prison. Suppose one self-imposed rule is
to go on a low calorie diet, but be tempted by heaping bowls of ice cream and piles of
chocolate candy and other delicious foods forbidden by my diet. If man succumb to
temptation, and pig out, which may be a slave to my appetites.

POLITICAL SCIENCE
When Rousseau says the social contract gives us moral freedom, one would be thinking
of autonomy of action. Autonomy of action can be had only if circumstances are
favorable, and afford one freedom to act on one’s principles. (There might be empirical
connections between lacking opportunities to act as one chooses and the development
of the character trait of autonomy of disposition. Perhaps slavery tends to produce
slavishness, as Rousseau asserts.) Notice also that nothing says the person who
achieves autonomy must be acting on correct or plausible moral principles. One is
autonomous, even if despicable. Rousseau associates moral freedom or autonomy with
democracy of a certain type.

By and large, Rousseau is seeking to specify procedures of law-making that guarantee

that, at least if the right sort of people are going through the procedures, the laws the
government administers will be oppressive to no one and will work fairly for the good
of all. Here each can accept the law in good conscience, and in obeying this ideal
democratic law one is not succumbing to slavish appetite or cowardly inclination but
is obeying laws that satisfy one’s conscience, so one attains autonomy in conforming 23
to law. One might think that democracy is not necessary for autonomy, for if one is
fortunate to be ruled by a good king, who enforces Lockean rights fairly, one can obey
 the king’s laws without violating ones principles. One might also think democracy is
not sufficient for autonomy: Democratic legislation passed by fair procedures might be
substantively immoral, might enact tyranny of the majority, for example. In such a case
one could not, if one had reasonable moral principles, obey the law while acting only
in conformity with one’s principles. One issue then is to get clear why Rousseau
associates being a participating member of a social contract society, a political society
whose policies accord with the general will, and being free in the sense of senses of
freedom that matter to him.

Notice that besides the issue, whether Rousseau does successfully show that the form
of democracy he embraces does guarantee individual freedom, there is also the issue,
POLITICAL SCIENCE

why being free as Rousseau conceives of it should have make-or-break significance.

Why is the freedom Rousseau prizes a value that trumps all others? In this connection
one might hold that a society might trade off freedom for other benefits. One should
also notice that there are conceptions of freedom that Rousseau does not appear to care
about at all.

Consider what one would call wide option freedom. One has wide option freedom to
the extent that one has the opportunity to choose among a larger, rather than smaller,
set of diverse and valuable options. The larger the set of significantly different and
valuable options any of which one can choose, the more wide option freedom one has.
In a hunter gatherer with assigned traditional social roles, with no choice of
occupation must be the maker of bows for hunting with bow and arrow. This might be
an interesting and fulfilling occupation, but have no other choice. In contrast, if one
live in a modern big city, and could become either a baker, a butcher, a candlestick
maker, a lawyer, a masseuse, an insurance underwriter, a carpenter, a hunting guide, a
policeman, etc.
24

1. Natural rights: of man - life, liberty, and property

 a) They are called natural because all men are born with them.
b) These natural rights are not rights that are created by government or society;
one all enjoy them, before any considerations of government are mad.
2. State of nature – nobody’s rights are respected which is anarchy.
3. The people decide to contract with a government, to protect everyone’s rights. This
contract is a two-way relationship, as both sides have obligations to the other.

people government
protects the rights of the
obey the government
people

4. If the government does not protect the people’s rights, the people are no longer bound

POLITICAL SCIENCE
to obey that government, and have every right to set up a new Government (that will
protect their rights).

Locke tried to explain the origin and nature of political authority within the framework
of social contractualism. It is a justified Glorious Revolution and wanted to establish a
constitutional government. Further, it has be proclaimed that the government should
exist for the people to protect their liberty, property and life, but not vice versa. If the
government fails to work for the welfare of the society, people have every right to rebel
against the government and they can change the government. Locke developed his
theory of social contract from the notion of state of nature. For Locke, the state of nature
is only a pre-political state. It means that there is existence of an organized society, but
there is no established government. Man gives up his freedom and power, because the
enjoyment of it is very uncertain and constantly exposed to the invasion of
others. Since, all men are equal in the state nature; there is no strict observer of equity
and justice.
25
 Consequently, the enjoyment of property that they possess in the state of nature is
unsafe and insecure. This makes the individuals to look for a way out of this condition
that is full of fears and continual dangers. If the vicious and degenerate men are
forbidden to enter into the contract, then there is need of any society, but the state of
nature. The most important end of men's uniting into a commonwealth is for the mutual
preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates. Hence the power of society can never
be supposed to extend farther than the common good. It is by means of contract the
individuals agree to submit their powers (natural rights) to a majority rule in order to
organize themselves as a community.

Although people surrendered their natural rights, it should not be understood that they
POLITICAL SCIENCE

surrendered all aspects of those rights. In fact, they partially surrendered those natural
rights to make the contract functional. Once the contract becomes functional, the civil
society is established. This facilitates the individuals to form a government in the nature
of a fiduciary power, which is supreme for it represents the power of the people. The
government thus established enjoys prerogatives. However, it is subordinate and
accountable to the legislature. Also, it must be mentioned here that the legislative power
is separate from the executive power. The third is the federative powers, whose function
is to make treaties and conduct external relation of the state.

TWO CONTRACTS

People enter into a contract among themselves in order to protect their life, property
and liberty. Consequently, they enter into a civil society. Locke, unlike Hobbes, spoke
of two contracts. The first is a social contract by which the state or civil society is
created. It is otherwise known as Express Contract. By this contract, civil society is
26 created to meet the deficiencies of the state of nature. Unlike Hobbes, Locke stated that
people surrendered only one aspect of their rights and only a limited surrender. The
second is known as a governmental contract or tacit contract. Here the contract is
between the community and the rulers by which the society authorizes the government
to make positive laws consistent with the laws of nature.

As the government enjoys only a judiciary power, this is subordinate to the first
contract. The second contract is not openly advocated by Locke. He further observed
that the legislative power becomes the supreme power in the commonwealth. This
power is based on the consent of the people. This legislative power should be exercised
only to promote the peace, safety and public good of the people. According to Locke,
the government is only a trust and the governmental contract is to exercise powers for
the peace and prosperity of the people. When the government does not function for the

POLITICAL SCIENCE
good of the people, they have the right to overthrow the government. Thus Locke made
the monarch a party to the contract and established a constitutional monarchy. Its
authority should be based on the consent of the people and it has to work for the welfare
of the people.

INDIVIDUALISM

Locke is one of the greatest individualists in the history of political thought. He

preached that the earth and all other institutions are made for the welfare of the
individual and not vice-versa. Prof. Vaughan says that "everything in Locke revolves
around the individual: everything is disposed so as to ensure the sovereignty of
the individual. From Locke's view point individuals have the right to resist the state
when it goes against the individuals.

1. For Locke, all individuals are equal. Through this concept of equality other
rights such as the rights to life, liberty and property are derived.
2. In the state of nature, people possessed some natural rights, along with that the
state's purpose is to provide better protection for their life. So, Locke's state is 27

justified on the ground that its existence is only for making rights more secure.
 3. The consent of the individuals is the foundation for the state. A legitimate
government is one that possesses the consent of all the individuals.
4. His theory of negative state is shown as evidence to the ideas of Locke on
individualism. Here the functions of the state are very limited to prevent the
individuals from violating the rules and regulations.
5. Locke said that the purpose of the matter is the acquisition of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain by the individual. So, Locke's idea is that the goal of all
human institutions is to substitute pleasure in the place of pain.

Locke recognized and established the sovereignty of the people and

emphasized that the state exists only for the sake of people. Civil power is the right
POLITICAL SCIENCE

of making laws with penalties. For the regulating and preserving of property, and
of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws all this is
only for the public. Locke maintained that the civil power is the right of making
laws with penalties for regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the
force of the community in the execution of such laws. Such a power can arise only
by means of consent.

Civil power can have no right except as this is derived from the individual right of
each man to protect himself and his property. The legislative and executive power
used by the government to protect property is nothing but the natural power of each
man resigned, 'into the hands of the community', or 'resigned to the public', and it
is justified merely because it is a better way of protecting natural rights than the
self-help to which each man is naturally entitled. This is 'the original compact' by
which men are brought into one society. It is a bare agreement "to unite into one
political society, which is all the compact that is, or needs be, between the
individuals, that enter into, or make up a common wealth."
28
CONSENTS

Since men by nature are free, politically equal, creatures of God, subject to the laws
of nature, and possessors of an executive power of the laws of nature, they can
become subjects of political authority only by their consent. Without consent there
can be no political community. As discussed elsewhere, Locke recognized two
kinds of consent, express and tacit. The former is an explicit commitment to
the commonwealth. It case there is no provision for explicit consent, the people's
obligation to obey the commonwealth can be gauged by their tacit consent. The two
problems with regard to tacit consent that Locke himself acknowledges are what it
is and how far it binds. According to him, tacit consent is demonstrated when

POLITICAL SCIENCE
"everyman has any possession or enjoyment of any part of the dominion of that
government, he has to oblige to the laws of that government for the enjoyment of
that possession; whether it is possession of land, to him and his heirs forever, or a
lodging only for a week and soon."

THE STATE AND THE GOVERNMENT

Locke is a great democrat. He laid the foundation for the concept of Liberal
Democratic State. On the whole Locke regarded the setting up of a government as
a much less important event than the original compact that makes a civil society.
Once a majority has agreed to form a government, the whole power of the
community is naturally in them. The form of the government depends upon what
disposition the majority makes of its power. It may be retained or it may be
delegated to a legislative body. Following the experience of the English revolution,
Locke assumed that the legislative power is supreme in government. Legislative
power can never be arbitrary. For the sake of freedom it is important that legislative 29

and executive power should not be in the same hands. Locke basically believed that
 body politic and commonwealth came into being for the welfare of the individuals
and the community as a whole. Locke therefore assigned the following
functions for the Government:

1. The government should attempt to create standards by which the individuals

should be in a position to decide as to what is right or wrong. The law of nature
which all followed in the state of nature is clear and rational yet selfish interests
make men blind of proper understanding. These also influence his
judgment of deciding as to what is right or wrong.
2. The government should provide its subjects with an impartial authority to
decide the dispute arising out of social misunderstandings in the community.
POLITICAL SCIENCE

This is essential because men were usually partial towards themselves. They
usually carry their interests rather too far off.
3. Locke believed that it was the duty of the state to safeguard the interests of its
individuals and subjects against undue intervention from outside agencies.
Locke went to the extent of saying that the state has got a right to declare war
if it found that the life and property of its subjects is at sake. Thus
the state should not hesitate to sacrifice anything when it feels that the rights of
the individuals are being challenged. As he regards his concept of constitutional
government it is worthwhile to note that he is perhaps the first thinker who
realized that unless rule of man against man is based on consent it has no
legal justification. His stress for constitutional government was physically more
in the days when he was expounding his philosophy.

Locke stated that government exists for the well-being of the society. He argued
against the attainment of power through conquest. Further he made a distinction
between just and unjust warfare. A mere aggressor gains no right, and even a
30
conqueror in just war can never establish a right which contravenes the right of
the conquered to their liberty and property. Locke is against any
theory that a government can derive a just power merely through
conquest or from success by using force. Thus, a government which begins in force
can be justified only by its recognition and support of the moral rights inherent in
the persons and communities. The State and Government are created by a contract,
to ensure continual peace and right to life, liberty and property. This political
institution is just a means to an end namely the good and welfare of people. The
state exists for the people and not the people for the state. The government is only
a machine which the people create for their own welfare.

Further, Locke observes that all true states must be founded on consent and this
consent can be expressed through the representatives of the people. Without

POLITICAL SCIENCE
people's consent through some form or other, no true state can exist. Locke opined
that: Absolute arbitrary power, or governing without settled standing laws, can
neither of them consist with the ends of society and government, which men would
not quit the freedom of the state of nature for, and tie themselves up under, were it
not to preserve their lives, liberties, and fortunes, and by stated rules of right and
property to secure their peace and quiet.

Therefore, an absolute state cannot be a true state for the welfare of people. A true
state can only be a constitutional state where the rule of law prevails. Locke held
that no political liberty could exist if a man is subject to the inconsistent, uncertain,
unknown arbitrary will of another man. Standing laws which are clearly defined
and known to the people should rule the society. Secrecy and arbitrary decrees
cannot rule for the good of the people.

A true state is always limited by the powers of the people and guarantees all the
natural rights to the people. In other words: The great end of men's entering into
society being the enjoyment of their properties in peace and safety, and the great 31
instrument and means of that being the laws established in that society, the first and
fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative
 power, as the first and fundamental natural law which is to govern even the
legislative. The first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the
legislative itself, is the preservation of the society and of every member in it. The
first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the
legislative power. This legislative is not only the supreme power, but sacred and
unalterable. The community has given its power in the hands of legislative.

Therefore, no edict of any individual has any force than the obligation of a law, for
the individual's edict has no sanction from the legislative that is chosen and
appointed by the public. But the legislative power cannot be absolutely arbitrary
POLITICAL SCIENCE

over the lives and fortunes of the people. It is only limited to the public good of
society. The laws of nature do not cease in society, but they stand as an eternal rule
to all men including the legislative.

Hence, the legislative has no right to enslave, to destroy, or designedly to

impoverish the subjects. Again, the legislative cannot assume itself the power to
rule by extemporary, arbitrary decrees. The legislative quires standing laws to cling
to power. Further, the supreme power cannot take the subject's property without his
consent; and taxes can be levied only by the consent of the majority. Lastly, it
cannot delegate the power of making laws to any other hands.

LIMITED SOVEREIGN

Locke advocated for a limited sovereign state for reason and experience guided him
to envisage the view that political absolutism is not tenable. Describing the
characteristics of a good state, Locke stated that a state should exist for the people
32 who form it and not vice versa. It is to be based on the consent of the majority
subject to the constitution and to the rule of law. It is a limited state in the
sense that its power is derived from the people and is held in the
form of a trust. Apart from that, it is also limited by natural laws and
property rights. Locke argued that the state must deal with matters
strictly political in nature and has no warrant to interfere in other
provinces or demand more powers on the pretext of public safety or
welfare. According to him, the supreme power resided in the people
and the community had the inalienable right to institute and dismiss
off any government if it violates the trust. The supreme power of the
people, however, is kept in abeyance when the government is in power. The
government that they institute would be under periodic assessment. Hobbes
advocated for self-perpetuating sovereign and non-renewal of the consent. But in

POLITICAL SCIENCE
Lockean social contract, the performance of the government would be assessed
periodically.

The three organs of the government, according to Locke, are legislature, executive
and federative. Each of these organs holds some primary functions to proceed.
Legislature is the first organ that consists of people's representative. It has the right
to make laws. In other words, to introduce and make the law is the primary function
of the legislator. The next organ is executive. Its primary function is to execute the
laws passed by the legislature. Implementation of the laws, which are introduced
by the legislature, is the primary function of executive. And the final one is
federative. The federative organ has the power to deal with external affairs. The
federative organ is subordinate to the legislature, which represents the will and wish
of the people.

Locke did not agree with Hobbes that Government had absolute powers and
authority. He is of the opinion that the government is bound by certain limitations
33
or restrictions. They are:
 1. The government could not have a right to destroy, enslave or
designedly to impoverish the subjects.
2. The government should govern not by unknown laws but by
the laws that have been promulgated and are known to judiciary.
3. The government had no authority to snatch rightly earned property of any of his
subjects without their consent because it does not stand for snatching the
property but for preserving that.
4. The legislation is like a trust for the nation and hence that could not be
transferred to any other authority.
5. The government could not abrogate the natural rights of the individuals.
6. The state should not act autocratically, but on the other hand it should function
POLITICAL SCIENCE

for promoting utility.

7. The legislature must act according to the laws of nature. Locke shared the view
of Aristotle that governments could be divided into three forms namely
monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, but his strong opinion is that limited
democracy is the best form of government. He held that limited democracy is a
form of democracy in which the powers had been delegated to the
representatives who are guided by the electorates. Thus Locke advocated
limited sovereignty.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

Locke assigned a top position to legislature. It has a supreme authority and place.
The other two organs namely the executive and the judiciary were subordinate to
that. He believed that legislature and the executive must be separated from each
34 other in functions and personnel. However, this permitted the executive to issue
ordinances when legislature is not in session. But this idea was not fully further
developed.
In this realm, Locke asserted that absolute monarchy is inconsistent with civil
society. If the Prince is bestowed with both legislative and executive powers, then
nothing can stop him in exercising his power on any one. Thus nobody can
challenge the power of the Prince. In such an absolute monarchy, the subjects are
reduced to the level of slaves. To put it in the words of Locke: If the Prince holds
both the legislative and executive power, there is no common judge who may fairly,
indifferently, and with authority to decide, and no standing rule to appeal to, the
subject is the slave of one man. No individual can be subjected to the political power
of another without his own consent. It is only with the help of a majority group
of individuals with mutual consent among themselves a community
can be formed. This community with a power to act as one body is the creation of

POLITICAL SCIENCE
the will and determination of the majority of people. But after forming such a
society, every man puts himself under an obligation to every one of that society to
submit to the rule of the majority, failing which there would be no contract.

The government of the world that came into existence began with peace due to the
consent of the people. It is not well that those who have powers of making the laws
should also have power to execute them. The favoured power is which divided or
split. The power in one hand should harm the welfare of the state. The federative
power is the power of war and peace, leagues and alliances, and all transactions
with all persons and communities without the commonwealth. The federative and
executive powers are almost always united, and it is best that they are placed in one
hand.
The executive has the supreme execution of the laws, and should be
exempt from subordination. But the legislative may take both the
executive and federative powers out of the hands it has placed them in, when it
finds cause, and to punish any misadministration of the laws. The legislative is the 35
supreme power, but it is a fiduciary power to act for certain ends. So the people
 have a supreme power, a powerful right, to remove and alter the legislative when
they find it act contrary to the trust reposed in it. But whilst the government exists,
the legislative is the supreme power. Not the prince, as Hobbes taught, but the
legislative is the soul of the commonwealth, and the legislative represents the
people; the people act as the judge whether the prince or the legislative act contrary
to their trust.

DISSOLUTION OF GOVERNMENT

The obligation to obey the government depends on the fact that public power is
used for "peace, safety and public good of the people." Locke stated explicitly that
men cannot yield to the government more power that they actually possess in the
POLITICAL SCIENCE

state of nature, which means that they cannot be an absolute arbitrary power
over their lives and fortunes which are as much possible to be preserved. Lockean
men, therefore, are not committed to unfailing obedience. It is a rational and limited
agreement, which assures obedience for the preservation and enhancement of life,
liberty, and property. The validity of the contract would depend on the
continuation of the benefits. Also, Locke categorically stated that governments
could be altered, amended, changed or dissolved legitimately under the following
occasions.

1. Whenever such a prince or single person sets up his own arbitrary will in
the place of laws.
2. When the prince hinders the legislature from assembling in its
due time or from acting freely pursuant to those ends for which it is
constituted.
3. When by the arbitrary power of the prince, the elections and
36 the ways of elections are altered without the consent and contrary to the
common interest of the people.
 4. The delivery of the people into the subjection of foreign power either by the
prince or by the legislature.
5. When the person, who has the supreme executive power neglects laws
already implemented, cannot be executed.

Locke's intention is to defend the moral right of revolution. Hence,

at the end of his Second Treatise he discussed the right to resist tyranny. He stated that
English society and English government are two different things. The second, namely,
the government exists for the well-being of the society. This argument is supported by
a rather lengthy examination of the right that can be gained by conquest. Locke

POLITICAL SCIENCE
distinguished between just and unjust warfare. A mere aggressor gains no right and
even a conqueror in a just war can never establish a right. The argument is directed
against any theory that a government can derive a just power merely through conquest
or from success by using force. Consequently a government which begins in force can
be justified only by its recognition and support to the moral rights inherent in persons
and communities. In other words, the moral order is permanent and self-perpetuating,
and governments are only factors in the moral order.

Locke argued that a political revolution which dissolves a government does not, as a
rule, dissolve the community which that government rules. This means that the political
revolution dissolve only the government, but not the community. The individual
resigns his natural right to the community or the public, which presumably must be
some kind of entity if it can receive a grant of power. On the other hand, right is lodged,
only in the hands of individuals until they resign it. He regarded this surrender of
individual right as conditional against both society and government because the
individual power is resigned only with an intention to preserve the liberty and property 37
of every individual. And society itself is obliged to secure everyone's property. A
government as distinct from society is dissolved either by a change in the location of
 legislative power or by a violation of the trust which the people have reposed in it.
Locke clearly stated that any invasion of the life, liberty and property of subjects is ipso
facto void, and a legislature, which attempts these wrongs, forfeits its power. In this
case power reverts to the people, who must make a new legislature by a new act of
constitutional legislation.

REVOLUTION
In Hobbesean theory, people do not have any power to over throw the government
except revolution. Revolution is the only alternative to go for other possibility or
alteration. They have to obey the rules and regulations of the ruler, the sovereign. They
have to be loyal to the rule of the sovereign. But in Lockean social contract, unlike in
POLITICAL SCIENCE

Hobbesean social contract, the people have the right to over throw the government,
which goes against the will of the subject, the people. The government has to go for
periodic assessment. Locke did not command unquestioned obedience to the state.
He grants the right to revolt against the state if it is anti-people. When the state goes
contrary to the will and welfare of the people, only for which the state is created, the
people have a legal, moral, political and natural right to throw the state out of power.
Locke in clear terms says that the dissolution of government does not
necessarily lead to the dissolution of the state, created by the first contract, which is
supreme, but only the governmental contract breaks.

The right to revolt does not approve of revolutions of any form and any size. A
revolution against the state should not be an act of minority. Lockean state is tolerant
state honouring difference of opinions. Even though revolution begins with minority,
it must through proper propaganda gain the support of the majority. The social support
of the majority makes the revolution meaningful, moral, political and legal. A true state
should not exercise only the negative means to force the people to obey or to arrest
38
revolutions.
It should also be a transformer state. Man should be educated and trained to transform
their selfish interests into public good. Punishments and artificial pains may be
introduced to prevent the uncontrolled selfishness. In Lockean state the age-old
conflicts of authority and freedom get reconciled. Locke observed that there would be
no civil society, if men do not understand the aim and significance of the rule of law.
The end of law is not to abolish or restrain but to preserve and enlarge freedom.

ESTIMATION
Locke contended that the chief matter of property being now is not the fruits of the
earth and the beasts that subsist on if but the earth itself. As much land as a man tills,

POLITICAL SCIENCE
plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property.
Nobody can invalidate his right to say everybody else has an equal title to it, and
therefore one would cannot appropriate, or cannot enclose, without the consent of all
his fellow commoners, all mankind. When God gave the world in common to all
mankind, commanded man also to labour, and the penury of his condition required it
of him. God and his reason commanded him to subdue the earth i.e., improve it for the
benefit of life and therein lay out something upon it that was based on oneself, out of
labour. By obeying the command of God, man claimed ownership rights only on that
land he tilled, sowed and cultivated.

Man alone can make use of that particular land. Others have no right to enjoy that
particular land. Although Locke is an influential political philosopher, there exists a lot
of pit falls in his social contract theory. As a champion of natural rights, Locke should
never recommend for the surrendering of the part of natural rights to the commonwealth
in order to protect the property and freedom of the individuals. According to Locke,
property and freedom are inseparable from each other. In its wider sense, property
39
includes freedom, and in its narrower sense property is a means to freedom. Locke
wanted an established social order through a social contract. But the people in that
 social order lacked property, which is a pre-condition for attaining freedom. Of course,
Locke is aware of this fact. Nevertheless, Locke did not bother to redistribute the
property, which is so unequally distributed in the commonwealth. This clearly
establishes the view that Locke is interested in the welfare of a small part of the
community. Then, what is the use of having natural rights, which do not bring about
the equal rights of property? Jean Jacques Rousseau identified these problems and he
tried to improve upon the social contract proposed by Hobbes and Locke.

Creation of the State and Government

POLITICAL SCIENCE

The social contract is the instrument that substitutes the state of nature with a civil
(political) society. The sovereign is the protector of the commonwealth (society) and is
not accountable to the people, because one is not party to the contract. One’s word is
law and obedience is mandatory. People have no right to revolt until the sovereign
deprives them of their right to self-preservation. By all means, the authority of the
sovereign is absolute and the people are commanded to render him unquestioned
obedience.

In this system, since the King is a party to the contract and is committed to observe the
terms of the contract, this renders his status to be like that of a manager of a joint stock
company. Thus, whenever the people feel that their ruler is abusing their trust, they
may rise in revolt and renew their contract with a new ruler. Besides, direct democracy
is established as a result of the social contract as in the system of Rousseau.

In this regards, sovereignty lies with the people who exercise it in name of general will
or the good of all. At this point, the abuse of the trust of the community does not arise,
simply because they cannot do anything that is harmful to the interest of the public
40
interest. Though social contract is speculative, deductive and imaginative, its real value
cannot be denied which displace the theory of Divine origin of state that had become a
powerful instrument in defence of kingly despotism. It provides a powerful instrument
for combating irresponsible rulers and a justification for resistance against tyranny.
Thus, out of it the idea of popular sovereignty came out finally in the form of excellence
of the representative government. Sovereignty is summa potestas (highest power of the
state) or plenitude potestatis (supreme authority of the state) in a sense different from
what one would mean now by the term sovereignty. Thus sovereignty is the supreme
power of the state over citizens and subjects unrestrained by law. It should understood
that sovereignty in simple terms signifies supreme power of the state. It has two
dimensions i.e. internal and external.

a) The idea of sovereignty in the internal sphere means that the state has highest

POLITICAL SCIENCE
power within the area under its control. All people and their associations are
under the control of the state. In patent terms, it signifies power of the state to
make and enforce a law throughout its territory. It is the final power to
command and enforce obedience and subject to no legal limitations.
b) Thus the idea of sovereignty in the external sphere implies freedom of state
from any alien subjection or control. Dependent people cannot be called a state
because they live and have to act according to the will of some other state.

ELECTORAL SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD

The most essential institutional mechanism of democracy is what has been argued by
Merriam, “the suffrage, the representatives, the apparatus of civil liberties, sound
administrative organization, and system of adjudication. In this realm, the purpose here
is to discuss the methods and institutions that holds democratic government and how it
is organized.
41
Thus suffrage or franchise and representation immediately engage our attention as on
how to recruit or elect them and who should have the right or entitled to vote having in
 mind the organization of the electoral districts. Well in this premise, the strength and
stability of modern states is that they are based on the fact of democratic attributes.

The democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political

decisions which realizes the common good by making the people itself decide the issue
through the election of individuals who are to assemble in order to carry out its will.

The theories of suffrage and Franchise

Franchise literally means a person’s right to vote. The right to vote should be given to
all without any discrimination on some conventional ground. It regarded suffrage as a
POLITICAL SCIENCE

necessary attribute of the membership of the state. State and individual were identified.
The suffrage was not viewed as aright or as a privilege, but as a necessary and a natural
part of the active life of every citizen. Membership in the state has obligation to take
active part in its life under the tribal theory. The modern practice of requiring
citizenship as a qualification for voting represents a survival of this theory.

The Feudal theory is part of the middle ages when the system of representation was
developing, the right to vote was considered a vested privilege, attached to those
occupying ownership of land. Modern property qualifications for voting are a survival
of this theory, as are the systems of plural voting such as one which existed until the
first World War in Great Britain, where persons who owned estates in various parts of
the country had the right to vote in each of these places.

Natural Rights Theory is based on the origin state of nature, in which all men are free
and equal because they possess natural rights, and of the establishment of the state and
government by a voluntary contract created the doctrine of popular sovereignty. Thus
42 all political power is usually derived from the people who create it. In accordance with
these principles, the right to take part in government becomes a natural right by means
of which the general will of the people may be made responsible to the consent of the
governed.

Legal Theory deals with the electorate viewed as one of the origins of government
whose composition and powers are determined by the laws of the state. At this point,
voting become a responsibility of the government and with the exercise of public trust.
This theory argue that suffrage, therefore, is not a natural but a political right conferred
by law. It has been served as a justification for various reform movements for
democracy in the twenty-first century.

Ethical Theory

POLITICAL SCIENCE
It holds the desirability of right to vote not as a natural rights but as a means for the
most complete development of human personality and worth. By taking active part in
the government, the citizen becomes more interested in public questions and more
intelligent concerning public policy than he otherwise would be. His capacity for self-
government is thereby increased, and his dignity and self-respect are enhanced by the
opportunity for self-expression in political affairs. This theory has been used to justify
the extension of suffrage, as a means of political education, to classes not fully
competent to exercise it wisely. The granting of suffrage to foreigners and refugees
may cause Civil War in countries.

Election and it method

Election means recruitment of the representatives by the choice of the voters. It may be
done in one of the two ways. In case the voters choose a representative by their votes,
it is direct election. In case the voters choose a representative by their votes, it is direct
election. For example, the members of the British House of Commons, Zambian
Members of Parliament, or of the American House of Representatives are directly
43
elected by the voters of the country. Though, it is different from this, in a situation
where the voters elect some persons to elect someone else, it becomes indirect election.
 The intermediary body is called “Electoral College”, e.g. American, Zambian
candidates are chosen by the representative who have been chosen by the electors of
one party.

Both methods of election have their merits and demerits. Take a look of the merits:

i) It establishes direct touch between the voters and their chosen

representatives.
ii) It stimulates the interest of the voters in public affairs, sharpens their
political consciousness, and makes them public-spirited.
iii) The representatives has a particular regard for the will of his constituents.
One would know that there is a need to act according to their wishes in case
POLITICAL SCIENCE

one desires to be re-elected.

iv) It has educative value, when the candidates go to the voters and ask for their
votes on the basis of their electoral pledges, it all adds to the political
awareness of the voters.

It would important to consider the demerits too. These are:

i) All voters are not equally intelligent and so clever candidates have more
chances to woo the voters in their own interest.
ii) Wrong and undesirable methods are adopted by the candidates for securing
votes. Even vilification campaigns are launched. Really is distorted by false
propaganda.
iii) Really good and conscientious people avoid such elections, though they
may prefer to try their fate in an indirect election.

Merits and demerits of the indirect election. The merits are:

44
i) It confines the electorate to a small body of persons possessing a higher
level of political ability and necessarily feeling a keener sense of
responsibility.
ii) It tends to diminish the evils of party passion and struggle by removing the
object of the popular choice one degree and confining the function of the
electorate as a whole to the choice of those upon whom the ultimate
responsibility.
iii) It is well suited to infant democracies where the number of politically
conscious and intelligent people is very small.

Demerits are as follows:

POLITICAL SCIENCE
i) In a sense, it is undemocratic, because it prevents a large number of people
from taking part in a sphere where they are expected to do it. Though very
much in criticism in the name of political inexpediency.
ii) Since it deprives a large number of people taking part in the battle of the
ballot box, it can create conditions of political apathy or alienation.
iii) On account of the small size of the constituency, the chances of the adoption
of corrupt means are enhanced. Dishonest leaders may take it easier to win
by securing the votes of a lesser number of persons.
iv) Where the bi-party system is well developed, indirect method is likely to
degenerate into a cumbersome formality, since the immediate electors are
chosen under party pledges to vote for a particular candidates of candidates.

Forms and Methods of Voting

There are two forms of voting have been devised in the world. First and foremost,
45
in case of voters vote in a way that their choice becomes clear for all to see, as by
raising their hands or by saying ‘aye’, it is called open or public voting. Thus, the
 choice of a voters is not known to others or the public until at the count, this is
known as a secret ballot. Though some classical democrats have defended the way
of public ballot or oral.

In this regard, John Stuart Mill opined that the duty of voting just like any other
public duty, may be performed under the eye and criticism of the public. It was also
contended that the secret ballot system is made of votes of dishonest and immoral.
Thus, Treitschke argue that “secret ballot system is the shabbiest trick that would
ever proposed in the name of liberalism.” The secret ballot has actually gained
more and more weight after it was introduced and has become the accepted mode
of voting all over the world; unlike the open ballot system which renders the voters
POLITICAL SCIENCE

abstain from voting for various reasons. The open ballot attenuates voters instead
of political responsibility in the mind of voters. It also accentuates the tendency of
terrorism on the part of the powerful persons who may go to the extent of dealing
unfairly with their voters out of sheer vengeance. In this realm, secret voting system
replaced the open or public voting system, though, Harrington defends secret voting
system as an essential condition of a free and fearless suffrage.

There may be many voting ways that would be enumerated as:

Majority Vote System (First-Post the Post System or Plurality of Votes

System)

This system requires the winning candidate to secure the largest number of votes
cast to be declared elected without considering the percentage of votes obtained.
Ordinarily, the winner may secure more than fifty (50) per cent of the votes polled
or not. Mostly, in this form of election is not popular because the elected is
supported by the minority citizen therefore making the governance system to be
46 doubtful and less popular as the case was with the former Republican President
Mwanawasa. This system obviously has the demerit of the candidate is declared
elected even without getting a clear majority of the votes polled. This amount to
the victory of the minority over the majority.

In this system, there is a possibility of the winner to poll only a small margin to
secure victory. For example, out 6,307 votes polled; candidate A would obtain
1,090 votes cast; Candidate B would get 2,740 votes; Candidate C gets 1, 300 while
candidate D gets 1,156 votes, then B is declared elected. This sounds undemocratic
in essence. In order to do away with this defect, two other ways of voting have been
devised-second ballot system and alternative vote system.

Second Ballot System (Single Member Majoritarian System) or Run-off Vote

System

POLITICAL SCIENCE
This system requires the winner to get or obtain votes of more than 50 per cent. In
an event no candidate gets clear majority of votes polled, election I cancelled and a
re-election would take place in which two persons with largest number votes are
allowed to contest again. In case, there is a decline by any of the two, then the
chance would be extended to the third person may contest with other holder.
Therefore, in a case the two candidates, one polls or wins the absolute majority of
votes in the second ballot shall be declared President of that country.

This has been practised in France and Russia elections. This system is really good,
because it eliminates the possibilities of success in favour of a candidate who may
not get clear majority of the votes polled. Though, the only demerit of this system
is that election has to take place again which entail expensiveness and time
consuming. However, to address this expensiveness of the second ballot system,
the alternative vote system has been devised.

Alternative Vote System or Preferential (Contingent) Vote System

47
 This system requires a winner to get a clear majority of the votes polled. In this
system no re-election is required for the candidate to be declared winner as the
Second Ballot System.

In this regard, the voter is given a ballot paper which contains names and symbols
of the candidate’s party on the left side and blank columns are left on the right side
in which a voter has to show his preferences by making a figures of 1,2,3,4
depending on the number of presidential candidates participating in that election.
This implies that after the poll, a quota is drawn by dividing the number of valid
votes by 1+1=2 and then adding 1 to the quotient. For instance, if the total number
of valid votes polled is 100, then quota would be: 1+1=2 ÷ 100 = 50 +1 = 51.
POLITICAL SCIENCE

Usually, counting will then begin. Thus the first preference votes would be counted
first. In an event, a candidate secure votes upto the figure of a quota, such a
candidate shall be declared a winner. In case no candidate gets votes upto the figure
of quota, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and his votes transferred
to other candidates according to second reference marked on his ballot papers.

Thus, if no candidate gets votes upto the figure of quota in the second round, then
another candidate with least number of votes is eliminated, and his votes are
transferred to other candidates according to subsequent preferences. This process
goes on until one candidate gets votes upto the figure of quota, or the number of
candidates remains equal to the vacant posts as a result of the process of
elimination. It applies to the Presidential election in India.

48
Assignment: one

A social contract is made by the people in their individual as well as corporate

capacities; all surrender their all rights in favour of all, a corporate whole is
created with a will of its own desiring good of all. Discuss this statement as argued
with Locke John’s arguments.

Page: 4 Excluding Cover and Bibliography (reference) pages

Font: 12 Times New Roman: Spacing 1.5

POLITICAL SCIENCE
Examination Sample Questions 2016 Academic Year

1. Discuss the nature of the State based on the arguments of David Hume.
2. Give a detailed explanation on the Divine Theory on the nature of state.
3. Compare and contrast the Preferential Voting System and Proportional
Representation form of election to either merit or the demerit of the electoral
systems as to your verdict.
4. Zambia has just come from the general elections, according to your
understanding of the electoral system of this country which system would in the
calibre of the citizenry in order to promote governance.
5. Discuss the term election as in relation to governance.
6. Discuss the four elements of the nature of the state and it characteristics.
7. Give a detailed argument of John Locke and David Hume on the nature of state
as based on rights and freedom in relation to Governance. 49
8. Distinguish the Divine theory and Social Contract theory according to Hume.
 9. It is believed that, the social contract theory is based on the agreement of the
governed. Discuss this statement with regards to corporate governance.
10. Governance is about people’s involvement. Critically explain what and how
this argument can be qualified in relation to divine theory.
11. Elections in Zambia are held every after five years. Discuss the electoral system
and its advantages.
12. With vital references to some theories of what a state is. Discuss the importance
of Governance in relation to Zambia.
13. Give a detailed characteristic of a leader that would propel governance in a
country to ensure sustainable development.
14. Compare and contrast the first past the post and the second ballot electoral
POLITICAL SCIENCE

system and justify the better one with merits.

15. Discuss what governance is as regards to force theory.
16. Discuss and explain the elements of Governance in relation to Democracy.
17. Compare and contrast social contract theory and divine theory in relation to
state and Governance.
18. Discuss the civil society in terms of state or nation in reference to rights and
freedom.
19. Outline the electoral system which are practiced in the world in particulars the
alternative and mixed voting system.
20. Describe the roles played by the civil society in governance.
21. Discuss governance in relation to electoral system in Zambia.
22. Highlight the main success, challenges and constraints (limitations) found by
society in promoting good governance and national peace unity or
reconciliation.

50 23. The non-governmental organisation (NGO) are part or if not one of the civil
society organisation. Compare and contrast the roles of the (CSO) and (NGO)
in governance.
24. Compare and contrast idealist and force theory.

POLITICAL SCIENCE

51