An Introduction to

Western Political Thought

A Book of Political Science

Volume-1
For the Students of B.A. Semester III under the University of Jammu

Mukesh Sharma

Asstt. Prof. in Political Science

GDC Nowshera

2017

B.A. SEMESTER – III

 WESTERN POLITICAL THOUGHT

CONTENTS

Unit – I: Plato (427 B.C. – 347 B.C.)

1.1 Concept of Justice: Prevalent Theories of Justice and Plato’s Concept of Justice
1.2 Concept of Education: Education in Ancient Greece and Platonic Concept of
Education
1.3 Concept of Communism: Communism of Household and Property
1.4 Concept of Ideal State and Philosopher King

Unit – II: Aristotle (384 B.C. – 322 B.C.)

2.1 Aristotle as Father of Political Science: A Shift from Political Philosophy to Political
Science
2.2 Aristotle’s Views on Household and Slavery: Criticism of Plato’s Concept of
Communism
2.3 Aristotle’s Classification of Government
2.4 Aristotle’s Best Practicable State: Concept and Characteristics

Unit – III: Machiavelli (1469 – 1527)

3.1 Renaissance and its Impact on Machiavelli

3.2 Machiavelli’s Views on Human Nature and Motives- Implications and Evaluation
3.3 Machiavelli Views on Relationship between Ethics and Politics
3.4 Machiavelli’s Views regarding Preservation and Extension of State Power

Unit – IV: John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873)

4.1 Concept of Liberty, Thought, Expression and Action

4.2 Mill’s Views on Women’s Equality
4.3 Mill’s Views on Representative Government: Proportional Representation and
Plural Voting
4.4 Relevance of Mill’s Ideas on Modern State and Government
 UNIT – I

PLATO (427 B.C. – 347 B.C.)

The Political Philosophy

Political thought is one of the most important aspects of the study of politics. It
provides a theoretical and philosophical understanding that is pre-requisite for
conceptual and linguistic clarity in the subject of Political Science. Most of the part of
political thought is concerned with some of the fundamental issues related to politics
such as understanding the meaning and the nature of the state, government and
citizens; political obligation, authority, freedoms and duties etc. The state,
government and the citizenry are the prime focus of political philosophy.
Secondly, the study of political theory is also important because a theoretical and
philosophical understanding is pre-requisite for conceptual and linguistic clarity in the
subject of ‘Political Science’. The tradition of political theory is the basis of the
beginning of political philosophy since ancient Greek period dealing with some of the
most basic questions of political nature. What is the state and why should I obey it?
What are the proper limits of its authority and when may I refuse to obey it? In fact,
its concern is with nothing less than “the moral phenomena of human behaviour in
society”.
The tradition of political thought can be divided into two phases: classical and the
modern. The classical phase started with Plato and ended with Hegel. After Hegel
began a period of refinement and clarification, that is still continuing. This section
begins with the discussion over the political thought of Plato who laid the foundation
of political philosophy. The writings of the Plato and Aristotle were the great pioneers
of the European intellect. Plato’s Academy was the first of the philosophical schools
followed by Aristotle’s school at the Lyceum opened some fifty years later. The two
other great schools, the Epicurean and the Stoic, began some thirty years after
Aristotle. These schools played an important role in European civilisation and marked
the beginning of the European philosophy, especially in its relations with politics and
other social studies.

Political Philosophy of Plato

Plato was born about 427 B.C. of an eminent Athenian family. He died in 347 B.C.
Plato’s works include the Apology of Socrates, 23 genuine and 11 disputed dialogues,
and 13 letters. His matters of political philosophy are discussed in many of Plato’s
Dialogues. The important among them all include the Republic, the Statesman, and
the Laws.
Plato has been generally regarded as the father of philosophical idealism. He was
the first to formulate and define political ideas within a larger framework of a
philosophical idea of good. He conceptualised the disorders and crises of the actual
world and presented a vision of a desirable political order which till date fascinate and
his admirers and detractors.
 Plato, along with his disciple Aristotle, has been credited for laying the foundations
of Greek Political Theory on which the Western political tradition rests. In the words
of Whitehead, European philosophical tradition is nothing but a set of footnotes to
Plato and Aristotle.
Along with the admirers of Plato, there are many critics of Plato too beginning
with Aristotle. The liberals are at the forefront to criticise him regarding him as the
philosophical forerunner of modern day totalitarianism. They assailed Plato for his
hostility towards progressive, humanitarian and democratic ideals. Despite all this
criticism, Plato is still regarded as the pioneer of the political philosophy in real sense
that is the starting point for many political concepts and theories.
Plato was philosophically influenced by some of its predecessors and
contemporaries including Pythagoras, Heraclitus and Parmenides. However, the most
persuasive influence was that of Socrates, from whom Plato accepted the teleological
explanation of the world. He immortalised him not only for his philosophy but also
made him his mouthpiece in his dialogues.

1.1 Concept of Justice: Prevalent Theories of Justice and Plato’s Concept of Justice

A. Justice

Justice has been the central concept of whole of political philosophy since the time of
Plato and Aristotle. It is the most desired ideal of all generations in all systems. A good
society is portrayed as a just society. However, there is a lack of agreement about what
justice stands for. In everyday language, it is taken as an ideal that symbolizes
‘fairness’, ‘rightness’, ‘perfectness’; ‘moral correctness’; or an ‘absolute truth’. Primarily,
justice is a moral or normative concept. It denotes a moral judgment, in particular one
about the distribution of rewards and punishments. Justice, in short, is about giving
each person what he or she is ‘due’. It is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics,
rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity. However, it is not easy to define what
that ‘due’ might be. Thus, justice is an essentially, a contested concept. It is not a
settled or objective concept, but a set of competing concepts.

Although justice is a distributive concept, it is less clear what it is trying to

distribute. Secondly, it is not clear which method of distribution is appropriate. Thus,
it is difficult to construct an overriding principle of justice applicable to all areas of
life. Different principles of justice may therefore be appropriate in different spheres of
life. It is, therefore, a dynamic concept since the notion of justice keeps on changing
with the changing conditions of life.

The term justice is derived from the Latin word ‘jus’, which means ‘to join’ or
‘to fit’. According to Barker, justice is the synthesis of three basic values of liberty,
equality and fraternity. Justice is the basic idea behind these values. Thus, justice
intends to impart each individual a fair share in the advantages accruing from
organised social life. In short, justice ensures the survival of the individuals in a
humane and dignified way. It is the system in which individual can develops his/her
personality to its fullest extent. It rules out any type of discrimination, exploitation,
manipulation or irregularities’ that curb individual freedom or his capacities to
become an emancipated soul. In short, it is the end that every society wants to
achieve. It is important to observe that the modern concept of justice is different from
the traditional notion of justice. The traditional concept of justice focused on the ‘just
man’ whereas the modern concept of justice marks a shift of emphasis from that of
‘just man’ to that of ‘just society’. It is more progressive concept of justice that seeks to
eliminate all injustices in various aspects of social life- legal, political and socio-
economic.

B. Plato’s Concept of Justice

The theory of ideal state of Plato in Republic culminates in the conception of justice.
For Plato, the state is the ideal, of which justice is the reality. Justice is the principle on
which the state has to be founded to achieve maximum human excellence. Thus, the
central question of the republic was justice. In fact, Plato’s Republic is also sub-titled
as “Concerning Justice”.
Justice is a bound that holds a society together. It is a harmonious union of
individuals who found his life work in accordance with his mental and physical
capability. Thus, it is both a public and a private virtue that conserves the highest
good both of the state and its members. This is the elaboration of the Plato’s concept
of justice as “giving to every man his due”. It means he should be treated as what he is
in accordance with his capacity and training. This concept of justice is not juristic in
nature but based upon the principal of human excellence. Thus, a state which ensures
human excellence also happened to be the most just state.
Plato dislikes democracy as for its ideal is not human excellence based on
functional specialization. Platonic justice is based upon the condition of producing
just individuals living in harmony with their true-self as well as with other fellow-men.
This is possible only when each men doing what he is best at to make for the best
working of the whole. Plato classifies differing individual capabilities with the help of
the theory of ‘three classes and three souls’. According to him, every human soul had
three qualities: rationality, spirit and appetite. In each soul, one of these qualities
would dominate over the other two. Individuals in whom the rational faculty is
predominant would constitute the ruling class. They represent the virtue of wisdom.
This soul, a lover of learning, has the power to comprehend the idea of good. They are
fit to rule, thus would became the rulers.
Those, in whom spirit predominates, are the auxiliaries or warriors. Courage is the
virtue of such souls implying the ability to hold on to one’s convictions and beliefs in
adverse times. Together, the rulers and the warriors constitute the class of guardians.
Individuals whose souls are appetitive exhibit hunt for material things. They are lovers
of gain and money. They are the artisans, the producing class. Justice in the individual
meant that every individual was assigned a place in society according to one’s natural
aptitudes and skills. It also meant harmony, balancing and ordering three elements in
accordance with the dominant one. In this sense, justice was social. In short, Plato’s
concept of justice is based on Functional specialization i.e., the three social classes-
rulers, warriors and producers performing the governing, defence and production
allotted to them on the basis of their quality of soul and virtue. These classes are
organised on the principle of non-interference by all classes in each other’s sphere of
action and entitlements i.e., “one class, one duty; one man, one work” to establish
harmony among them representing wisdom, courage and appetite.

Critical Evaluation

 His concept of justice is not juristic. It is not enforceable either. It was

perceived as a moral principle having no legal sanctions behind it. Functional
justice is different to be dispensed given the complex and heterogeneous nature
of any society. It is different to compartmentalize such a society into just three
occupational categories.
 Plato’s categorization of citizens into three classes is hierarchical in nature. The
philosophers are accorded the most dominant position followed by guards. The
majority i.e. producers have a sub-ordinate position.
 Vesting political power in the hands of philosophers may lead to tyranny and
absolutism.
 Karl popper criticises Plato’s concept of just on the grounds that it leads to
totalitarianism in contrast to humanitarianism.
 Plato’s just society, in fact, was inherently elitist and meritocratic.

1.2 Concept of Education: Education in Ancient Greece and Platonic Concept of

Education

A. Plato on Education

Plato attached equal importance on promotion of education as on communism as a

means for removing hindrances from the path of the statesman. Education is the
positive means by which the ruler can shape human nature in the right direction to
produce a harmonious state. It is aimed to permanently rationalize the thinking of the
men so that no one should ever turn towards evil. This is especially so given the
absence of any constitutional safeguards against the misuse of power in Plato’s
Republic. Thus, education is meant to develop the character and train the minds of
the people so that they should never turn towards evil.
He frankly assumes that the state is first and foremost an educational
institution. From Plato’s point of view, with a good system of education almost any
improvement is possible; if education is neglected, it matters little what else the state
does. So much was the importance given to the cause of education that about one-
third of the Republic is devoted to the scheme of education. In fact, Rousseau declared
the Republic as one of the greatest treatise on education ever written.
He stood for a state-controlled compulsory system of education. Plato makes
no provision for the education of the lowest classes i.e., the producers except some
accidental benefits accruing from the education of higher classes. For the guardians,
rulers and guards, Plato prescribes a careful training through the emotions by means
gymnastics, rigorous physical training, knowledge of medicines and dieting, music and
a subtle shaping of the imagination through all the arts. From the earliest days, he
maintains children must be submitted to the moulding influence of all that is noble
and good. All baneful influences must be removed from them.
 Plato’s educational curriculum/scheme could be broadly divided into two
stages: elementary education and the higher education. The elementary or basic
education includes the training of young persons up to about the age of twenty and
culminates in the beginning of military service. This is divided into three stages i.e.,
from birth to the age of six years at which the children were to be given training in
language and emotions; from 6 to 18 years in which the children learn the basic facts
of religion along with training in music and gymnastics. The music is essential for the
development of soul and gymnastic for the development of body. From 18 to 20 years,
both men and women were given compulsory education along with military training.
The higher education is intended for those selected persons of both sexes who
are to be members of the ruling class. It lasts from the age of 20 to 35 years. This
education is meant for those showing aptitude for science and philosophy. From 20 to
30 years, includes the study of mathematics to rekindle an organ of soul. It is a
scientific study which makes the natural intelligence useful instead of useless.
Mathematics provides both a development of logical thinking, a mental gymnastic and
an actual introduction to truth. After this, the more promising will undergo another
course of education from 30 to 35 years of age i.e., the study of dialectics. Dialectics to
Plato means the process by which man’s mind tries to reach truth by means of
questions and answers either through discussion with others or through an “inner
dialogue” with oneself. It implies the living embodiment of truth itself i.e., the soul of
reality.
However, for the rulers, their education goes further from 15 years of study of
mathematics and dialectics to a stage of fifteen years of practical experience of
schooling in action and training in characters. This is the test of their integrity and
steadfastness to establish their incorruptibility of soul and self-control. Now at the age
of fifty, those who have stayed the course are to be introduced to the final task of
philosophical pursuits and display of public duties to hold offices for their country’s
sake. With the original material, philosophical, high spirited, swift footed, strong and
perfected, will become the rulers to realize an ideal state of human excellence.

1.3 Concept of Communism: Communism of Household and Property

Apart from vesting state power in the hands of philosopher king, Plato provides a
second precaution against the abuse of power and the tendency of men to lust after
functions other than those for which they are naturally best suited. This precaution is
social in nature. i.e., the guardians and the guards are to live a life very different from
that of the producers. They are not to own any property. It is so because the union in
the same hands of political and economic power led to so many of the troubles in the
world. According to him, if there is not a complete divorce between ruling and owing,
rulers will not rule for the good of all but will use their power to increase their own
wealth.
When Plato analyses the corruptions of the ideal state he traces them all to the
degeneration of men which leads to the union of political and economic power.
Everything, therefore used by guardians and guards will be held in common. They will
have no private homes, but will live a hard barrack room existence. This was referred
as the system of community of wives and property i.e., communism. In fact, Plato’s
communism takes two main forms. The first is the prohibition of private property,
whether houses or land or money to the rulers. They shall live in barracks and have
their meals at a common table. The second is the abolition of a permanent
monogamous sexual relation and the substitution of regulated breeding at the behest
of the rulers for the purpose of securing the best possible offspring. This communism,
however, applies only to the guardian class.
In more simple words, the guardians would not possess any gold or silver. They
would only have the small amount of property that was necessary. None would own a
house or storeroom. They would receive a fixed quota from the producing class,
depending on what was required for subsistence. Secondly, they were allowed to mate
for a season, but do not marry for life, and their children are taken from them and put
into public nurseries.
Plato was critical of personal family life because of two reasons: a) family affairs
too frequently distort the attention and undermine the integrity of rulers. Family
encourage the negative emotions of hatred, selfishness, avarice and envy; and b) he
was dismayed by the secondary position of women within the family. He accepted that
men and women were identical in natural capabilities and moral worth. He accepted
women as legislators and rulers. Conventional marriage led to subordination,
subjugation and seclusion of women.
Thus, the only way of ensuring that love of family will not take precedence over
love of the state is to abolish the family altogether. Private family and possession of
property by the ruling class may encourage nepotism, favouritism, particularism,
factionalism and other such corrupt practices. Plato felt that “to cure the greed of
rulers there is no way short of denying them the right to all anything their own.

Plato’s scheme of communism is criticised on the following bases:

 He ignores emotive and natural bound in a family.

 While Plato’s scheme of communism may apparently seems liberating, it
implied excessive regimentalism with very little privacy and individuality.
 It also ignores the third class of citizens that happens to be the majority class.
 Common ownership of property and wives may also friction and disunity.
 It tends to create excessive unity under the state that may degenerate into
totalitarianism.
 Lastly, Plato ignored the fact that the instinct for private possession leads to the
development and progress of the society in all aspects.

1.4 Concept of Ideal State and Philosopher King

A. Plato’s Concept of Ideal State

Plato while constructing his ideal state draws a clear analogy between the individual
and the state. The state possesses the same characteristics of that of an individual. In
fact, Plato describes “the state as the individual writ large”. He says that ‘states do not
come out of an oak or a rock, but from the needs of men that dwell there in”. So, it is
important to understand the mind and soul of the individuals in order to understand
‘what is state?
 The individual mind or soul, according to Plato, is divided into three elements:
Reason, Spirit and the Appetite. The reason is located in the head, courage or spirit is
located in the breast and desire or appetite is located in the belly. Of these, reason is
incomparably the most important. It is eternal, most divine that sees the truth and
directs the activity of the good soul.
Courage is, obedient to the dictates of reason. It imparts a sense of honour or
chivalry and inspires to fight battle. But the desire is strong, wilful, contentious,
turbulent and chaotic. The reason has to derive both these impulses of spirit and
desire. That soul then is good in which reason predominates over courage and desire.
Such souls are able to give men knowledge of the good. Plato insists that it is the state
that makes men. The state is the means to the good. If we want the balanced soul, it is
not the actual state that will help as to achieve it, but the good state that is modelled
on the idea of the polis laid up in heaven i.e., the ideal state. The organization and
characteristics of such an ideal state are:

 It must be properly led: The first characteristic of the good state is that in it
power must be given to those not who want it the most but who desire it least.
The seekers of power may abuse it either for the misconceived common good
such as wealth or power or for their own selfish interests. The power must be
given to those who will use it aright i.e., to the philosophers on which depends
the welfare of all. In Republic, he lamented, “until, then philosophers are kings,
or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy,
cities will never cease from evil.

 It must be properly defended: The second characteristic of the ideal state is

the presence of below the guardians/rulers a class of professional soldiers called
‘guards’. They perform the role of defence and security. They are those who are
courageous. They are keen to see, swift to catch and strong to destroy the
enemy. But they will not rule, but will obey the rulers.

 It must be properly fed: Along with philosophers and guards, there is a third
class of individuals called producers who have an insatiable appetitive or
instinct for material goods. They will produce all wealth and material goods
and will also own them. In this way, they will help state fulfil all its economic
and material needs.

Thus, a state based on true human nature ensuring proper leadership, proper
protection and proper production is the perfect state. Those who love reason are fit to
rule, who love honour and courage are fit to fight; and those who love pleasure and
material goods are fit to work. Through all these attributes, the functions of good state
are adequately discharged. According to Plato, the social order to be stable must
reflect the constitution of human nature providing conditions of satisfaction for men’s
normal desires. This human excellence is equivalent to his conception of justice. The
good state is, thus always the just state. It will also be the most efficient state because
in it everybody does only what he is best at.
Thus, the just state is also the efficient state. The ideal state incorporates
educational safeguards against any breakdown of social order. There are no
constitutional safeguards against the abuse of unlimited power. The educational
safeguards are more effective thereby leading to permanent positive change in and
character. Lastly, Plato’s ideal state is based upon the ideal of communism of private
property including that of wives and children. This is another precaution against the
abuse of the power. The rulers and the guards are to live a life different from that of
the producers i.e., a complete division between ruling and owing, otherwise the rulers
will not rule for the good of all but to increase their own wealth and economic power.
Everything, therefore, used by the guardians will be held in common encompassing
even the wives and the children.

B. Plato’s Concept of Philosopher King

In the Republic, Plato holds that power must not be given to those who want it most
but to those who want it the least. It should be vested not into the hands of those who
will abuse it either for their own selfish interests or in pursuit of a misconceived
common good such as wealth or power. Power must rather be given to those who will
use it rightly to reform men’s souls to the pure light of truth. It must be given to
philosopher who had the virtue of wisdom and idea of good.
For him, philosophy was the only key to heaven. In fact, the theory of the
philosopher ruler is the linchpin of Plato’s ideal state. He subordinates everything to
the ideal of the philosopher king who has the exclusive claim to authority given the
fact that he alone knows what is good for men and states. It was based on the
conviction that the philosopher has the knowledge, intellect and training to govern.
The welfare of the state depends upon the developed philosopher. He
maintains that, “until, then, philosophers are kings or the kings and princes of this
world have the spirit and power of philosophy… cities will never cease from evil. When
the supreme power in man coincides with the greatest wisdom and temperance, then
the best laws and the best constitution comes into being. Thus, for an ideal state, the
power must be exercised by the philosophers who will, never the less, exercise state
power in best manner. He will be least enthused about acquiring power for the self-
aggrandizement being above physical and material pleasures.
For Plato, a philosopher is a “kalaskagathos” a gentleman, the finest product of
“paideia”, a lover of culture, the most highly educated and cultivated of personalities.
His is the noblest of natures, the most rational of souls. He is quick to understand,
eager to know, of great intellectual power, indifferent to external goods and a friend
and kinsman of truth and justice. He would have all qualities of a ruler namely
truthfulness, high-mindedness, discipline and courage.
He is not a law giver but an administrator. His task is to keep the state as close
as possible to the sketch of ideal state. He must save the state from undue wealth or
property. He must see that the state does not grow too big. They must ensure that the
three classes’ guardians, guards and the producers fulfil their functions. Finally, he
must not allow any innovation in education.
Plato’s philosopher king is the product of highly technical, logical and ethical
training and education till the age of fifties. Thus, the rulers/administrators are a
product of organized system of education. He had a firm belief in the efficacy of a
philosopher ruler. In fact, Plato’s concept of rule of philosopher king is a corollary of
Plato’s concept of justice. However, Plato’s theory of philosopher ruler is criticised on
the basis of the following points:

 Plato defied the participation of average persons in politics and decision-

making on the grounds that it leads to factionalism and particularism. This
argument is erroneous. A moderate level of dissent and criticism is essential for
the growth and development of the state. It is not only patronizing and
authoritarian but also unhealthy. The strength of a political system is derived
from the active participation of its citizen in politic al affairs.
 Plato’s conception of philosopher ruler leads to tyrannical government. It may
be a justification of authoritarian and totalitarian rule. The disbelief in the
capacity of the masses to rule themselves is again deplorable.
 Thirdly, his concept of philosopher king is quite utopian. At no time in the
history of the world such a philosopher king has ever been in power.
 Only educational and communist safeguards against absolutist or authoritarian
tendencies of those in power are not sufficient. Constitutional safeguards are
aptly required.
 It is an exaggeration to say that the rule of the philosopher-king would always
be perfect as philosopher is not amenable to any corrupting tendencies. The
possession of absolute and unrestrained power by the philosopher is equally
dangerous of being monopolisation and corrupting.
 The concept of good or truth is quite relative. It is not logical to conclude that a
philosopher is the final authority to comprehend ‘what is the idea of good.
 The platonic ideal was criticised by Aristotle for confusing unity with harmony;
if a political community was tightly organised and unified, it would cease to be
a political association. Even a philosopher ruler would be better off by being
receptive to the views and perceptions of others, instead of merely acting upon
his own vision of truth.
 CHAPTER TWO

ARISTOTLE (384 BC TO 322 BC)

Aristotle was a genius well-versed in a number of disciplines, Aesthetics, Biology,

Ethics, Logics, Physics, Politics and Psychology. But, his chief contribution lies in the
field of study of politics and political philosophy. This section begins with a discussion
over the political thought of Aristotle who had not only contributed in expanding the
foundation of political philosophy laid by his predecessors but also laid the
foundations of a ‘science of Politics’, ‘Political Science’. In fact, he is regarded as the
father of Political Science. However, Aristotle’s thinking about politics was largely
shaped under the guiding influence of his political mentor, Plato.
Aristotle is known as the best and the first Platonist. He sat under the feet of Plato
for twenty long years. Foster declared that ‘Aristotle is the greatest of all Platonists’.
He shared with Plato many of the basic perspectives such as hierarchy of human
nature, justice as a relation or order among parts and the inevitability of social classes.
Both of them were worried about the instability of Greek political life and moral
anarchy and both accordingly believed that the antidote lay in education for a better
way of living. Both are in favour of a city state of a moderate size as well as population
as good life could only be by those who had sufficient means and schooling to do so.
Both wished to limit citizenship to those who can contribute towards political
functions of the state. Aristotle agrees with his master in regarding the state as a moral
and spiritual entity and in holding that ethics and politics constitute a single whole.
Aristotle regarded Philosophy as a movement of the soul.
Though Aristotle is regarded as a true Platonist, he was not a blind follower of
Plato. He diverged from his master in several significant ways, namely on the
organisation of ideal regime, the dimensions of ethics and the causes of revolution. In
fact, he was equally appreciative as well as critical of Plato. Much of his criticism was
made when Plato was alive. Above all, Aristotle is rightly acclaimed as the father of
political science as he laid the foundations of systematic, empirical and realistic study
of politics by employing an inductive method against the reliance on deductive
method by his predecessors. Maxey remarks that “as Plato is father to the idealists,
romanticists, revolutionists and utopians, Aristotle is father to the realists, scientists,
and the utilitarian thinkers.”

1.1 Aristotle as Father of Political Science: A Shift from Political Philosophy to

Political Science

Aristotle had not only contributed in expanding the foundation of political philosophy
laid by his predecessors but also laid the foundations of a science of Politics, the
‘Political Science’. In fact, he is regarded as the father of Political Science. It was with
him that political philosophy began on practical lines. He applied scientific method to
the study of Political Science and also tried to separate ethics from politics. He was the
first of the pragmatic thinker by holding man as a political animal.
Aristotle’s thinking about politics was largely shaped under the guiding influence
of his political mentor, Plato. Both Plato and Aristotle were the great pioneers of
European intellect. Plato’s Academy was the first of the philosophical schools followed
by Aristotle’s School, Lyceum. In the words of Whitehead, European philosophical
tradition is nothing but a set of footnotes to Plato and Aristotle. Thus, Aristotle has
contributed a lot in laying the foundations of Science of Politics. It is hailed that
Aristotle bestowed antiquity like an intellectual colossus. In the words of Barker, no
man before him had contributed as much to learning. No man after him could hope to
rival his achievement. The totality of his literary work represents an encyclopaedia of
the available knowledge. Aristotle is a philosopher, and still perhaps the greatest name
in the history of philosophy.
Aristotle was born in 384 BC at Stagira. He belongs to an affluent family. Beside
politics, he had a deep interest in Medicines and Biology too. He joined Plato’s
Academy for 20 years and became the tutor of Alexander in 343 BC. He established his
school of learning, ‘Lyceum’. He made an exhaustive study of 158 constitutions
(Governments). He was the first to put together a library with a big collection of books
and manuscripts. He died in 322 BC at the age of 62.
In the entire history of Political Science, there is no thinker comparable with
Aristotle. The best known of Aristotle’s works was the ‘Politics’. The central theme of
his, ‘Politics’ was the ‘Polis’ an institution that was unique to fifth century B.C. In
‘Politics’, he made a detailed examination of the nature of the State; its origins; an
analysis of ‘ideal state’; different prevailing constitutions/forms of governments; and
the concepts of citizenship and law.
It is rightly said that the ancient Greek political thinkers including Socrates, Plato
and Aristotle laid the foundations of political philosophy. Among all them, Aristotle
enjoys a pivotal position. He has not only elaborated the philosophical works of his
predecessors but also provided a critical analysis to test the efficacy of such
philosophical content to the prevailing circumstances. Thus, he also diverged from his
predecessors on many points.
He shared with Plato many of the basic perspectives such as hierarchy of
human nature, justice as a relation or order among parts, and the inevitability of social
classes. But he also diverged from him in several ways mainly on issues like bases of
the ideal regime, the dimensions of ethics and the causes of revolution. He believed in
the unified theory of sciences, but disagreed on how this unity was to be achieved. He
did not believed in Plato’s optimistic claim that all knowledge could be founded up to
a single set of axioms. In fact, he was the pioneer to divide the knowledge into three
categories; productive, practical and theoretical.
Aristotle’s political philosophy was both a critique and a corrective of Plato’s
ideas. As opposed to Plato’s radical reforms in the Republic, Aristotle sought to
conserve and preserve existing traditions and institutions. He was a realist and liberal
conservative. He was also critical of Plato’s scheme of ideal state. Against Plato’s social
unity/harmony, he stood for social differentiation as key to good and stability of the
state.
Secondly, Aristotle separated the political from the non-political against Plato’s
insistence on unity. He stood for the segregation of the political life from that of
family. He regarded family as the natural institution that help stabilising the state
rather than being an obstacle. Likewise, he declared property as necessary attribute to
overcome goodness and philanthropy.
 Thirdly, Aristotle also criticized Plato’s advocacy of rule of philosophy and the
preference for philosopher king over the statesmen. Aristotle viewed that the rule of
philosophy would prevent the circulation of elite and lead to discontent and dissent.
In its place, Aristotle professed constitutional rule, for it not only check arbitrary
power, but also ensure a periodic rotation of office bearers. Aristotle was critical of
denying any participation.
Lastly, the pragmatic and scientific understanding of Aristotle’s views on
politics is reflected from his reliance on a method that is different from those of his
predecessors. The main characteristics of Aristotle’s method were:

1. Aristotle based his studies on facts. He was more concerned with the facts and
was deeply interested in collecting and examining them. He wanted a definite
and scientific knowledge. That is why he rejected the ideal state and proposed
his own sketch of the practicable state. Thus their methods differ in the sense
where Plato’s thinking was speculative in nature, Aristotle built up his system
of thought on observation and analysis of facts. Maxey rightly describes
Aristotle as the ‘first scientist’. Owing to his childhood training in medicines
and other natural sciences, he also adopted an empirical and inductive
methodology in the study of political problems. Aristotle was the first to make
an attempt to separate the politics from the ethics.
2. He also employed comparative method of study in his writings. He had an
extra-ordinary knowledge of the political institutions both of his own times and
of the past. He made a comparative analysis of about 158 constitutions and then
generalised his views about the good/pure and the arbitrary/perverted forms of
governments.
3. Aristotle is also known for his realistic method. He had a clear approach to the
understanding of the problems confronting his time and their rationalistic
solution. He laid equal importance on measuring the value of facts apart from
their collection.
4. He also tried to adopt the teleological method. That is explaining the final
causes of things. Aristotle defines the state as a union of families or villages for
a happy or good life. This teleology leads him to develop an organic view of the
state.
5. Another aspect of Aristotle method was his concern with tradition. It was the
adherence to facts of past history which made him a conservative thinker. He
attached great importance to the accumulated wisdom of the past. That’s why
he is portrayed as a reformist than a radical in his political thought.

In short, Aristotle is rightly acclaimed as the ‘father of political science’ as he laid the
foundations of systematic, empirical and realistic study of politics. He pioneered the
use of inductive methodology instead of deductive method employed by his
predecessors. In the words of Maxey, “as Plato is father to the idealists, romanticists,
revolutionists and utopians, Aristotle is father to the realists, scientists, and the
utilitarian.”

Conclusion
In the history of Western intellectual tradition, both Plato and Aristotle enjoy an
eminent position. Aristotle was a realist and a moderate. He is regarded as the father
of Political Science as he was the first to analyse it critically and systematically. He was
one of the earliest political thinkers to use the comparative method, a method that has
considered being relevant even today. His style was simple and logical.
Aristotle was terse, with precise arguments. His lecture notes were more an
exposition of his research interest. He devoted him-self to the organization of
research. His biological treatises and collection of 156 constitutional histories
represents a scientific type of exact research into the real world.
In short, he was the first to conceive a ‘Science’ or ‘Art’ of Politics on a much larger
scale. This new science was not only general, empirical and descriptive but in some
respects independent of any ethical purpose. He had a scientific thinking of the best
practicable state, realizable on this earth and based on realities. Based upon his
distinct and ablest methodology, he is rightly regarded as the father of Political
Science as well as the first Scientist of Politics. By his systematic treatment of the
subject he gave politics the character of a science. He became the first individualist
and constitutionalist who established supremacy of law. His ‘The Politics’ is the richest
treasure that has come down to us from antiquity. It is the greatest contribution to the
field of Political Science.

1.2 Aristotle’s Views on Household and Slavery: Criticism of Plato’s Concept of

Communism

A. Aristotle’s Views on Household

The household was important in Aristotle’s political philosophy, for it fulfilled the
basic and important purposes in individual life i.e., self-preservation, procreation,
emotional stability and economic satisfaction. Household is equally relevant for
prosperity and flourishing of state since it ensure the production of economic wealth
and reproduce citizens. The institution of household help inculcate moral/good values
in the citizens. He pointed out that the state evolved from these lower associations,
the first being the household or family that came into existence to satisfy individual’s
biological urges and everyday wants. A cluster of households became a village and a
group of villages constituted a political community or the ‘polis’. Thus every house
hold is a part of a polis.
Aristotle like Plato realised that the private interests of the member of a household
might clash with those of the polis as a whole. That is why he pressed upon the need
to train the inmates of the household and the proper organization of household. The
key figure was the head of the household, the father, who acted as a link between the
political community and a household. He is a citizen as a full member of the polis as
well as master of his house, family and property. He exercised control over the
household in three ways- as a husband over is wife; as parents over is children; and as
a master over his slaves. These are the three main aspects of Plato’s household: slaves;
wives and children; and the property.

B. Aristotle’s Views on Slavery

Aristotle discussed at length the relationship between the master and the slaves. He
tried to explain the relevance of slavery as a universal institution. He considered slaves
as animate instrument of household meant for action to serve his master. They had no
interest other than those of their masters. Slave is the complete possession of his
master.
However, he distinguished between and natural slaves and the conventional
slaves. Conventional slaves had the power of reasoning and were qualified to be citizen
in their own state. They became slaves if taken as prisoners of war, a common practice
during Aristotle’s time. On the other hand, natural slaves lacked reason hence had to
be under the permanent subordination of the master. A natural slave’s chief use was of
his body. He could understand and profit by the control of a superior mind over it.
Aristotle justified slavery both from the point of view of the householder as well
as the slave. A family slave, by serving the interest of his family, may get elevated since
he served a moral purpose and enjoyed the moral benefits. However he was categorical
that the subordination of the slave must be towards endowing the slave with virtues
and not to augment wealth, otherwise a slave would lose the benefit of guidance of his
life by one of the superior virtues. A house holder gained for he was relieved of menial
chores giving him the leisure time for moral and intellectual pursuits. This would
enable him to contribute to the affairs of the state and to fulfil his duties as a citizen.
Aristotle believed that men differed from one another in their abilities and
mental faculties and justified slavery for those lacking in these qualities. A slave could
not govern himself, for he lacked the reasons. However, Aristotle was against making
defeated for a slave. He was also against of idea of making a person slave to one who
was merely superior in power and not in excellence of the causes of a war was basically
just, then prisoners of war could be made slave. Secondly, he recommended less
harshness towards slaves and rejected the enslavement of the Greeks. He thought it
proper for barbarians who were by nature ‘slaves’.
He holds that slavery was in conformity with the principle of ruling and
subordination that one saw in nature. Slavery represents the triumph of reasons and
virtue since men were divided in respect of their capacity for virtues. Lastly, he
recommended humane treatment for slaves and conceded to them freedom if they so
desired. He expressed in his will that his own slaves would be freed and not sold. In
the ‘Ethics’, he suggested that a slave could become his master’s friend. In book VII, of
the politics he recommended their emancipation as a reward for good service he also
realised that the institution of slavery was not permanent. It would go away with the
advancement in technology.

1.3 Aristotle’s Classification of Government

Aristotle compiled this classification of governments in his work ‘Politics’. The list of
constitutions that Aristotle provided comprises of six forms. Ranged in order of merit,
they are: 1. Kingship; 2. Aristocracy; 3. Polity; 4. Democracy; 5. Oligarchy; and 6.
Tyranny.
Aristotle analysed and compared 158 constitutions, thereby uniting the empirical
and speculative modes of enquiry. He classified the constitutions/governments taking
into account the ends of a constitution and the number who wielded political power.
 He adopted this grouping of constitutions in three pairs, each pair comprising a
good and a bad constitution. A good or pure form of constitution stands for the
common good and the bad/perverted form of constitutions are that based on force.
This categorization to pure and the perverted form was also based on the fact of
observation and non- observance of the law respectively.
Thus, the more fundamental or basic principal to be followed in Aristotle’s
scheme of classification of constitutions was related with the purpose of the
government. If it is concerned with the goal of attainment of good life and the
constitution is a distribution of political functions with a view to this end, it qualified
to be placed in the category of pure or good form of government. Such constitutions
invest virtue with supreme authority. Aristotle further divided these two major forms
into three each, according to number of persons in whom sovereign power / political
functions are vested – one, few or many. This is provided in the scheme below:

S. No. Number of Persons who Rule Pure or Good forms Perverted Forms

1. One Monarchy / Kingship Tyranny

2. Few Aristocracy Oligarchy

3. Many Polity Democracy

In short, a government ruled by one, few or many in the general interest of the
community was monarchy, aristocracy and polity respectively. Conversely a
government ruled by one, few and many in the self-interest of the rulers was tyranny,
oligarchy and democracy respectively. It’s important to observe the following points
following Aristotle’s classification of governments.

 The main criterion of classification was the distinction between two forms of
governments- pure and the perverted.
 Attainment of common good and observance of Law marks the characteristics
of good / pure form of governments whereas those that fettered the interests of
the ruled were bad or pervaded.
 The forms of governments were ranged in order of merit I the sequence –
Kingship- Aristocracy-Polity-Democracy-Oligarchy-Tyranny
 The place of democracy (as of today ) was filled in Aristotle’s list by the polity’
 Monarchy is regarded as true form of government as it is possible to have a
virtuous person as a ruler.
 Democracy was he least bad form of government and Tyranny was the worst of
all the perverted forms.

1.4 Aristotle’s Best Practicable State: Concept and Characteristics

Aristotle’s holds state as the highest form of political union as it represents the highest
form of social life. It is a humane institution where individuals fulfil the real purpose
of civic life i.e. the satisfaction of their basic wants. According to him, man is a
political animal and only a beast or an angel can live without a state. In fact, the state
was prior to the individual since it provides opportunities for the achievement of full
humanity. It evolved naturally and is an instrument for an individual’s self –
perfection.
It is a natural institution reflecting individual’s needs and purposes, giving human
gregariousness and sociability. This sociability and gregariousness are declared as
natural desires of human beings that results into creation of society. Secondly, human
beings enjoy a unique capacity for moral choice and reasoned speech. This virtue
distinguish human from other social species. They alone have a perception of good
and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust. These capabilities can develop only in
company with others. Thus, social association and cooperation is a desirable
condition.
For Aristotle, the good of community (public life) is clearly more important and
greater than the good of a single individual (private life). Thus, it’s important to
balance the two aspects of the public and the private life. In fact, the individual’s social
nature and political compulsions could result in virtuous public life/behaviour
necessary for the pursuit of private happiness. For Aristotle, private life is a necessary
though not a sufficient condition for enjoying a full human existence. Reasoned
speech and moral conduct is the most distinguishing characteristic of human beings
from that of animals.
Aristotle characterise human beings as essentially social creatures. That is why
human beings are orbited towards a state. Rights of citizenship enabled them
(individuals) to use their unique human facilities thorough participation in the
common life of the community. Since state is an association of human beings for the
sake of securing the best moral life, the quality of life within a state would depend on
those who constitute it and end they wished to pursue. Thus an ideal and the best
state was one which aimed at moral improvement and development of the people. The
people should lead good and happy life and all should be self-sufficient. It should aim
at making the people virtuous.
According to Aristotle, the best state must be neither too small nor too large in
area and population. If it is too small, it will lack independence. If it is too big, it will
lack unity and could not become self-sufficient. Therefore, for an ideal state, it is
essential that it should only be a small nation–state. On the other hand, the number of
citizens should suffice for all purposes. The population should also possess
complimentary qualities of spirit and intellect and devote themselves to the pursuit of
virtue and culture. An ideal state should have an elaborate and developed system of
education which should be in keeping with the spirit of the constitution. Education
should develop good habits, virtues reason and make the citizens realise the
importance of obedience to laws. There should be a compulsory system of public
education.
According to Aristotle, in an ideal state distinction must be maintained between
integral parts and necessary conditions. The former include full citizens who
participate actively in the affairs of the state and share the authority of the state. The
latter includes the classes of artisans, agriculturalists, priests and warriors. On social
point, Aristotle viewed that good state should fix the age of marriage and fertility too
in order to maintain a good quality of future programmes. The state should also
maintain the division of labour.
He could not conceive of any personal rule, He was in favour of the supremacy of
law as he believed that collective wisdom was far better than individual wisdom.
Sovereignty of law was an intrinsic part of good government. He seeks a superman
who will create a state as good as can. He preferred he institutionalisation of private
property which was a natural institution and must be preserved. That makes the ideal
state self-sufficient and should not attack any other state. It should not have any
aggressive designs.
Aristotle has laid great stress on the role of middle class in an ideal state. This class
brings stability to the state and is most law-abiding. According to him, the addition of
a large middle class has a great setting influence and checks the opposite extreme. The
strength of the middle class should be more than that of the rich and the poor
combined together. This is important since extremes of wealth and property are the
main sources of evil in the human society. In support of the middle class, Sabine says
that they give a popular foundation to the state.
Lastly, the climate of an ideal state should be temperate and the character of the
people should be as high as that of the Greeks who have spirit, courage and
intelligence to become civilized people.
For him, polity was the most preach able one. It is the form of government in
which the middle class wields power. It is able to hold in equilibrium the antagonistic
principle of wealth and poverty; it avoids the evil of intelligent rule by masses from
which democracy suffers, and the arbitrary and irresponsible authority which
constitutes the oligarchy.
Aristotle defined state as a collective body of citizens. It is the highest form of
political union of the equals. In the opening pages of Book III, Aristotle dealt with
three topics. The nature of a state: the citizenship; and the virtues of a good citizen.
The state was an association of persons for the sake of securing the best moral life. But
the quality of life within a state would depend on those who constitute it. In fact,
Aristotle placed the theme of citizenship at the centre of his political analysis as he
advocated a law based government.
He characterised political authority as constitutional between equals. Since an
individual was a political animal who fulfil himself only within a polis, it was natural
for people to aspire for political positions. That is the distinctive mark of the citizens.
Aristotle contended that man by nature is a political animal. In his own words, ‘what
effectively distinguishes the citizens from all others is his participation in judgement and
authority that is, holding office, legal, political administrative…There are different kinds
of citizens, but....a citizen in the fullest sense is one who has a share in the privileges of
rule ….a share both in ruling and in being ruled’.
Unlike Plato, who did not accept change and equated it with decay and
corruption, Aristotle regarded change as inevitable. Change represents a movement
towards an ideal. Aristotle accepted the possibility of progress. According to him,
things change because they had the potential to move towards perfection. The search
for stability through polity made Aristotle examine the causes for instability, change
and revolution and prescribe remedies against unnecessary and incessant change.
Thus stability and revolution were important in Aristotle’s agenda of political ideals.
He perceived a constitution as containing the essence of a state. A constitution
provides an identity to the ‘Polis’, which meant that a change in the constitution
brought about a change in the ‘Polis’. This is so because a constitution is, in fact, an
organisation of offices in a state by which the method of their distribution is fixed, the
sovereign authority is determined and the nature of the end to be preserved is
prescribed.
Repeatedly, Aristotle emphasised on a fusion between oligarchic and
democratic forces to establish polity, a suitable constitution to a large number of
states. It is the best practicable state with a constitutional government under a
moderate democracy. He also recommended government propaganda in education,
respect for law, and justice in law and administration as measures to prevent
revolution.
 UNIT- III

MACHIAVELLI 1469 – 1527 AD

Introduction

Machiavelli marked the end of the middle ages and beginning of the era of modern
political thought. Machiavelli, according to Allen “makes that first decisive break with
the political thought of middle ages. He represents many new tendencies in his
political ideas which have come to be regarded as a characteristic feature of the
modern age.” It is universally acclaimed that modern political thought begin with
Machiavelli. He introduces a set of new political ideas that lists his contribution to the
development of modern political thought. He was more a practical philosopher. He is
regarded as one of the most important theoretical philosopher of the ‘renaissance’.
However, Niccolo Machiavelli commanded sinister reputation as no other thinker
in the annals of political theory. He was called “the murderous Machiavelli” and
damned Machiavelli by Shakespeare. This was so because Machiavelli sanctioned the
use of deception, cruelty, force and violence for achieving the desired political ends.
But, if one tries to understand Machiavelli in context of his time, then he/she realises
that how much practical, original and progressive he was in his political philosophy. In
fact, the hostility that Machiavelli received was partly due to the misunderstanding of
the context in which he wrote and partly due to sheer ignorance about their context
and implications.
He is admired for his various contributions. Spinoza regarded him as a friend of
the people for having exposed the prince. Montesquieu regarded him as a lover of
liberty. Rousseau, Voltaire and Diderot also tried to bring out the true character of
Machiavelli as a reformer, artist and philosopher. In fact, Machiavelli heralded in a
new era. He laid the foundations of a new science of politics by integrating the ancient
past with contemporary history. He is praised for his realism and pragmatism that
wrote about human nature, the nature of society and rule- making with a concern for
objectivity and have things as are, rather than how they ought to be.

His Life and Contributions

Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy on May 3, 1469. He joined the government of
Florence as secretary of chancery and handled the departments of war and interior
and diplomatic correspondence. But he had to vacate his office when Medici came to
power. In 1513, he came out with his two works, ‘The Prince’ and ‘Discourses’. He had
tremendous faith in history. He read mostly the books that dealt with life’s
experiences. During his chancery, he met the influential statesmen of his day
including Julius-II Emperor of Germany, King Louis XV of France and Cardinal Cesar
Borgia. Borgia had a lasting impression on Machiavelli providing him as an example
for the fascinating account of the role of fortune.
In July 1500, Machiavelli visited the court of Louis X on a diplomatic assignment
where he realised the shortcoming of his home state of Florence because of lack of
army, republican rule and merchants intelligence to spent money on the city’s
military. This experience formed the core of the ‘Prince’ and taught him the need for
being clever, thrifty, cultured, forceful, decisive and ruthless in politics, if one had to
succeed. He also wrote a chronicle and the annals of Florence which was published as
the ‘History of Florence’ in 1525. He also authored the ‘Belfour’ and ‘The Art of War’
(1521). His play Mandragola is regarded as one of the best comedies of its time. In
short, Machiavelli would be remembered in history as a diplomat scholar and a
dramatist. In his personal life he was an affectionate person, disloyal husband, a loving
father, an eloquent conversationalist, a generous and trust worthy friend with a great
sense of humour. He died on June 22, 1527. The following was the inscription on his
tombstone “No epitaph can match so great a name”.

1.1 Renaissance and its Impact on Machiavelli

“The whole of Renaissance is in Machiavelli”.

Renaissance marks the series of cultural, economic, social and political changes that
began in the 14th century. The Renaissance signified a rebirth of the human spirit in
the attainment of liberty, self-confidence and optimism. It resurrected the belief in the
rationality of man and liberation from the clutches of supernatural forces. In contrast
to the medieval Christian stress on asceticism, poverty, humility, misery and the
worthlessness of the earthly person; humanism defended the freedom of man from the
religion and religious beliefs.
Alongside the development of the modern individual was the beginning of the
modern state. It was the establishment of service/developmental state where the
prince had to take charge of everything i.e., preservation of public buildings and
churches, maintenance of the roads, sanitation, drainage, police and defence forces,
supply of food grains and levying of taxes. Renaissance also marks end of the clerical
monopoly and papal supremacy by a secular and sovereign identity, culture and
language. This led to the establishment of nation–state and explorations and voyages
leading to geographical discoveries altering the perceptions regarding the world. New
geographical discoveries opened up new vistas of trade and commerce. This led to the
growth in commerce and economic development as the basis of modern capitalism.
Growth in education, science, humanism and industrialisation ended clerical
monopoly relegating religion to the private sphere. The invention of printing,
establishment of libraries, revival of past, opening of modern education and spread of
literacy lead to the rise of modern awareness and scientific outlook.
In Europe, it was Italy that experienced the first currents of Renaissance in the
form of commercial, entrepreneurial and economic forces. All these reflected in the
political and societal organisation of Italy. Florence the one of the fine states of Italy –
was the most cultured city and the seat of the Italian Renaissance that produced some
eminent and renowned figures. It was the first modern state in the world. Italy
produced some great minds and intellectuals of that period, like Alexander
Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and Alexander Botticelli. They made Renaissance
Italy comparable to Athens of the 5th century BC.
Though culturally vibrant and creative, Italy remained politically divided, weak,
misgoverned, factional rules and the lack of republicanism. Its society intellectually
brilliant and artistically creative was a prey to the worst political corruption and moral
degradation. Thus, weak, divided and politically instable Italy was susceptible to the
imperial ambitions of the French, German and Spanish. Writing at the time of political
chaos and moral confusion, the unification of Italy, preservation of its rich cultural
heritage and artistic versatility was the main objective of Machiavelli to make Italy a
great empire. Machiavelli’s attachment was towards whole of his country - Italy and
not to the state of Italy. He dreamt of a united, regenerated and glorious Italy. Thus
there was a clear impact of Renaissance on the mind and philosophy of Machiavelli.
His political philosophy was based upon the ideals of secularism, individualism,
pragmatism, realism and nationalism. He denounced authority of church. All this
reflects a departure from traditionalism. That is why he is regarded as the father of
modern political thought. He was deeply influenced by Aristotle and Marsiglio. He
relied on the ‘historical method’ to understand various political problems. From
Marsiglio, he derived the idea of secularism and also political utility of religion. He
denounced the authority of church. In Prince, we find an elaborate treatise on the
state craft ship. It was for the first time that the art of statecraft-ship came into being.
As a modern political thinker, he made individual or human nature as the basis
of his political philosophy. He kept the state over and above everything else. He
advised the rulers to encourage and exaggerate public insecurity even by raising
spectre of external danger to the community. Though he condemned religion and
tried to sub-ordinate church to state yet he could not forget the role which church had
played in the last two centuries. He advised ruler to take advantage of the religious
beliefs and to exploit religious sentiments for promoting national interests.
In short, freedom of the country and the common good remained the core
themes of Machiavelli’s writings .A perfect state was one which promoted the common
good, namely the observance of laws, honouring women, keeping public offices’ open
to all citizens on grounds of virtue, maintaining social equality, protecting industry
wealth and property. The freedom of the country had to be safeguarded with the help
of war and expansion.

1.2 Machiavelli’s Views on Human Nature and Motives- Implications and

Evaluation

A. His Understanding of Human Nature and Motives

Machiavelli has long been required reading for everyone interested in politics and
power. In the Prince, Machiavelli presents a unique view on governing a state. He
believes that the Prince should be the only authority that should determine every
aspect of the state and put in effect a policy which would serve his best interests.
These interests are gaining, maintaining and expanding his political power. His
understanding of human nature was a complete contradiction of what everyone
believed. He presented a totally distorted and crooked picture/description of human
nature .This is because he strongly promoted a physical society to effectively govern
principality in fact he was quick to mock the nature of man. Machiavelli believed that
human beings are ungrateful and selfish. Man is self-centred and thinks about his own
interests. They are interested to acquire more and are not interested to leave what has
been acquired. They are therefore, always struggling with each other, thereby creating
conditions of anarchy.
 Secondly men are timid and creatures of his habits. He wants to follow only
well-established customs so that he is not opposed by the society. They are
fundamentally weak and anxious to avoid danger. They desire for personal safety and
the security of their possessions prompted individuals to establish a government.
Men are basically restless because they are ambitions and acquisitive. They are
discontented and dissatisfied for human needs are unlimited, but fortune limited their
possessions. According to Machiavelli, men are greedy and by nature love private
property. He says that a man can forget the death of his father than the loss of his
inheritance. He is grateful to the extent of expecting benefits and rewards.
Apart from it, Machiavelli characterised man as unreliable lacking in honesty
and justice. He may act detrimental to the community. They lie, the fake, they
manipulate and always try to play tricks. Men are quick to change ruler when they
imagine they can improve their lot. In fact, their times are marked by chasms of
hypocrisy into which weak and unwary rulers are liable to fall. “There is such a gap
between how people actually live and how they out to live.

B. Implications and Evaluation of Machiavelli’s Conception of Human Nature

Machiavelli presumed that human nature remained constant for history moved in a
cyclical way altering between growth and decay. Furthermore he prompted out that
the human mind tended to glorify the past, decry the present and hope for better
future. Like Aristotle, Machiavelli characterised the individual as a political animal. He
referred to the individuals love for power, reputation, keenness to establish superiority
over others and to control others.
Machiavelli has been criticised for his conception of human nature. It is evident
that human nature is not as bad as he has tried to portray. He also views that people
came in the state due to fear but today it is well established that will not ‘force’ is basis
of the state.
Machiavelli believed that human beings are incorrigible. This is also based
upon a wrong assumption. Thus his ideas are not based upon a rational understanding
of human nature. It reflects only one side of the nature. Such an understanding of
human nature implies that the state (ruler) is to check wicked nature of human beings
who are selfish and as such the state should use maximum force to control them.
Secondly, it implies that politics is a dirty game that cannot be played with fair means.
In fact Machiavelli blurs the boundaries between the human and the animal by
subscribing human nature with the laws of brute, greed, selfless and use of force.
Typically, humans use laws and animals force. But since playing by the law often
proves inadequate, it makes sense to resort to force as well. A successful ruler” must be
able to exploit both man and the beast in himself to the fullest.

1.3 Machiavelli Views on Relationship between Ethics and Politics

Machiavelli holds moral degradation and civic corruption as the biggest threats to the
stability of the state. Corruption to Machiavelli’s means licence, violence, inequities in
wealth and power, lack of justice, disorder, lawlessness, dishonesty and contempt for
religion. It means sub-ordination of public values to the private interests i.e. use of
public sphere for furthering private interests. Under such corrupt system, common
people were not allowed to participate in public affairs. That’s why Machiavelli favours
the generation of public virtue as a common ideal and goal for the entire polity.
Besides he also talks about a strong ruler to curb corrupt and morally degraded
tendencies. That’s why; Machiavelli gives importance to religion as a source of civil
morality and public spirit.
Machiavelli is not anti-religion but anti-church and anti-clergy. Religion according
to him is necessary not only for man’s social life but also for the health and prosperity
of the state. Religion is an indispensable part of civic life. As a political tool, princes
and rulers were to use religion to maintain their power but responsibly and cautiously
otherwise it could be disastrous. Religion is good as it promotes order and peace. Thus
Machiavelli has a utilitarian understanding of religion. It is a social force enduring
proper behaviour and good conduct in the society through its doctrine of rewards and
punishment.
Machiavelli makes a distinction between the public and private conception of
morality. While the state had a morality of its own the morality of success, the private
individuals display qualities identical to highest moral standards. In politics, fair is foul
and foul is fair depending on circumstances and situations. No general rule is valid as
everything is a matter of political expediency. In fact, the prince had to be
compassionate, loyal, and honest while simultaneously willing to use force, fraud,
deception etc.
Machiavelli holds that public spirit is crucial to the stability of the state. The key
determinant of public spirit is religion and the liberty. He advises the prince to do
everything to cultivate people’s belief in religion even if he is not religious himself.
Thus he takes religion as a coercive force to inflict order and stability in the state.
However, Machiavelli does not condemned Christian morality but Paganism. He
rejects the idea of absolute good and divine and super natural elements of individual
personality. Good and evil are not transcendental but a reflection of community
behaviour.
Machiavelli maintains that original Christianity taught virtue that linked internal
good of the soul with the generation and training of civil virtue. Thus he was not
against Christianity. He retained the basic Christian views on the difference between
good and evil. He was clear that Italy needs a religion similar to one that was in
ancient Rome, a religion that taught to serve the interests of the state.
Machiavelli’s attitude to religion and morality made him highly controversial.
Strauss and Sabine categorised him as a ‘teacher of evil’ and ‘preacher of amorality’.
The ruler for Machiavelli was technician. He tries to marry morality with the elements
required to be successful. He was too realistic to overlook irony of the political
situation. He attempts to establish the autonomy of the politics while denying ethical
absoluteness. Thus Machiavelli taught not only the science of politics but also the art
of the politics as he believes that a society is a moral fabric that is made and destroyed
by its people. The criterion of successful state was efficiency and not legitimacy. He
separated religion from politics and set the stage for secularisation of thoughts and
life.

1.4 Machiavelli’s Views regarding Preservation and Extension of State Power

 A. Machiavelli’s Views regarding State

Machiavelli considered the state as the highest association to which the subjects must
completely surrender themselves. It came into existence to check the selfish interests
of the human beings and was an artificial creation. It was expected to promote
material property of the people. The success or the failure of a state could be judged by
the prosperity of the people. According to Machiavelli successful states was one which
is founded by a single man and the laws which he creates reflect the national character
of the state. In other words, he favoured monarchy and completely rejected
Aristocracy.
A normal state according to him, was the one in which the citizens were
faithful and law abiding. They possessed sprit of patriotism and were prepared to
defend their motherland at all costs. On the other hand, in a perverted state, these
qualities were conspicuously absent. He held that a normal state had a tendency to
expand and grow. In fact expansion was a symbol of the health of normal state.
Machiavelli also lays down detailed rules for the preservation and strengthening of the
state. Some of the important suggestions made by him for this purpose are as follow.

B. His Views on Preservation of State Power

In context of Machiavelli’s views regarding the state and state power, he is

undoubtedly a champion of the realist theory. He relied on the instrument of state
power and advocated its use to the fullest extent to preserve the vital national
interests. He talked about following characteristics to be possessed by the state to
preserve its power in an atmosphere of anarchy and fierce competition.

 National Army: State should have a reliable army composed of mature troops
between the age group of 17 to 40 years physically well trained in armed and
military skills and psychologically fit to fight a battle if necessary.
 Republic state: Machiavelli’s ideal state is a republic. He considers the
republican state as the best, but under the then prevailing conditions. He
favoured monarchical state. He says “the only way to establish any kind of
order there is to found a monarchical government”.
 Strong government at the centre: A well-ordered and stable state could be
successful if it has a strong government at the centre an integrated public
authority recognised by all. Machiavelli’s general purpose is to revive public
spirit rather than to advocate any particular form of government.
 Secular state: Machiavelli’s state is completely secular state. He attached great
importance to materialistic values. He attributed important place to religion
but within state and not above it.
 State as an organised force: Machiavelli defined the state as an organised force
for the maintenance and security of possessions. A state has to try and augment
territory and power for itself. It had to look upon its neighbour as actual or
potential enemies.
 Existence of laws: Laws occupy a prominent position in the state of Machiavelli.
Law is not only important and helpful in regulating and controlling the action
of citizens but also helps in the growth of civil and moral virtue.
  Absence of Violence: Machiavelli remains against the use of violence for private
reasons. He condemned the petty small minded and badly executed acts of
violence so widely prevalent in Florence. He praised the great glorious violence
that a republic used in its conquests and expansions.
 Public spirit: The existence of public spirit is indispensable for a healthy state.
Machiavelli urged upon his Prince to enthuse public spirit in the minds of his
subjects by the use of education, religion or propaganda.
 To be an opportunist: Machiavelli again and again suggested that the ruler or
the prince should become opportunist to achieve his objectives. He asserts that
a ruler must not lose the opportunity just for the sake of morality or ethical
principles.

C. His Views on Extension of State Power

According to Machiavelli the state has a natural tendency to expand territorially and
grow in power. This tendency is present in both republican as well as monarchical
state. To carry out the extension of the dominion, a common wealth should follow the
following policy.

a) It should try to increase the population of the city.

b) Acquire allies rather than subjects.
c) Establish colonies in the conquered territory.
d) Turn all body into treasury.
e) Carry on war rather by field campaign and pitched battles them by sieges.
f) Keep the state and individual poor.
g) With the utmost care maintain a well- trained army. It is his belief that the
prince should not depend on mercenaries but should have a well- trained army
of citizens.

In short, Machiavelli had very clear views about the state. He was very clear in his
views that the state must expand or it will simply think and die. In the making of the
state gives and legislators have big role to play.
 UNIT – IV

JOHN STUART MILL (1806 – 1873)

Introduction

J. S. Mill is the most influential and brilliant of the 19th century liberal thinkers. Apart
from his strong advocacy of individual liberty and championing the rights of women,
Mill stood for the justification of representative government as the most preferable
form of government. He supported democratic institutions for expanding the sphere
of individual freedoms from any type of tyrannical power. On that basis Mill is rightly
regarded as a reluctant democrat. He perceived the need for laying the foundations of
a liberal society as a basic condition for a liberal state and government. He defended
free speech and the right of the individuality. In short, Mill championed the cause of
promotion of individual freedom, women’s rights, representative government and
welfare state.
His essays On Liberty (1859) and The Subjection of women (1863) were classic
elaborations of liberal thought. However, his The Considerations on Representative
Government (1861) provided an outline of his ideal government based on proportional
representation, minority rights and promotion of institutions of self-governance. He
also played an important role in drawing a distinction between the political and
economic spheres and in working out the implications of liberal theory in these
spheres. In the political sphere he proved to be a strong supporter of constitutional
and representative government. He also laid the foundations of the welfare state.

1.1 Concept of Liberty, Thought, Expression and Action

J. S. Mill was taught to be a utilitarian who would give primacy to the utility of a thing
over any other aspect and follow the principle of greatest happiness of the greatest
numbers. Unlike the earlier utilitarian thinkers who emphasized on the quantitative
utilitarianism, his love for liberty of the individual led him to emphasize the
qualitative dimension that changed the entire utilitarian framework. In the words of C.
L. Wayper, ‘To strict utilitarian thinkers, liberty is always subordinated to the principle
of Utility itself. To Mill it is something fundamental, more of an end even than the
principle of Utility itself. It is that passionate conviction, glowing through its pages
that has made Mill’s Essay On Liberty the great English classic that it is, with which
only Milton’s Aeropagitica is fit to be compared.’ For Mill, the pursuit of individual
happiness will result in social happiness and it’s only through liberty that an individual
can be happy. He makes liberty as the basis of individual happiness which in turn
enhances social happiness. Hence, freedom is the precondition for human happiness.
For him, freedom of thought, expression, action and association for the individual is of
paramount importance. The state and the society should provide maximum freedom
to the individual so that he/she can think, express and act freely for self-development
as well as social development. In fact, Mill’s essay On Liberty is the finest defence of
liberty of thought and discussion ever written by anyone.
Rationale of Liberty

J. S. Mill is the most avowed supporter of liberty of the individual. He wants to

promote the self-development of the men and women for the benefit of the society as
he is certain that all wise and noble things come from the individuals. To him, there
can’t be any self-development without the extension of liberty to the individual. So, he
establishes the link between liberty and self-development. He was of the firm belief
that when individuals are left free to make their choices in life, they make use of many
of their faculties. The continuous use of human faculties leads to their further
development/improvement. In his own words, ‘The human faculties of perception,
judgment, discriminative feeling, mental activity, and even moral preference, are
exercised in only making a choice….the mental and moral, like the muscular powers,
are improved only by being used…..He who chooses his plan for himself, employs all
his faculties, he must use observation to see, reasoning and judgment to foresee,
activity to gather materials for decision, discrimination to decide, and when he has
decided, firmness and self-control to hold to his deliberate decision.’ He very deftly
explains the connection between the development of human faculties of perception,
judgment, discriminative feeling, mental activity and the liberty of the individual to
make his own choices. He holds that the individuals who do something because others
do it or say it have no need of any other faculty than the ape like one of imitation. In
other words, doing a thing just because it’s a custom or dictated by a group doesn’t
lead to the self-development as none of our faculties are involved in it.

Mill’s definition of Liberty

In On Liberty, J. S. Mill expounds two definitions of liberty. First, he defines liberty as

‘being left to oneself; all restraints qua restraints is an evil’. ‘Over himself, over his own
body and mind, the individual is sovereign.’ Thus, he defines liberty in the broadest
sense and seeks greatest amount of freedom for the individual when he/she pursues
his/her creative impulses and energies for self-development. The society has no
power/right to restrain an individual when he/she acts for himself/herself without
hurting anyone else. Mill divides an individual’s action into two categories: self-
regarding and other-regarding. Those actions as concern only the individual executing
them and do not affect others in any way are known as self- regarding actions. On the
other hand, those actions of the individual as affect or involve others are other-
regarding actions. As far as self-regarding actions are concerned, Mill demands
absolute freedom and no interference whatsoever from anyone. But when it comes to
other regarding actions, the society/government is justified in putting some restraint
on the individual action. In the words of J. S. Mill, ‘the only part of the conduct of any
one for which is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which
merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his
own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.’
To Mill, it was the individuality involving the right of choice that mattered the
most. In case of self-regarding actions, he considers coercion or interference as
antithetical to the self-development of the individual. He cites various reasons for the
same. First, the evils of coercion far outweighed the good achieved. Second,
individuals were so diverse in their needs and capacities for happiness that coercion
would be futile. Third, since diversity was in itself good, other things being equal, it
should be encouraged. Last freedom was the most important requirement in the life of
a rational person.
Mill’s second definition of liberty is that “liberty consists in doing what one
desires”. This definition of liberty is very different from the one as being left alone. He
illustrates this definition of liberty through an example of a person who desires to
cross a bridge that is not safe. The person desires to cross the bridge and does not wish
to fall into the river while doing so. Hence, we will be legitimately justified in stopping
the person from crossing the bridge and thus prevent harm from being inflicted on
him. It can be clearly discerned from the example that Mill has opened the door for
state interference in the individual sphere. In the words of C. L. Wayper, ‘If once it be
admitted that somebody may know better than you know what you desire, and that
liberty is to do what you desire, then even the activities of the Grand Inquisitor,
torturing a man’s body to prevent him being damned and thereby ensuring to him the
salvation he desires, can be justified.’ So, according to Barry, Mill understood liberty
not only as involving absence of restraints but also as self-mastery involving the
exercise of choice.
After having established the connection between liberty and the self-
development of the individual, Mill goes on to specify the liberties/freedoms that he
thinks must be extended to the individuals their self-development. In the words of
Sabine, ‘for Mill, freedom of thought and investigation, freedom of discussion, and the
freedom of self-controlled moral judgement and action were goods in their own right.’
Of these, liberties of thought and expression, liberty of action have been explained
below.

Liberty of Thought and Expression

J. S. Mill is the most ardent supporter of liberty of thought and expression and his
defence of the same was one of the most powerful and eloquent expositions in the
western intellectual tradition. Mill believed that truth is the precondition for human
development and every opinion or argument contains a part of the truth. So, every
individual should be given the maximum freedom of thought and expression so that
truth or rationality gets expression for the progress of the society. There should be no
interference even at the level of thoughts an individual has.
For him, human beings are rational beings. They observe the phenomena and
happenings around them and form opinions or thoughts about them by applying the
faculty of judgement. Therefore, it is of utmost importance for Mill that an individual
should be absolutely free at the level of thinking as it’s the thinking process that gives
us the power to understand truth. The government or the society has no right to put
restraints on what an individual should think or not. When it comes to liberty of
expression including the liberty of speaking and publishing, Mill holds that even if one
person has an opinion or argument which is different from that of the rest of the
society, he/she should be allowed to express it without any persecution. In Mill’s own
words, ‘If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more
justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified
in silencing mankind.’ It’s here that Mill makes it amply clear that majority or
numbers do not represent the truth. Even minority view can be nearer to truth than
the majority one. Every view has to be tested only when it’s confronted by the opposite
view.
For Mill, the dominant ideas of the society are formed by the dominant class that is
interested in putting forward its own interest. So, the dominant ideas can’t be said to
represent the interest of the society as a whole. It is more likely that the suppressed
minority opinion is true and those suppressing it will only prevent or deter mankind
from knowing the truth. Mill did not believe in the infallibility of the human reason.
That’s why; he holds that society is not justified in coercing even a single dissenter
into silence for adhering to a view that is different from that of others. By suppressing
a dissenting view, the mankind/society shall be at loss. The dissenter’s views may be
true and so would benefit the society in its progress. It is also a possibility that his/her
view may be partly true and thus complementing the majority view. Finally, if his/her
view is false, then the controversy would strengthen and vindicate the already held
majority view.
In the words of C.L.Wayper, ‘It will be seen that Mill is a firm believer in survival of
the fittest in the world of ideas, and that he is convinced that truth is fittest to survive.
He wanted freedom of expression for the incorrect opinions also as it’s only through
interaction and dialogue that opinions evolve and the truth can be discerned. It’s only
by constantly being able to refute wrong opinions that we hold our correct opinions as
living truths.
According to Mill, the real danger to the freedom of speech and expression of the
individual doesn’t come from government but from the public opinion shaped by the
majority. The public opinion controls even the thoughts of an individual. It subtly
restricts the domain of individual thoughts. The pressure of the society dehumanizes
the individuals and even destroys their individuality as it prevents them from
following their nature. The creative potential of the individual gets suppressed by the
collective opinion. It’s so oppressive that it invisibly suppresses the individual
expression. It constricts the space for expression of the individual creativity. In the
words of Sabine, ‘The threat to liberty which Mill chiefly feared was not government
but a majority that is intolerant of the unconventional that looks with suspicion on
divergent minorities, and is willing to use the weight of numbers to repress and
regiment them.’

Liberty of Action

As explained above, Mill divides individual actions into two categories namely self-
regarding and other-regarding. The self-regarding actions include those actions of the
individual, which concern only the individual performing them. Mill asserts that there
should be no interference on the part of state and society as far as self-regarding
actions are concerned. No coercion, whatsoever, be allowed in this area. The other
regarding actions are those actions of the individuals as directly affect others. These
actions involve others and hence curtail their freedom. So, there is need to put
restrictions on the other-regarding actions of the individual. It’s here that Mill opens
the door for state interference in individual sphere and thus creates space for welfare
state to emerge. The inadequacy of classical liberals is addressed by Mill and the
positive dimension is added to liberty.
Critical Evaluation

 Prophet of an Empty Liberty and an abstract individual: Ernest Barker has

criticized J. S. Mill as the Prophet of empty liberty and an abstract individual.
An individual is inseparable part of the society. Mill envisages an individual
isolated from the whole. Liberty of individual can’t be seen in isolation of the
society. That’s why; Ernest Barker uses the above phrase for Mill.
 Very difficult to draw line between self-regarding and other-regarding
actions: Bosanquet argued that there is no individual action that doesn’t affect
the other members of society. So the demarcation between self-regarding and
other-regarding action does not hold water when analysed practically.
 No analysis of relationship between freedom and responsibility:
According to Sabine, ‘The fundamental difficulty with Mill’s argument was that
it never really analyzed the relationship between freedom and responsibility.’
 Ambiguity on Legislation: Though Mill developed theoretical framework on
liberty, yet when it comes to practical legislation, he is not clear. For example,
he supported compulsory education, regulation of business and industry in the
interest of public welfare, but regarded prohibition of sale of alcoholic liquors
as an infringement of liberty of the individual.

Conclusion

Like all other philosophers, J. S. Mill has his shortcomings and limitations but his
contribution to the political thought on liberty has been remarkable.

 His modification of Utilitarianism by bringing in the qualitative dimension to

measure the preference of the pleasures rescued the liberal thought from
irrelevance.
 Mill’s ethics was utilitarian chiefly in the sense that he thought of the value of
personality not as metaphysical dogma but as something to be realized in the
actual conditions of a free society.
 Mill’s liberalism accepted political and social freedom as itself a good, not
because it contributed to an ulterior end but because freedom is the proper
condition of a responsible human being. To live one’s own life, developing one’s
own native traits and capacities, is not a means to happiness; it literally is a
substantive part of happiness.
 He held that liberty is not only an individual good but also a social good. The
freedom extended to individual leads to his/her development which in turn
develops the society as a whole. If an individual is silenced or coerced, the
benefit that the society can get from his/her ideas and actions is lost.
 The function of liberal state in a society is not negative but positive. It cannot
make its citizens free merely by refraining from legislation or assume that the
conditions of freedom exist merely because legal disabilities have been
removed.
 His passionate support for the freedom of thought and expression strengthened
the democratic theory.
 1.2 Mill’s Views on Women’s Equality

Introduction

J. S. Mill was the staunchest supporter of the freedom of the individual and didn’t
want any restriction on the same. He espoused equal liberty for both the sexes-males
and females. He in collaboration with his wife Harriet Taylor wrote The Subjection of
Women in 1869, a work which was far ahead of its time in its application of the
principle of liberty to the position of women. He regarded improvement in the
position of women as a concern not restricted to women alone, but of entire
humanity. In The Subjection of Women, Mill strongly argued for the equal status of
women in three key areas: Right to vote, Equal opportunities in education and
employment. With the advent of the modern times, the liberty of the individual was
considered to be paramount but due to the consolidated traditions it could not be
extended to the women in the equal measure. Like all the subjugations in the ancient
times, Mill considers the superior physical strength of the man to be the chief reason
for the subjugated condition of the women. In Mill’s own words ‘The inequality of
rights between men and women has no other source than the law of the strongest.’
The women even in the 19th century were made to lead a life that was even sometimes
worse than that of the slaves. The slavery was done away with the dawn of the modern
era but the subjugation of women continued unabated through the legal framework.

Legal Subordination of Women

J. S. Mill explains the position of women in British society in the 19 th Century and
expounds his own stand on the improvement of the same through the very starting
lines in, ‘The Subjection of Women’. ‘The principle that regulates the existing relations
between the two sexes –the legal subordination of one sex to the other –is wrong itself,
and is now one of the chief obstacles to human improvement; and it ought to be
replaced by a principle of perfect equality that doesn’t allow any power or privilege on
one side or disability on the other.’
The legal subordination of the women to the men was duly protected and
promoted by the mid-19th century English law about the marriage contract. Mill was so
opposed to this law that when he married Harriet Taylor in 1951, he wrote a formal
protest against the laws that would govern their marriage. According to these laws, all
the property belonged to the husband and the married woman could own no property
even the one gifted by her parents. Even after divorce, whatever was earned by the
woman belonged to him. The law conferred guardianship of the children on husbands
only. A mother did not become a legal guardian of her children in the event of the
death of her husband unless expressly desired in the will of the deceased. If a woman
chooses to leave her husband, she could not claim his property including her children.
So, the legal framework that was supposed to be based on the principles of liberty and
equality was itself oppressive for the women whose life was made entirely dependent
on the male counterpart.

Subjugation of Women is not natural

Mill was perturbed by the continuation of the unequal relationship between men and
women even in the modern age when the principles of liberty and equality have
become the basis for every relationship. He pointed out that this subjugation of
women is not based on reason. He contested the general perception that woman’s
subordination was natural. To begin with, like all unequal relations, the subordination
of women to men was the result of the superior physical strength of the men. But with
the advent of modern era, the laws recognized the inequality of the sexes and
extended further credence to the same. Hence, it was how the unequal relationship of
man and woman created through sheer physical force was made seemingly natural by
the laws of modern times. Consequently the physical strength became a virtue in a
man, the opposite renunciation, patience, resignation and submission to power have
been regarded as characteristics of a single and graceful woman. Mill argues, ‘The
adoption of this system of inequality never was the result of deliberation or
forethought, or any social ideas, or any notion whatever of what would be best for
humanity or the good order of society. It arose simply from the fact that from the
dawn of human society every woman was in a state of bondage to some man, because
she was of value to him and she had less muscular strength than he did.’
Slavery and political absolutism, the gender inequality continued to exist because
all the men had an interest in sustaining women’s subordination as they were the
beneficiaries of the patriarchal system. They controlled the property and the body of
women. It enhanced their self-esteem to be male. The women had no choice but to
lead this subjugated life controlled by their male counterpart. As explained above, a
married woman had no existence without her husband. Her all life was dependent on
him. Remaining unmarried was also not a choice for the women as they were deprived
of the educational and professional opportunities. Both law and custom prohibited
women from seeking any means of livelihood other than being a mother and wife. So,
a woman was not free within marriage nor was she free to remain unmarried. Mill
favoured equality between husband and wife. As member of the British Parliament, he
passionately supported the Married Women’s Property Bill. In his view, the unequal
relationship within marriage where husband exercises dominance and power over
their women debases the men themselves. So, he contends that an equal relationship
based on mutual friendship and respect would be advantageous to men too. Moreover,
the women can win their liberation with the support of men. A marriage contract
based on equality of married persons before law was not only a sufficient , but a
necessary condition for full and just equality between the sexes.
It was not that the women were kept in this condition because of the physical
strength only. They were prepared for this subordinated role through socialization,
education and training. From their very childhood, the women were socialized to be
submissive, yielding and accommodating and live for others, their husband, and
children. They were not taught to be independent with self-will and self-control. Mill
was of the firm belief that like men, women too are rational beings and possess
immense capacity and talent but they have been denied the opportunity to groom the
same. First, we hold that women can’t do certain things and then do not allow them to
do the same. It is very unfair on the part of society that half of the humanity was not
provided the opportunity to prove its worth. Basically, the unequal relationship has
deliberately been maintained so as to confine the women mostly to the household
chores and rearing of the children thus denying them the participation in the public
sphere. Once they are given freedom to participate in the public sphere extending to
them the access to education and employment, they can develop and sharpen their
capabilities.
Opposing the argument that the nature of the women is different from that of
men, Mill held that it’s a fallacy deliberately propagated to maintain the status quo. He
argues that for centuries the women have been subjected to suppression and their
nature has been shaped by the circumstances of subjugation. Moreover, we have not
seen free women in free society. So, it is imperative that women be granted freedom so
that they can fully express themselves.
Mill expounded his support for equal political rights for the women in his work,
Consideration of Representative Government. In the political sphere too, Mill could not
see any reason to discriminate between the two sexes as far as the right to vote and
representation in the legislature were concerned. He explained that many women in
history had proved their mettle in politics defying the generally held views on
women’s capabilities. He cited the examples of Joan of Arc, Elizabeth and Margaret of
Austria to highlight the political acumen of the women. Mill hoped that political
rights would enable the women to voice their view into the law making process. As the
law itself was protecting and promoting the subordination of women, winning the
political rights would create the scope for them to change the legal framework. He saw
law as an instrument to better the condition of the women and so once they obtain
the right to vote and representation in the legislature they would be in a position get
the discriminatory laws amended in their favour.

Advantages of Women’s Equality to Society

Mill deliberated on as to how the society shall be benefitted by granting equal rights to
women:
 Strengthening the democratic citizenship: The site of origin and
maintenance of the hierarchical relationships has been the patriarchal family
that has been based on inequality between the two sexes. In the traditional
families, the power is concentrated in the hands of husband/father/master and
the wife, children and servants have to obey him. To Mill, such families are
antithetical to the modern democratic polities based on the values of liberty
and equality. He strongly held that the members of these patriarchal families
can’t be good democratic citizens as neither they have experienced nor
practiced equality in their relationships within their families. Once, the women
are vested with freedom and equality, the family would no more be a school of
despotism. In the interest of democratic citizenship then, it was necessary to
obtain equality for women in the family.
 Doubling the mass of mental faculties for the society: In the society
dominated by the patriarchal values, the men came to have occupied the public
sphere while the women were relegated to the private sphere of household
chores. So half of the talent pool of the society was unutilized as the women
were hardly motivated or allowed to move beyond the confines of the
household. Moreover, the men have also not faced competition from the
women in the public sphere. Hence, extending equality to women would
double the mass of mental faculties available to the society. Society would
 benefit not only because there would be more doctors, engineers, teachers and
scientists, but men in the professions would also perform better because of
competition from their female counterpart.
 Increase in the overall happiness of the society: The suppression unleashed
by the patriarchal society robbed women of the real happiness. They sacrificed
their own happiness and lived for the happiness of their husbands and children.
It violated the utilitarian principle of greatest happiness of the greatest number
as half of the population live a suppressed and unhappy life. So, by giving
women equal rights, their happiness would be increased manifold and this
would satisfy the utilitarian principle of greatest happiness of the greatest
numbers.
 Full Expression of the Human Nature: According to Mill, the oppressive
relationships are disadvantageous not only for the oppressed but also for the
oppressor. So the subjugation of women debases the men too. Mill argues, ‘All
the mankind’s selfish propensities, the self-worship, the unjust self-preference,
are rooted in and nourished by the present constitution of the relation between
men and women.’ Hence, the dawn of women equality would not only liberate
the women but also uplift the men morally.

Criticism

 Confinement of the women to home only: In The Subjection of Women, Mill

holds that the women who marry in fact choose a career of taking care of their
husband and children. Hence, he confines them to the private sphere of home
only and deprives them of their participation in the public sphere of
associational life. In this way, he denies the married women the opportunity to
improve themselves by rising above the narrow confines of family.
 Views restricted to middle class women only: In his Principles of Political
Economy, Mill exhorted the need to open industrial occupations to both males
and females. But he neglected the question as to how women of all classes
could find and keep their jobs. In fact, when he talks about the emancipation of
women, it’s basically middle class women who are at centre of his analysis.
 Neglected the plight of sisters, daughters and single women: In The
Subjection Of Women, his main focus is on the woman as mother and wife. His
analysis hovers around the married women but does take into account the
plight of daughters, sisters and single women living alone or parental roof.

After studying Mill’s views on women’s equality, we are now in a position to evaluate
his role in advancing the discourse on women’s right to vote, education and
employment. As described above, the condition of women in the mid-19th century
Britain was that of subordination in all the fields-Education, Marriage, Politics and
Employment. Their condition was even worse than the slaves and same was protected
by the legal framework. In such prevalent conditions, Mill’s articulation of women’s
equality and freedom was of immense importance. Mill was the first male philosopher
of considerable stature and repute to consider the ‘Woman’s Question’. In The
Subjection of Women, he explained the basis of women’s inequality and argued for the
emancipation of women for the betterment of society. His intervention in the
discourse on women’s equality played a pivotal role in strengthening the women’s
movement of that time. Even as member of British Parliament, he whole heartedly
supported the bills espousing equality and freedom for women. He was of the firm
belief that the real freedom and equality for women can be achieved only by changing
the laws protecting the male dominance in the social sphere. For this it’s important
that the women be extended the right to vote and the right to contest parliamentary
elections so that they are in a position to get the discriminatory and oppressive laws
amended on their own initiative. He very deftly dismantled the argument that
projected the subordination of women as natural. He argued like all dominations, the
subordination of women had its origin in the superior physical strength of men and
this ancient rule could not be sustained forever to keep the women subjugated even in
the modern times. For him, the conditions of equality and freedom are not only for
the betterment of women but also for the entire society. He linked women’s equality
with the strengthening of democratic citizenship, doubling of the mass of mental
faculties for the society, increase in the overall happiness of the society and full
expression of the human nature. Unlike Aristotle and Rousseau, J. S. Mill has full faith
in the rationality and capability of the women. In the end, he is highly consistent in
his views on liberty as he sees it equally valuable for both the sexes.

1.3 Mill’s Views on Representative Government: Proportional Representation and

Plural Voting

Mill regards representative democracy as a necessary precondition for the progress of

citizens of any state. Thus, he considers Representative Government as the best form
of government. He examines the efficacy of a government on bases of degree of the
success of a government to fulfill adequately the purposes of government. For Mill, the
point of having a government was that it performed two main functions: it must use
the existing qualities and skills of the citizens to best serve their interests, and it must
improve the moral, intellectual and active qualities of these citizens. A despotic
government may be able to fulfill the first purpose, but will fail in the second. Only a
representative government is able to fulfill these two functions. It is a representative
government that combines judiciously the two principles of participation and
competence which is able to fulfill the two functions of protecting and educating the
citizens.
According to Mill, representative government ensures the promotion of common
interest of a society instead of the partial and sinister interests of some group or class.
The participation in the political process must be as extensive as possible, so that
every individual has a say in controlling the government and thus protecting his
interests. It is on this basis that Mill demanded the right to vote for women. He
advocated the extension of the suffrage to cover everyone except those who could not
read and write, did not pay taxes.
Mill recommended compulsory education, for that would make individual citizens
wise, competent, and independent judges. He always emphasized that representative
democracy was only possible in a state that was small and homogenous, an assertion
that has been nullified by the success of plural democracies like India.
Proportional Representation

As representative democracy gives undue prominences and power to sheer numerical

majority, it tends towards collective mediocrity. It may leads to under representation
of the minorities in the parliament and therefore suppression of their interests.
Ordinarily, in a representative democracy, the majority party succeeds in securing a
larger number of seats in the parliament than its proportionate number of votes would
justify. As a rule, minorities suffer from under representation in the parliament. To
guard against this injustice to minorities and to make sure that majorities and
minorities get their due share of representation in the parliament, Mill supported the
system of proportional representation which he regarded as necessary for
representative democracy.
Mill maintains that it is an essential part of democracy that minorities should be
adequately represented. No real democracy, nothing but a false show of democracy, is
possible without it. To guard against the injustice to minorities and to make sure that
majorities and minorities get their due share of representation in the parliament, Mill
supported the system of proportional representation which he regarded as necessary
for representative democracy.
He switched his allegiance to proportional representation as a means of allowing
the wise and noble few to exercise their due influence over the mindless majority. He
argues that, a legislature should represent all the sections of the electorate and no
minority should go without any representation in the legislature. Legislatures are
compared to maps. One cannot draw a map of a country ignoring any part of the
country. All the parts of the country should be included in the map. Similarly, all the
sections of the electorate should be represented in the legislature.
The advocates of proportional representation point out that the majority principle
is based on the assumption of a bi-party system, where there are only two major
political parties which compete in the elections. In this bi-party system the majority
rules and the minority remains in the opposition and criticize the government. But,
really speaking in this society there are various sections with their own peculiar
problems and opinions. To make the legislature a true mirror of the nation, it is
essential that all the sections are directly and more so proportionately reflected in the
legislature.
According to Mill, the principle of proportional representation allows the
minorities to be given a voice, and for all views to be brought to the table for serious
consideration. The views of a minority may be overruled after serious debate and
deliberation, but what Mill is against is the idea of not allowing the views of the
minorities to be given some consideration.
In any real equal democracy every or any section would be represented, not
disproportionately but proportionately. A majority of the electorate would always have
a majority of representative but a minority of the electorate would always have a
minority of the representatives. The supporters of proportional representation further
argue that under this system there will not be any necessity to readjust or redraw the
boundaries of the constituency to equate the number of electors of electors in the
constituency on the basis of increasing population.
In the scheme of proportional representation through the method of preferential
voting, as devised by Thomas Hare, Mill saw one of the very greatest improvements
yet made in the theory and practice of government, by giving both to the majority and
to the minority representation in proportion to their numbers, it would tend to
decrease the power of former and increase that of the latter. Mill’s special tenderness
for the rights and opinions of minorities caused him to see in proportional
representation a means of obviating the danger of majority tyranny.
Mill did not greatly fear persecution of isolated individuals who expressed
heterodox opinions, because such individuals were seldom considered dangerous to
the community. What he did fear was persecution of minority groups, because
organised minorities roused fears for the safety of the established order and invited
attack. Protection of minorities was therefore, the true test of freedom of opinion. And
for that reason Mill advocated proportional representation, which was, in his view, the
most effective method of protecting the freedom of the individual to express opinions
that roused general hostility. It was this same impetus for wanting everyone to be
represented that made Mill support Hare’s system of proportional representation. In
the absence of proportional representation, Mill pointed out that minorities went
unrepresented.

Plural Voting

Representative democracy, though generally better than other forms of government,

suffers from two dangers i.e. (1) general ignorance and incapacity in the controlling
body in the state and in the average member in the parliament and (2) the danger of
the democratic machinery being in the controlling hands of a section of population
whose interests are not identical with the general welfare of the whole community.
Moreover, though he supported universal suffrage, he gave the idea of weighted
suffrage i.e. plural votes to higher educated citizens. This would give proportionate
weight to men of superior intelligence and in order to prevent the rich higher
educated men practicing class legislation, he was in favour of the poor getting plural
votes by proving their superior intelligence by voluntary examinations. Thus, Mill's
weighted suffrage suggests that he was not in favour of political equality but was for
intellectual aristocracy.
Thus, his belief in participation led him to advocate a widening of the franchise, his
belief in competence led him to recommend plural voting. Mill opined that the
franchise should not be widened without plural voting being introduced. Plural voting
meant that with everyone – having at least one vote, some individuals would have
more than one vote because they were, for example, more educated. It assumed a
graduated scale of educational attainments, awarding at the bottom, one additional
vote to a skilled labourer and two to a foreman, and at the top, as many as five to
professional men, writers and artists, public functionaries, university graduates and
members of learned societies.
Plural voting would ensure that a better caliber of representatives would be
elected, and so the general interest would not be hampered by the poor quality of
members of Parliament. Mill sought to combine his two principles in other
institutions of representative democracy as well. Taking the example of representative
assembly, Mill maintains that this body must be a committee of grievances and ‘a
congress of opinions’. Every opinion existing in the nation should find a voice here;
that is how every group’s interests have a better chance of being protected.
 At the same time, Mill also stood for legislative competence and administrative
skills. He argued that an amateur legislative body is suited neither for the business of
legislation nor of administration. Legislations were to be framed by a group of
competent legal experts and administration should be in the hands of the
bureaucracy. Mill’s arguments employed two kinds of competence, instrumental and
moral. Instrumental competence is the ability to discover the best means to certain
ends and the ability to identify ends that satisfy individuals’ interests as they perceive
them. Moral competence is the ability to discern ends that are intrinsically superior
for individuals and society.
Morally competent leaders are able to recognize the general interest and resist the
sinister interests that dwell not only in the government but also in the democratic
majority. The purpose of plural voting is to ensure that morally competent leaders get
elected to the legislature.
Mill prescribed registration tests for checking performances, universal education
for all children and plurality of votes to the better educated, in order to balance the
lack of voting rights to the uneducated. He also recommended the disqualification of
three categories of dependents: a) those who were unable to pay local taxes; b) those
who were dependent on public welfare would be excluded for five years from the last
day of receipt; and c) those who were legal bankrupts and moral deviants like habitual
drunkards. He, however, championed equal voting rights for all irrespective of their
sex or colour.

Conclusion

Mill asserts that the best form of government for the people at a time is the one that
best achieves two goals: (1) improving the virtue and intelligence of the people under
its jurisdiction, and (2) organizing such good qualities of the people as currently exist
to promote as far as possible the long-run common good (the legitimate purposes of
government). According to Mill, democracy may be expected to be more conducive
than any other form of government for organizing such good qualities of the people to
promote the common good.
However, Mill argues that representative institutions should be assigned only
limited functions, consistent with their having supreme power in the last resort. The
representative (elected) body is not fit to administer public policies. The executive
branch of government should be separate and distinct from the legislative. Thirdly,
the detailed drafting of laws is another task fit only for qualified experts. There should
be a legislative commission responsible for drafting laws.
To Mill there is no difficulty in showing that the ideally best form of government is
that in which the sovereignty, or supreme controlling power in the last resort, is
vested in the entire aggregate of the community, with every individual having a voice
in the exercise of that ultimate sovereignty. But at the same time, Mill was very alive to
the dangers and weaknesses of democracy. He feared democratic despotism as
something worse than monarchical despotism. Extreme democracy would kill
individuality.
Though Mill's ideas regarding individual, democracy, representative government
and proportional representation are not perfect and contain evident shortcomings, yet
they have potential to guide political systems towards better form of government, and
that's what they did in the history of political development that followed in Europe.