Page 1
1
MODULE - I
1
RIGHTS
Unit Structure
1.0 Objectives
1.1 Meaning and Nature of Rights
1.2 Theories of Rights
1.3 Problems in the idea of rights -group based vs. individual rights
1.4 Civil, political, socio -economic and cultural rights, human rights
1.5 Summary/ conclusion
1.6 Unit End Questions
1.7 References
1.0 OBJECTIVES
Aim of this unit is to acquaint you with the meaning, nature theories and
problems associated with the concept of rights. You will reasonably will
able to distinguish the difference between the individual rights and the
group based rights after reading this unit. After studying this unit you will
be to:
Explain meaning and nature of rights with relevant examples
Elucidate various theories and debates associated with rights
Illustrate and expound the classification of rights
1.1 MEANING AND NATURE OF RIGHTS
Introduction : The concept of rights primarily refers to an entitlement to
act or be treated in a particular way. The notion of rights is a pioneering
principle in the process of establishment of a just polity. Although it would
be wrong to suggest that the doctrine of rights is universally accepted,
most modern political thinkers have nevertheless been prepared to express
their ideas in terms of rights or entitlement s. The concept of rights is, in
that sense, politically less contentious than, the concepts like equality
liberty or justice. However, there is no agreement among scholars about
the grounds upon which these rights are based, who should possess them,
and wh ich ones they should have.
Political theorists, philosophers, and jurists continue to examine the origin,
nature, and scope of the concept of right, with the promise of a definitive
set of answers always in question. And yet, few concepts are as important
to the promotion of a just society as the principle that human beings do
possess rights. munotes.in
Page 2
2
1.1.1 Meaning of Rights :
Rights can be described as claims of individuals, groups or classes that are
made against either the society or the state. In other words right is a claim
of an individual recognized by the society and the state. In simple words,
rights are the common clai ms of people which every civilized society
recognizes as essential claims for their development, and which are
therefore enforced by the state. Rights can be claimed on various grounds
such as inherent human personality, natural basis, legal basis, social basis
etc.
Generally society or communities acknowledge certain claims made by
individual and groups, which are recognized by the state. State gives
sanctions to these claims either wholly or selectively. It is also possible
that certain rights are intro duced by the sate itself and did not arise from a
given society or community. One of the most popular implications of
rights is that it serves the purpose of providing conditions for liberty and
development of capacities of personality of individuals. For example
freedom of expression and speech constitute liberty of a person to express
his or her views, ideas or feelings. However to secure this liberty of each
individual, some safeguard is required and rights provide this safeguard.
Laski therefore says th at “without rights there cannot be liberty and that
every state is known by the rights it maintains”. In a nutshell meaning of
rights may be summarized in a following way
a) Claims of the Individual: rights are claims made by individual. It is
important to note that all these claims cannot be recognized as rights.
These claims should be selfless claims or something which have universal
application. In other words they should be disinterested desires and should
stand the test of rationality and public serv ice. Individual‟s personal claims
entrenched in selfish motives cannot be considered for social recognition.
b) Community recognition: in order to get transformed into rights, the
claims should receive recognition of the community. For example an
individual‟s claim that none should take his life receives social recognition
as every individual desires the same. Recognition of the claim of this type
ultimately leads to the creation of right to life. Similarly an individuals
will that none should take away his property creates in him a sense that he
should not take away the property of others. When this claim gets social
recognition, it beco mes right to property. Claims thus recognized are
translated into rights and it is such recognition that constitutes them rights.
c) Political recognition: rights are just abstract claims unless and until
they are accepted and protected by the state. The state translates the
socially recognized claims or moral rights into terms of law and thereby
accords the legal recognition. The state therefore acts like a coercive
agency to prevent the operation of the selfish will of the individuals.
munotes.in
Page 3
3
1.1.2 Definition of Rights :
Oxford English dictionary : It defines right as the standard of
permitted and forbidden action within a certain sphere.
Allen defines Right as the legally guaranteed power to realize an
interest.
Merriam –Webster dictionary It defines rights as something to which
one has a just claim, such as the power or privilege to which one is
justly entitled.
T.H.Green defines rights in his Lectures on the Principles of Political
Obligations as „a power of acting for his own ends…secured to an
individual by the community on the supposition that it contributes to
the good of the community.
Hobhouse he defines rights as the system of harmonized liberties.
Ernest Barker he defines rights as external conditions necessary for
the greatest possible development of the capacities of the personality .
Harold Laski he defines rights as those conditions of social life
without which no man can seek, in general, to be his best.
R.N. Gilchrist Rights arise from individuals as members of s ociety and
from the recognition that for society there is ultimate good which may
be reached by the development of the powers inherent in every
individual.
1.2 THEORIES OF RIGHTS
There is wide range of arguments which tries to inquire different contours
of the concept of rights. Following are some of the theoretical arguments
and explanations of rights:
1.2.1 Theory of Natural Rights:
Theory of natural rights emphasise that certain rights are so essential to
any personal life that they should be called as natural. Natural rights are
the earliest known grounds for claim of individual rights. There rights are
claims because they are considered to be ordained by nature and therefore
product of law of nature. Natural right theory is closely connected with the
notion of natural law. The concept of natural rights originated in ancient
Rome and came from the discovery that men of all races and countries
living under Roman rule have some common rules of life. This body of
principles common to all men, the Romans called “Natural Law”.
a) Contractual ground of natural rights : Social contractualists have
made a very valuable contribution in eulogising the importance of natural
rights theory. They hypothetically constructed the state of nature and
visualised the existence of rights in it and described it as natural rights.
The social contractualist thus claims that, individuals enjoyed some basic
rights even before the emergence and development of the state. munotes.in
Page 4
4
The contractual ground entails that individual enjoyed natural right in
hypothetical state of nature. The same rights are carried forward in the
civil society as a result of social contract between the ruler and the ruled.
The s ocial contractualist described these rights as inalienable and
inseparable in nature and cannot be taken away from the individual. They
are inalienable because they are inherent and existed prior to society and
state. The natural rights according to social contractualist are
imprescriptible1 as they are not prescribed and sanctioned by sovereign
authority.
b) Teleological view of natural rights : Teleology is explanation of some
phenomenon by giving importance to its purpose or ends it serves. This
view loo ks at the final purpose served by the rights. The teleological
viewpoint seeks to correlate the rights of an individual with the purpose of
human life. These rights do not depend on any institutional arrangements,
but stem from the very nature of man and s erve the purpose of life. for
example Thomas Paine in his book Rights of Man enquired the theory of
natural rights on teleological basis. Similarly T.H.Green‟s theory of
natural rights is also based on teleological view of rights.
c) Curre nt debate on natural rights: John Rawls and Robert Nozick:
John Rawls (Theory of Justice) and Robert Nozick (Anarchy, State and
Utopia) are contemporary theorists who have propounded their theories of
rights of individual and justice on basis of social con tract and natural
rights respectively. Rawls has used the idea of deriving rights from social
contract to present his views of an egalitarian social order. Robert Nozick
has developed the conpcept of prior and inalienable individual rights
drawing inspirat ion from John Locke‟s inviolable property rights. He says
that individual rights have priority over other principles such as equality.
Based on inviolable property rights, Nozick seeks to develop an
entitlement theory of people‟s natural assets.
d) Nature regulates the activities of men : According to this theory,
nature or God alone regulates the wisdom and the activities of men. The
kings being the divine origin, as representatives of God, the rules framed
by them were considered divine in nature. But in the age of enlightenment
( or Age of Reason) of the eighteenth century a number of Western
advocators like, Hobbes, Locke, Hugo Grotius, Rousseau, Samuel
Pufendorf, etc . challenged the origin of divine concept to natural law.
e) Based on reason and fairne ss: A natural right is nothing but, rights
based on just, fair and reasonable conduct. This means, the individuals
unite themselves to form political societies through mutual consent, and
agree to form a government of their own. It will enable them to lead their
life through common rules and regulations framed by either them or their
representatives. At the same time, they accept a set of legal and moral
munotes.in
Page 5
5
duties to be observed or bound by them in the exercise of their rights in
order to live in peace and sec urity without any violence.
f) Belief in its inalienability: Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have
discussed natural or inalienable rights on the basis of rights prevailing in
the state of nature. Thomas Paine and Thomas Hill Green have argued for
natural rig hts on the basis of inherent moral claim of individual. In either
case, naturally available rights or rights available to human moral claim
are inalienable. Some of the commonly discussed natural rights are right to
life and security, liberty, property and resistance to oppression. The
American declaration of independence -1776, the French declaration rights
of Man and Citizens 1789 and the UN Universal Declaration of Human
Rights 1948 all acknowledge natural rights as inalienable in nature.
1.2.2 Historica l Theory:
This theory of rights believes that rights are the product of history. The
rights have their origin in customs which once found practical social utility
and passed on from one generation to another ultimately having been
recognized as inherent c laims or rights.
a. Evolution of laws is based on customs :
The historical rights theory argues that the laws have evolved on the basis
of customs and traditions. This theory holds the view that rights are the
product of a long historical process and grow out of customs. Therefore
the essential sanction behind a ri ght is, fo r this reason, is tradition or
custom. Law of today is nothing but the crystallisation of age old customs
into the form of legal sanctions that the state enforces with coercive power
at its command.
This theory stands against the rights, which lead to radical or revolutionary
rearrangement of social and political structures. Phiolosophers like
Edmund Burke, Henry Maine, sociologies R.M.MacIver, jurist
J.W.Burgess have wholeheartedly supported the historical theory of rights.
b. Importance of prescriptive institutions :
Edmund Burke is known as an ardent advocate of historical theory of
rights. His doctrine of prescriptive institutions solemnly asserts the
importance of historical theory of rights. According to him political
institutions form a vast and complicated system of prescriptive rights and
customs and that these customary practices grow out of the past and adapt
themselves with the present without any break in the continuity.
To substantiate his argument Burke gives example of French revolution
and criticised it as injudicious exercise in the direction of a struggle for
liberty, equality and fraternity. On the contrary he glorified the glorious
English revolution which sought to reassert the customary rights that
Englishmen had enjoyed from very early days and wh ich had found
expression in documents like Magna Carta, Petition of Right and various
other documents of constitutional importance. munotes.in
Page 6
6
c. Evaluation of historical theory :
The historical theory of rights in a nutshell finds origin of rights in the
primitive cu stoms. It does not however mean that the origin of all rights
can be traced in customs and traditions. Had this been so, all repressive
and unjust practises would have been in existence even today. When rights
are rigidly tied to customs alone, we altog ether ignore the dynamic nature
of society and accordingly, the changing contents of rights.
1.2.3 Legal Theory:
Legal theory of rights gives a legalist or law based position on origin of
rights. It traces origin of rights in the form of enhanced laws that have
legal or positive authority behind them. According to this theory rights are
neither absolute nor ordained by nature, but are created and maintained by
the state. This theory maintains that since the state is the only source of all
rights, there can be no rights without or against the state. Rights are
relative to the law of the land; hence they vary with time and space. Rights
have no substance until they are guaranteed by the state.
Rights are creations of the law of the state - According to thi s theory rights
are not created by nature or absolute in nature but they are created by sate.
That means state is the sole creator or source of rights. It provides all those
conditions which aims to protect rights of common man. Such an
affirmation regards rights as the creation of the political community.
a. Contribution of Jeremy Bentham : legal theory of rights finds its
emphatic manifestation in the works of Jeremy Bentham. He criticised
natural rights theory as A rhetorical nonsense upon stilts and pro posed that
rights are the creature of law and or organised society. He argues that
rights are the creatures of law and they are properly therefore referred as
rights.
b. Legal rights exist under the rules of legal systems :
Legal rights are those rights which exist under the rules of legal systems or
by virtue of decisions of suitably authoritative bodies within them.
According to positivists, legal rights are essentially those interests which
have been legally recognized and protected. John Austin made a
distinction between legal rights and other types of rights such as Natural
rights or Moral rights. By legal rights, he meant rights which are creatures
of law, strictly or simply so called. He said that other kind of rights a re not
armed with legal sanction and cannot be enforced judicially. On the other
hand, Salmond said that a legal right is an interest recognized and
protected by rule of law and violation of such an interest would be a legal
wrong.
c. Legal rights are re cognized and protected by a rule of justice:
Salmond argues that legal right is an interest recognized and protected by
a rule of justice. The word „interest‟ implies any interest, respect for which
is a duty and disregard of which is a wrong. This conten tion has two
essential elements, legal recognition and legal protection. Both these munotes.in
Page 7
7
elements should simultaneously and concurrently be present in an interest
for its transformation as a legal right.
d. Characteristics of legal rights: According to Salm ond, there are five
important characteristics of a Legal Right
It is vested in a person who may be distinguished as the owner of the
right, the subject of it, the person entitled, or the person of inherence.
It avails against a person, upon whom, lies the correlative duty. He may
be distinguished as the person bound, or as the subject of duty, or as the
person of incidence.
It obliges the person bound to an act or omission in favour of the person
entitled. This may be termed the content of the right.
The ac t or omission relates to something (in the widest sense of that
word), which may be termed the object or subject matter of the right.
Every legal right has a title, that is to say, certain facts or events by
reason of which the right has become vested in i ts owner.
1.2.4 Idealist Theory:
Idealist theory of rights differs greatly from the natural theory or legal
theory of rights. The Idealistic Theory of Rights is also known as the
Personality Theory. According to this theory, rights are the external
conditions essential to man‟s internal an d real development. It advocates
that without rights no man can become the best self and achieve his fullest
development.
a) Perfection of human personality : Perfection of human personality is
the end to which all rights are directed and subordinated. In other words,
right to personality is man‟s fundamental right and all other rights are
derived from it. For example, the right to life, the right to liberty, the right
to property, and all other similarly important rights are to be judged by
their contribu tion towards the development of human personality. If I
abuse any of these rights and retard my self -development, society is within
its competence to deprive me of that right.
b) Maintenance of material condition : the adherents of this theory
believes tha t rights have a very important role to play in an individual‟s
life. Rights are those necessary conditions which can be used to maintain
basic material condition essential for the existence and perfection of
human personality. As Kruausse has said that ri ghts constitutes the organic
whole of the outward conditions necessary to the rational life. It means
that without rights no man can achieve his fullest development and
become his best self.
c) Rational will of man : idealistic theory is based on a the rational will of
man and for this reason, first recognized by the society and then translated
into law by the state. Its best presentation is contained in the philosophy of munotes.in
Page 8
8
T.H.Green who says that human consciousness th inks of the goodness of
the self as well as of other human beings.
1.3 PROBLEMS IN THE IDEA OF RIGHTS: GROUP BASED VS. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
Group Rights and Individual Rights :
Individual rights mean those rights that belong to an individual and are
mainly political, economic, or legal in nature. The provision of rights
helps people to enjoy their life and liberty without any external
interference of any sort which also includes the state. Individual rights can
be further discussed in positive and negative way. Positive rights
encourage a person to discharge the right according to law and the
negative rights prohibit any act that is not permitted by law. On the other
hand group rights are those rights that are enjoyed by a group and as well
as the individual . For example, the rights of disabled persons are
considered as group
Rights that mean it promote the rights of the disabled as a group. At the
same time, an individual disabled person also could claim the rights
independently of the group. From the abov e brief discussion, a right may
be defined as something that one possess to exercise either naturally,
legally, or socially with a moral/legal duty to act without violating the
right of others.
1.3.1 Group rights :
A group right is a right which is enjoye d by a group collectively rather
than individually. However it does not mean that an individual does not
have any say in the group rights, but the important feature of group right is
that it can be enjoyed collectively by individuals as well as by a grou p.
There are different viewpoints about group rights. Scholars, academicians
and thinkers have not positively welcomed the notion of group rights.
Those who advocate the concept of human rights tend to criticize the
notion of group rights. They are of t he opinion that groups cannot have
rights; they maintain that groups can have rights only if they function as
individuals. The main argument of scholars is that group rights and
individual rights are incompatible. There is a general belief that group
right s are false claims and they are trivial in nature.
But despite of such type of criticism, group rights have so far proved to be
very relevant especially during the turbulent period of human rights
violation of variou s marginal groups. According to Leslie R. Shapard 2
Group rights are possible and can be consistent with individual rights.
Leslie maintains that the recognition of group rights is consistent with all
theories of human rights. 2 “GROUP RIGHTS “, Public Affairs Quarterly Volume 4, Number 3, July 1990. munotes.in
Page 9
9
Basic features of group rights :
They are possessed by a group : A group right is a right that are
possessed by a group rather than by its members. It stands against the
notion of a right held by an individual person in a given society. Best
example of a group right is right is the right of self-determination of
a nation. If we accept the right to determination then it is clear that
this right is enjoyed by a nation or people as a group. It can
theoretically be theoretically argued that a single individual can also
have a right of self-determination along with the entire people.
Group right held by groups in capacity as a group : the most
important feature of group right is that these rights are collectively
held by a group in capacity as a group and not as an individual. Duties
that are generated by the group r ight are duties actually owed to the
group as a whole and not to its member‟s individually.
It should not be confused with “group differentiated rights” :
Differentiated rights are those rights that can be enjoyed on the basis
of an individual's membershi p in a particular social or cultural group .
A group right should not confuse with a “group -differentiated” right.
That term „differentiated rights‟ has been coined by Will Kymlicka
(1995) to describe a right that is accorded to a particular group but not
to the larger society within which the group exists. But group rights
are not particular in nature but it cater to the aspirations of the whole
community rather than a small community.
Group rights can be legal or moral or both : Group rights can be
legal or moral or both. For example in a particular political system if a
community enjoys certain rights or if a group enjoys certain rights,
then those rights will be legal rights . A justifiable legal system may
create moral conditio ns wherein people can be claimant to both legal
and moral rights. In the course of time those legal rights may get
developed into moral rights. Similarly, once a group has been
accorded legal rights, we might think that, in at least some cases,
violations of its legal rights wrong it morally as well as legally. A
group may therefore be credited with legally -dependent moral rights.
Group rights and human rights: United nations through various of
its covenants have given pristine recognition to human rights. The
greatest advocacy of human rights has come from United Nations;
many of its Covenants ascribe to all “peoples” the right of self -
determination, the right freely to dispose of their natural wealth and
resources, and the right not to be deprived of thei r means of
subsistence. If one surmises the key component of first, second and
third generation of human rights, then one can say that all these aim at
the development of peace, along with a healthy environment,
communication, humanitarian assistance, and a share in the common
heritage of mankind.
munotes.in
Page 10
10
1.3.2 Individual rights:
Individual rights are very crucial rights for the protection of the aspirations
and assertion of individual in a democratic system. These rights are
required by each individual to pursue their lives and goals . It is important
to note that the individual rights should be enjoyed without interference
from other individuals or the government. The rights to life, liberty, or
property or even right to freedom of expre ssion are some of the examples
of individual rights.
What are individual rights :
Individual rights are those rights that are indispensable and are regarded as
so vital that they guarantee legitimate protection from any external
interference. Indian constitution offers a wide range of individual rights in
form of fundamental rights and all these rights are justifiable in nature. It
not only protects individual from the state abuse but also from all external
forces and also safeguards their dignity.
Basic features of Individual rights :
Protects individual from infringement of freedom : individual rights
offer protection to individual from all type of encroachments and
unexpected external invasion in personal domain. It offers both moral
protection and legal safeguard against the debilitating forces which may
try to put individual existence into disarray. Individual Rights signify
that all such onslaug hts are morally and legally forbidden and
intolerable. It is for this reason the individual rights are described as
legal -moral protective hedge against unwanted intrusion. It others try to
intrude it then it can be termed as unnecessary trespassing into t he
individuals domain.
Individual enjoys authority over his own spheres of actions :
Individual rights allow people to take course of action as per their own
individual sphere of liberty. They enjoy fullest authority over their own
domain and they rightfully exercise control over it. As John Locke put
it in Two Treatises of Government , rights allow individual s “to order
their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think
fit … without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other
man.” In other words the significant feature of individual right is that it
divide the world in a very simple way that is , the world of persons —
into “mine and yours.
It ensures individual dignity and self -ownership : individual rights
brings individual at the centre of human life and designate him as the
source and foundation of creativity, activity, and society. These rights
views that o nly individuals can think, l ove, pursue projects, act and are
capable of choice, in the sense of anticipating the outcomes of
alternative courses of action and weighi ng the consequences.
Affirmation of personal and property rights : it means individual
rights warrant the moral and legal ownership of resources which can be munotes.in
Page 11
11
either tangible or intangible. In today‟s world the right to property also
can be owned by the provision of patents and copyrights. This right
protect individual in the private pursuit of their own preferred ends.
They protect each individual‟s freedom to pursue his own conception of
the good against all individuals and groups .
1.4 CLASSIFICATION OF RIGHTS
1) Civil Rights : Civil rights , guarantees social opportunities and equal
protection under the law, regardless of race, religion, or other personal
characteristics. Examples of civil rights include the right to a fair trial, the
right to government services, the right to a public education , and the right
to use public facilities. Civil rights are an essential component
of democracy ; when individuals are being denied opportunities to
participate in political society, they are being denied their civil rights. In
contrast to civil liberties , which are freedoms that are secured by placing
restraints on government, civil rights are secured by positive government
action, often in the form of leg islation.
2) Political Rights : Political rights are those rights which relates to
political affairs of the state. Right to contest elections, right to vote, right
to participate in political campaign or assume political positions are some
of the importa nt political rights. They ensure one's ability to participate in
the political life of the society and state without discrimination or
repression. It also includes the right to address individually or collectively
petitions to the government embodying thei r grievances. In a nutshell
political rights are those rights by virtue of which citizens get a share in
the political process.
3) Economic Rights: These rights relate to an individual‟s vocation and
his engagement in a gainful employment so as to solve the problem of,
clothing and shelter. In simple words economic rights are those rights
which provide economic security to the people. These enable al l citizens
to make proper use of their civil and political rights. The basic needs of
every person are related to his food, clothing, shelter, medical treatment
etc. Without the fulfillment of these no person can really enjoy his civil
and political rights . It is therefore essential, that every person must get the
right to work, right to adequate wages, right to leisure and rest, and right to
social security in case of illness, physical disability and old age.
4) Social Rights : Social rights include the rights to social security,
protection of the family, an adequate standard of living, including freedom
from hunger, access to clean water, adequate housing, and protection of
property, and mental and physical health. Social right s refer to those rights
that protect the necessities of life or that provide for the foundations of an
adequate quality of life. In other words social rights may be defined as
claims against the state to have certain basic social and economic needs of
life satisfied.
munotes.in
Page 12
12
5) Cultural Rights : Cultural Rights are rights related to art and culture,
both understood in a large sense. The objective of these rights is to
guarantee that people and communities have an access to culture and can
participate in the cultur e of their election. Cultural rights are human rights
that aim at assuring the enjoyment of culture and its components in
conditions of equality, human dignity and non -discrimination. They are
rights related to themes such as language; cultural and artisti c production;
participation in cultural life; cultural heritage; intellectual property rights;
author‟s rights; minorities and access to culture, among others.
6) Group rights : Group Rights means rights that are enjoyed by a group
and as well as individually. For example, the rights of disabled persons are
considered as group rights. They promote the rights of the disabled as a
group. At the same time, an individual disabled per son also could claim
the rights independently of the group.
1.5 SUMMARY
The concept of rights is the basic concept in the study of political theory. It
is the basic principle in the process of establishing a just society. The
provision of rights fulfills the legitimate expectation of the common
people and ensures them the safeguard which helps them to attain their
fullest development.
1.5 UNIT END QUESTIONS
1. Give meaning of rights and examine the theory of natural rights.
2. Define rights and discuss basic features of historical theory of rights.
3. Describe how legal theory of rights elucidates the legalist
perspective of rights.
4. Evaluate in detail the problems in the idea of rights with reference to
group based vs. Individual rights.
5. Give basic classification of rights.
1.7 REFERENCES
Mahajan V.D, “Principles of political theory, S. Chand, New
Delhi ,2006.
Ramaswamy Sushila. “Political Theory -Ideas and concepts, PHI
learning Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, 2015.
Bhosale Harshad, “Political values and ideologies, Tech -Max, Pune,
2017.
Hoffman John & Graham Paul, “Introduction to Political Theory”,
Routledge, New Y ork, 2006.
***** munotes.in
Page 13
13
MODULE - II
2
EQUALITY
Unit Structure
2.0 Objective
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The idea of equality
2.2.1 Equality, a Modern Idea
2.2.2 Struggle for equality
2.3 Equality: Multi -dimensional concept
2.3.1 Legal Equality
2.3.2 Political Equality
2.3.3 Economic Equality
2.3.4 Social Equality
2.4 How to achieve equality
2.5 Marxist Perspective on Equality
2.6 Equality and Liberty
2.7 Summary
2.8 Unit End Questions
2.9 References
2.0 OBJECTIVE
To understand the concept of equality from historical to modern era.
To understands the different between Equality of treatments and
treatment as equals
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Historically speaking ‘equality’ is one of the most basic concepts in social
sciences that cover social, moral, political and philosophical grounds. Not
only this, it is also one of the most confusing concepts as well . It is
reflected in other concepts like liberty, justice, rights and property, etc.
This concept has been in discussion since time imm emorial, growing in
each era. Under Marxism, it acquired economic content . Now in 20th and
21st century Feminism and Environmentalism , it has acquired new
dimensions.
munotes.in
Page 14
14
It is first responsibility to give a clear definition of equality . According to
the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it means correspondence
between a group of different objects, persons, processes or circumstances
that have same qualities in at least one respect, but not all respects.
Equality must be distinguished from ‘identity’, w hich refers to one and the
same object corresponding to itself in all its features. Thus, to say that men
are equal is not to say that they are identical. Equality implies similarity
rather than ‘sameness’.
Like Liberty and fraternity, even equality was b rought forward into
discussion by the French Revolution, 1789. Those days, this idea meant
the voice of the oppressed, of the helpless as well as voice against the
injustices.
On other plane, equality is essentially a progressive concept as it talks
about and recommends equal treatment for all, equal opportunities for all
and absence of special privileges, so essential for a modern society. It also
means no birth -related privileges and all are equal in the eyes of the law.
This idea has inspired radical so cio-economic changes all over the world,
more so in America and European societies. Thanks to this concept,
‘citizenship’ issue has assumed enormous importance in modern world as
citizenship ensures equality to all citizens.
2.2 THE IDEA OF EQUALITY
When we discuss equality, we also have to reckon with its other side,
inequality. These ideas have been part of political thought and discussion
since many centuries. It is necessary to note that the concept of equality is
a ‘relative’ concept and is not a con stant concept. Equality is measured in
the context of the prevailing inequalities. The history of human societies is
full of inequalities. We find them mentioned and discussed in the works of
Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle’s ‘Politics’ discussed society di vided into
‘citizens’ and ‘slaves’. In a similar vein, the ancient Hindu scriptures
divided society into four varnas. The story of medieval times is no
different. In the medieval times too, special privileges were given to the
ruling classes, the nobles, t he kings and the queens. Not only this, the
philosoph ers of that era vehemently justified such inequalities as ‘natural
consequence’. Grounds like gender, race, wealth, military strength, etc.
were used to justify the unequal treatment to people.
It must be understood at the outset that it is not just a ‘legal concept’. It is
to be extended to political, social, cultural and economic spheres too. As
was observed by R H Tawney in his famous work ‘Equality’ published in
1938, ‘If liberty means…every individu al shall be free, according to his
opportunities, to indulge without limit his appetite…it is clearly
incompatible, not only with economic and social, but with civil and
political, equality, which also prevent the strong exploiting to the full the
advantag es of their strength… But freedom for the pike is death for the munotes.in
Page 15
15
minnows . It is possible that equality is contrasted, not with liberty , but
only with a particular interpretation of it’.
It is equally interesting to note the contradiction prevailing in mode rn
societies even today. While all societies have accepted the principle of
equality, in developed as well as developing societies, inequality prevails.
The status of African -Americans in USA as well as the status of Dalits in
Indian society is good exampl es of this contradiction.
2.2.1 Equality , a Modern Idea :
As noted above, though it has been is discussion since centuries, it has
acquitted a new dynamism in modern times. Now it has been hailed as an
idea for social change. Traditionally inequality was taken for granted and
was justified too. On the other hand, modern thinkers, with the advantage
of scientific discoveries, started questioning the ideological premises of
inequality. Under these modern challenges, the idea of inequality was
defeated ideologically. The first solid attack came from French
philosoph er J J Rousseau who in 1755 wrote ‘Discourse on the Origin of
Inequality’. He was the first scholar to distinguish between ‘natural
inequality’ and ‘conventional inequality’. Natural inequalities like height,
body strength, etc. are justified but not the conventional inequalities which
essentially man -made. Here Rousseau mentioned wealth, privileges, etc.
While the ‘natural inequalities’ are accepted by almost all societies, the
‘conventional inequalities’ were not accepted. After Rousseau book came
the Fr ench Declaration of Independence in 1799, which reinforced the idea
of equality.
Since then , the history of this idea of Equality has been quite encouraging
though full of struggles. The most important philosopher of 20th century
John Rawls wrote ‘Equality’ in 1971 in which he observed ‘it is when
men, or some of them, see…some inequalities as unjust and alterable that
equality as an idea becomes a potent force in political life…Before an
inequality can become the object of criticism and regarded as unjust it
would seem to be necessary condition that it should be alterable…But by
no means all alterable inequalities are thought to be unjust for, making due
allowance for the variety of standpoints as to what constitutes inju stice,
there are some inequalities which are accepted as socially useful, not to
say beneficial.’
2.2.2 Struggle for equality :
As noted above, inequality has been integral part of human history. But on
the other hand, struggles for equality has also been part of same history.
We have noted that the Greek philosophers like Plato had supported
inequality, slavery, etc. But in the same Western Political Thought, we
also find scholars like Zeno who had founded Stoic School and equally
vehemently supported equa lity among men. This school further argued
that humanity does not tolerate inequalities. Consequently, all men are
equal. During the days of Roman Empire, the issue of citizenship was of
enormous importance. For Plato, the citizenship should be birth -based and munotes.in
Page 16
16
be given to few slave -owners. But by 212 AD, the then Roman Emperor
Caracalla gave citizenship to all inhabitants of Roman Empire.
Next is to understand the struggle for equality and here we find that from
the fifth century to the fourteenth century, there were many struggles to
gain equality in all walks of life. During this era, the struggle was against
serfdom, social gradations, e tc. Then came the next stage which lasted
from the fifteenth century to seventeenth century. During these two
hundred years, struggle was against big land -lords, religious dogma and
intolerance. During Renaissance and Reformation, there were sharp and
intellectual attacks on inequality. The revolutions in UK of 1649 and 1688
and USA of 1778 had calls for equality among men.
Then arrived 20th century, the most important century for struggle for
equality. The Russian Revolution, 1917, Indian Freedom struggl e, 1947
was expressions of demand and struggle for equality. Finally came the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 [10th December every year
is celebrated as International Human Rights Day all over the world] .
2.3 EQUALITY: MULTI -DIMENSIONAL CONCEPT
As a concept, equality has many dimensions and each dimension assumed
importance during different stages of human history. Today it is accepted
that equality has following dimensions:
Legal Equality
Political Equality
Economic Equality
Social Equality
Each of these dimensions needs to be studied carefully.
2.3.1 Legal Equality:
When liberalism was the dominant philosophy, it sought equal enjoyment
of basic rights of life, liberty and property. It was dead against legal
privileges and demanded its abolition . In reality, it meant two issues:
firstly, rule of law and secondly, equality before law.
Further it must be understood that ‘rule of law’ means laws made in
society will be applicable to one and all. Nobody would be above law .
Then comes equality before law. It can further be fine-tuned into [1]
equality before law and [2] equal protection of law.
Here both these sub -themes are of paramount importance.
Historically laws made by Kings were NOT applicable to law. These laws
were for the people, not for law -maker who is King/Monarch. In modern
times, law -makers/legislatures are also subjected to law. Even the law -munotes.in
Page 17
17
makers have to abide by the laws made by them. It means equality of
rights and duties to be enjoyed by one and all.
Similarly, ‘equal protection of law’ entails equal protection to one and all,
without fear or favor . However, it does not mean ‘absolute equality’. It
also means that no discrimination on caste, creed, language, religion,
gender, etc. At the same time, what needs to be understood is that law, in
some special cases, can make ‘rational discrimination’. Take the case of
our Constitution. It talks of equality and yet provide for reservation for
SC/ST/OBC, which can appear discriminatory. Actually, this falls under
‘rational discriminations’, and hence is justified.
2.3.2 Political Equality :
History of human society informs us that ‘few’ have always rule the
‘many’. Those days, such inequality was justified on many grounds like
knowledge, birth, money, colour of skin, race, elite, etc.
With passage of time, these were questioned, challenged and in due course
gave way to modern democracy where ‘one head -one vote’ is the rule.
Now this has become the basic principle of political equality. The 20th
century political philosopher Prof Herold Laski had commented that
political equality means the authority which exerts power must be
governed by rules of democratic governance. This was well accepted.
However, in modern times, realization is dawning that it is not that simple
and there are complications inherent here. Modern governments have
become highly complex machines where the real power is with
bureaucrats and techn ocrats. These are the institutio ns over which ordinary
people have no control. Neither are they accountable to pe ople. This
reality puts tons and tons of constraints on ordinary citizens. And yet, the
basic reality still prevails which is about equality of people in the eyes of
the law a nd equality about the right to governance.
2.3.3 Economic Equality:
This is the unique gift of twentieth century political thought and more so
the Russian Revolution, 1917. It brought into discussion the economic
aspect of equality. Post-Industrial Revolution, the gap between the rich
and the poor widened immensely. Now the discussion is not only about
‘equality of opportunity’ but also about using another equally significant
rule of distribution and it is about equality of satisfacti on about of basic
needs .
Over a period of time, this dimension of equality too underwent significant
changes. For early Liberal thinkers, economic equality had limited scope.
It covered only equality of choosing one’s own trade or vocation
irrespective of caste, religion, language, etc. In due course, this was found
to be insufficient. Now economic equality concerns with apportionment of
goods. For this to become reality, concepts like minimum wages, munotes.in
Page 18
18
unemployment allowance, free public schooling, free publ ic health
services, etc. are needed.
2.3.4 Social Equality:
This is also new dimension of concept of equality. It covers equality of
opportunity for every person for the development of his personality. In
Indian context, it means abolition of caste system. It dreams of creating a
just society where there shall be no discrimination of the grounds of caste,
creed, religion, language, race, etc. Even in 21st century, the Dalits in India
face caste -related violence and discrimination while African -Americ an in
USA had to start ‘Black lives Matter’ movement. In May 2020, George
Floyd [age: 46], an African -American was killed in broad day light by
white Police officers.
Then there is the issue of gender equality. It is proved today that despite
physical an d psychological differences between male and female, there is
no evidence that women are inferior to men in intelligence, business
acumen, etc. This is precisely why in many parts of the world; ‘equal pay
for equal work’ is an accepted principle. Women emp owerment should not
only be in law, it must also change the age -old equations in marital
relations.
It is surprising to note that ‘education’ is the field where discrimination
between male and female prevails the most. Even in advanced countries
like USA and US, higher education can be afforded only by the rich class.
Such elitism further enhances the social gap. Hence the final aim should
be to create an ‘ unratified society’.
2.4 HOW TO ACHIEVE EQUALITY?
Research analysis tells us that societies all over the world are unequal .
Whether we take feudal era or we take capitalistic era, the issue of
inequality was always present. If during feudalism, birth -related privileges
prevailed, during capitalism, property -related privileges prevail.
Consequently, human history is full of struggles to gain equality.
However, there is a conceptual debate that needs to be addressed at this
stage. It is noticed that there is paradoxical relationship between personal
liberty and soci al equality.
Learning to live with this contradiction, many advanced democracies have
achieved ‘equality of opportunities’ and have also managed to achieve to a
large extent ‘equality of conditions’. But they have a long way to achieve
‘equality of result s’. One can notice the gradual development of universal
provision for basic education, health and social security. These did achieve
‘equality of conditions’. Similarly in production process, many
achievements need to be listed, for example, minimum wages, limited
working hours, legal protection to working class, etc.
munotes.in
Page 19
19
In addition to benefits listed above, the modern industrial societies offer
some unique features like high level of mobility which in turn makes the
traditional rules non-implementable. Take the case of patriarchy. With
times, many women have joined workforce which in turn has diluted
patriarchal authority. Similarly with migration came rise of nuclear family.
This has drastically changed the status of women in modern society. This
has led to emergence of modern egalitarianism.
This is why modern societies offer a picture full of contradictions. On one
hand, we find many inequalities. On the other hand, there are trends which
show us the prevalence of equality. One finds more and more awarenes s of
justice, a necessary feature of all social relations. The supporters of
inequality have a hard time defending their positions. Similarly,
democracies offer institutional control over a set of injustices and
inequalities. Then there are social movement s like Medha Patkar -led
Narmada Bachao Aandolan [NBA] which has forced all to take notice of
environment and its continued degradation. Similarly , the feminist
movement has spread awareness about gender equality and gender justice.
2.5 MARXIST PERSPECTIVE ON EQUALITY
Like on many other issues, Marx had given us a completely different
perspective on Equality. In Marxist philosophy, ‘equality is nothing but
abolition of classes and equal status for all’. To understand the difference
between the Marxist per spective and other perspectives, one needs to
know other perspectives in a nutshell. As we know in a liberal society,
equality means ‘equality before law’. It also means the liberal perspective
on equality does not take into account economic exploitation, political
inequality, etc. Liberal perspective also grants every person to hold private
property, but it does not talk about production relations. On other hand,
Marxist perspective begins with abolition of private property as without
this, no real equali ty is possible. After abolition of private property only,
all round development of human personality is possible.
It is necessary to connect the demand for equality in human history with
the then prevailing socio -economic conditions. The bourgeois demand for
equality had risen during the high noon of feudalism. Similarly, when
capitalism and capitalist state were reigning supreme, similar demand was
raised. The answer, in Marxist thought is, the collectivizing the means of
production.
Though this was more in theory, it suddenly became a practical issue after
the Russian Revolution, 1917. Lenin explained that since Russian socialist
system retains some elements of social inequalities due to inadequate
development of material production, these inequalities w ill continue even
during the early phases of Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
The next issue about equality in post -revolution Russia needs to mention
the Constitution of the USSR. It had specifically established equality of munotes.in
Page 20
20
rights for Soviet citizens in all walks of life like social, political, cultural,
etc. The overall policies of Soviet state were tilted in favors of gaining
equality. In due course came the contradiction. The USSR had launched
industrialization on a massive scale which in turn needed s cientists,
engineers, and technocrats in a big number. At times these trained
personnel were paid 30 times higher salary than the ordinary worker. By
1930s, a new class structure was in place.
Slowly and steadily, the party had come to dominate all sphe res of Soviet
life. The government structure had become highly centralized and
authoritarian. The entire system was tightly controlled by the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union [CPSU]. No wonder the whole thing collapsed
like a pack of cards in 1990s.
2.6 EQUALITY AND LIBERTY
The relationship between these two concepts has always been debatable.
They could be complimentary as well as contradictory. The principle of
liberty suggests ‘equal’ freedom to all. It must be ensured that freedom of
the strong s hould not destroy the freedom of the weak. Failing which it
will be the negation of liberty of the weak.
The early scholars of Liberalism were convinced that liberty and equality
are poles apart and are opposed to each other. The scholars of Classical
Liberalism argued that liberty quite important than equality. Locke,
Bentham, Mill were convinced that there should be minimum restrictions
of liberty. It is interesting to note that Locke covered three rights are
natural rights, which were life, liberty and private property. He did not add
equality in this list. Those scholars further argued that demand for equality
reduces the scope of liberty. This political position had supporters even in
20th century. Bagehot, Hayek, Milton Freedman, etc. were new exponents
of classical liberty. If you try to achieve equality, you end up destroying
liberty, has the main thread of their argument. In short, liberty and equality
are at loggers -head and are highl y incompatible.
On the other hand, some scholars argue that liberty and equality are not
only highly compatible, they need each other. These scholars became
known as Positive Liberals. Some important names are Rousseau,
Hobhouse, T H Green, Barker and Las ki. These scholars saw individual as
a social being whose personal desires could be satisfied in the context of
cooperative social relationship. They further explained ‘liberty’ as
‘equality of opportunity’ which means opportunity should be given to all
to realize his or her true potential. And to provide such opportunities to all,
some conscious restraints need to be placed on liberty of individual.
Similarly, liberty insists that nobody should be placed at the mercy of
others. By ensuring opportunities fo r all, liberty makes equality real. It
also means without liberty, equality lapses into dull uniformity.
munotes.in
Page 21
21
Further, the Positive Liberals did not agree that state control in socio -
economic sphere will automatically lead to authori tarianism. In reality the
liberal legislations passed by the state enhances the liberty of people by
making them available many opportunities. Social legislations supporting
employment, medical facilities, provident fund, and free education are
passed to ensure more and more liberty to the citizens. Scholars like
Eduard Gans commented that ‘there is no inherent conflict between
Liberty and Equality.
2.7 SUMMARY
Equality is about ensuring that every individual has an equal opportu nity
to make the most of their lives and talents. It is also the belief that no one
should have poorer life chances because of the way they were born, where
they come from, what they believe, or whether they have a disability.
Equality of treatment is gua rantee to society that no matter where an
individual belongs with respect to age, sex, religion, caste and race they
shall be treated as equals.
2.8 UNIT END QUESTION S
1. Explain the idea of equality of rights
2. Discuss the concept of equality in democracy
3. Put your views on Equality of treatments vs. treatment as equals
4. Write and describe about any two fundamental rights of Indian
constitution which advocates the equality in India
5. Short note on Dimensions of Equality?
***** munotes.in
Page 22
22
MODULE - III
3
JUSTICE
Unit Structure
3.0 Objective
3.1 Justice as fairness - John Rawls
3.1.1 Introduction to Concept of Justice
3.1.2 Utilitarianism
3.1.3 Social Contract
3.1.4 Difference Principle and Notion of Equality
3.2 Justice as entitlement - Robert Nozick, Amartya Sen
3.2.1 Justice as Entitlement Robert Nozick
3.2.2 Justice as Entitlement Amartya Sen
3.3 Justice as Embedded -Michael Sandels and Iris Young
3.3.1 Iris Young
3.4 Summary
3.5 Unit End Question s
3.0 OBJECTIVE
To understand the idea of justice
To understand the Justice in Social and Political perspective
To evaluate the concept of justice through western thinkers
3.1 JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS - JOHN RAWLS
3.1.1 Introduction to Concept of Justice :
John Rawls’s ideas on Justice have been discussed in his A Theory of
Justice (1971). This work was considered as the most influential
contribution in political philosophy, since post second world war. It
continues to be central to any discussion on Justice. Using the contractual
approach, he developed a liberal theory of justice. It attempted to combine
new egalitarianism to protect individual liberty. His work revived what is
known as ‘The Classical Tradition’ in political theory. In keeping with the
Socratic Method’, after several deliberations and criticisms, Rawls, revised
some of its arguments, while retaining the chief principles of his theory.
Thus, this seminal work began a series of discussions on Justice, mainly as
a response to Rawls’s book, A Theory of Justice.
The theory appeared in the background of various movements in United
States of America of the 1960s and 70s. These movements, including the
Anti-Vietnam War campaign, the Black Rights Movement and others munotes.in
Page 23
23
raised fundamental questions about indi vidual and minority rights in the
USA. It included issues of just and unjust wars and of social justice in
policy making and its implementation of democratic liberties and
constitutional rights. This provided reasons for finding out permanent or
long-term principles of justice in a democratic society. For Rawls, a
democratic society and a just society were identical, in other words, one
could not be imagined without the other. He declared that his theory was
based on fairness of procedures followed in a soc iety. In simple words, he
stated that if the procedures set by the institutions of society were fair and
just then the outcomes of the functioning of such institutions will lead to
justice …”
Rawls believed that the procedures or rules decided for the most important
institutions in society led to injustice or justice. He went on to demonstrate
that under carefully determined conditions, rational decision makers will
instinctively choose a set of rules or principles that would lead to
distributive justice or justice that would lead to fair outcomes that are
acceptable to all humans.
As a theory of Social Justice, Rawls emphasised that any distancing or
dilution from equality can be tolerated only if leads to justice or fair
outcomes. He refused to allow the market rules to control or dominate
policy making and citizens choices. On the contrary, he argued that the
market or economic system should be subjected to or its influence to
controlled by regulating it as per requirements of social justice. He thus,
favoured the idea that skills, talents, etc cannot be grounds for treating
humans as unequal. Rather, special talents, for Rawls, were a result of
social advantages and hence should be utilised to help the disadvantaged
sections of society.
3.1.2 Utilitaria nism :
Rawls’s ides upheld liberty and mutual reciprocity as the central values in
society. Hence, he developed his theory, by criticising Utilitarianism. This
18th century philosophical tradition dominated political theory and
philosophy in the western countries. Rawls criticised Utilitarianism as it
ignored the distinctions between individuals when it declared its aim as
‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’. This maxim was based on a
faulty assumption that all humans were alike and that their happiness was
the same at least that of a majority of people were supposed to have
identical needs. And ideally justice will be achieved if decisions and
policies favour a large number of individuals. But for Rawls, this
amounted to treating individuals as means to achieve something else.
Hence, he argued that justice as fairness meant treating individuals not as
means but as ends in themselves. This involved acknowledgin g the fact
that humans are distinct and have different needs and wants. For Rawls,
justice involved securing liberties and rights of individuals without
compromise or dilution to some greater cause like ‘happiness of the
greatest number’.
munotes.in
Page 24
24
3.1.3 Social Con tract :
Rawls theory of justice was founded on the 17th-18th century Theory of
Social Contract. With Rawls, social contract theory was revived in the 20th
century as he founded his justice theory on the former theory first
developed in 17th-18th century. However, he used it for a completely
different purpose unlike the 18th contra ctualist s who used it to explain the
importance and nature of state and sovereignty. He utilised the contract
theory to explain the origins of the principles of justice.
Similar to the imaginative concept of ‘State of nature’ in the contract
theory, Rawls stated that the principles of Justice were also an outcome of
the original contract or agreement. He referred to this original contract as
‘Original Position’. Further , he imagined that persons in his ‘state of
nature’ or pre contract stage or original position were rational beings,
endowed with a sense of justice and conception of good. They were
capable, as rational decision makers, to follow self-interests , and had f air
understanding of good along with sense of justice. Hence, they were also
capable to enter into an agreement and abide by it. Rawls believed that
these persons had similar needs and interests, equal in capacities and were
moral and independent, thus, en suring mutually beneficial cooperation.
Rawls firmly believed in mutually cooperative nature of society. Hence,
human cooperation was possible amongst all members as they possessed
similar aims and needs. This made them willing to cooperate for mutual
benefit.
Further, Rawls developed the concept of ‘Veil of Ignorance’ as part of his
‘Original Position’ . It was another imaginative device that meant the
assumption that those in the original position lacked of in-depth
knowledge about certain things. It me ant that the contracting parties were
ignorant about their economic and social position, their own natural
capacities, and the general economic and political situation of their
society.
However, along with this lack of knowledge, Rawls states that the
mem bers had a basic understanding of politics and economics as well as
human psychology.
Rawls refers to two main principles in his theory. According to him, the
question of justice involved:
1) The economic system ; and
2) Social system; as part s of basic structure of a society .
These determine the aspirations and needs of the citizens and also lay
down the institutional framework for fulfilling the present and future
wants and dreams of the citizens. Thus, basic structure as per Rawls, was
suppo sed to provide necessary conditions that enable fulfilment of citizens
needs and aspirations. This leads to his two principles of Justice that were munotes.in
Page 25
25
an outcome of the deliberations in the ‘Original Position’. The same will
now be discussed below:
The first , called the Principle of Equal Liberty. It secured the fundamental
civil and political liberties including freedom of speech, right to vote and
to property and freedom from arbitrary arrest.
The second principle called the difference principle involved distribution
of income and wealth and also of power and authority in social
organisations. Following suggestions and criticisms , Rawls reformulated
the liberty principle and stated that any limi ts on liberty were justified only
if they were required to prevent unjust inequality or to the advantage of
those how their liberties restricted. His emphasis on fair equality of
opportunities aimed to remove the disadvantages imposed by both natural
endow ments and social conditions.
As far as his first principle is concerned, Liberty was of utmost importance
to Rawls conception of Justice. Hence, he referred to a list of liberties
instead of defining the concept of liberty. List of liberties, he argued we re
fundamentally important for a justice -based society. For Rawls, Liberty
meant the entire set of freedoms that lead to equal citizenship. On the
other hand, Rawls added that Liberty, different from the worth of liberties
of freedoms, was the capacities o f persons or groups to achieve their aims
within the institutional framework established by society.
Rawls further stated that constitutional democracy was a prerequisite for
achieving justice as it ensured equal participation and thus upheld
principle of equal liberty. Constitutional democracy involved
representative and accountable legislature, free and fair elections,
guaranteed liberties. In addition, adequate tax revenues and publicly
funded elections as well as separation of powers, checks and balanc es, bill
of rights with judicial review were all related to equal political liberty.
3.1.4 Difference Principle and Notion of Equality :
Along with Liberty, Rawls also emphasises the principle of equality in his
aim to establish a just society. Under the Difference Principle, he rejected
the notion of desert or merit or natural talents and special skills as worthy
of special shar of resourc es or important place in distribution. He argued
that special skills or natural talents at birth are mere natural facts and are
unevenly distributed in society. Hence such merit or desert do not deserve
a larger share of resources or special rewards. Inste ad, he stated that such
natural gifts should be utilised to help the least disadvantaged sections of
society.
The uniqueness of Rawls formulation was that it justified inequality or
special rewards only if it benefitted the most disadvantaged sections of
society. It was his search for permanent standards of justice in context of
relatively prosperous and democratic societies that led him to develop a
theory of justice. munotes.in
Page 26
26
For Rawls, the problem of justice was mainly a problem of distribution. It
concerned the fair distribution of essential things necessary for a good life
i.e., rights, liberties, powers and opportunities, income and wealth and
means of self -respect and so on. He argued that increasing happiness of
the privileged cannot be used as a remedy to r educe the sufferings of the
disadvantaged sections in society. He invoked the idea of the ‘chain
connection’ that implies identifying the weakest link of a chain and
strengthening it and to then going on to the next weakest link. It is through
this process that the entire chain gets strengthened. By the ‘chain
connection’ he implied that it is necessary to strengthen the most
disadvantaged in society if the whole society is to be healthy and strong.
Conclusion :
Rawls is credited for having restored the concept of Justice to the centre of
political debate. He revived the grand old style of political theorising that
was identified with the classical tradition. Another fact that points to
underlines the importance of his theory is that it was subjected to c ritical
evaluation from diverse range of critics. The theory was central to
discussions on political theory for at least the next thirty years after it was
published in 1971. In sum, as far as his Theory of Justice is concerned,
Rawls remained the most im portant liberal theorist in the post Second
World War era.
3.2 JUSTICE AS ENTITLEMENT - ROBERT NOZICK, AMARTYA SEN
3.2.1 Justice as Entitlement Robert Nozick :
Robert Nozick’s views on justice are a strong defence of the minimal state
within the libertarian tradition. Referred to as entitlement theory, h e
advances his theory as an alternative to Rawls theory of justice. Nozick’s
theory is categorised as purely procedural theory of distributive justice. It
is based on three aspects of property, namely, original acquisition,
secondly, its transfer and thirdly, its transfer and related issues. In contrast
to this, Rawls does not consider special entitlements like acquired
property, while Nozick’s entitlement theory argues that individuals are to
be rewarded as per merit or entitlement. In other words, the entitlement
theory of Nozick focusses on how people have acquired or transferred
property will decide the reward they get.
Nozic k’s theory implies that the if the procedures are followed in order to
acquire property or other goods, then the resultant distribution is fair and
based on justice. For him, protection of individual freedoms is more
important than equality. In other words , liberty cannot be compromised to
ensure egalitarian society. Further, he criticises equality of opportunity as
wrong or unfair mainly because it violates liberty of those from whom
resources are taken to help those who do not have them/own them. Such
redistribution, for him amounted to violations of justice if the original
holders of property had acquired it through fair means. He rejects munotes.in
Page 27
27
government intervention to maintain equality as it destroys freedom,
because desire for envy is a result of resentment and based on prejudice.
As far as acquisition of property is concerned, Nozick states that as long as
ownership of property does not lead to worsening of condition of others,
there is nothing wrong in it. In this manner, he advocates natural right to
private property as long as it is available to everyone. Unlike John Locke,
Nozick imagines individual property rights as a product of power.
He allows correction of past injustices in acquiring and transferring
property through the temporary redistribution. This is intended to improve
the position of the least advantaged section of society. This is advanced by
Nozick as an alternative to social ist measures and welfare -based schemes.
Similar to John Rawls, Nozick criticises utilitarianism for neglecting
individual differences, however , the later also questions the social nature
of individuals, and hence prefers individuals over groups. Through this he
also argues against the Rawlsian argument that the privileged enter into
cooperation for the benefit of the least advantaged sections of society. In
other words, he states that those with higher talents are bound to rule over
the less privileged in dividuals. Any imposition of limits on social
cooperation on account of fairness would lead to benefit to the already
privileged. Hence, he is against the Rawlsian theory that demands
increase in the state activities, as it is the opposite of what a minim alist
state stands for. On the question of worth or whether an individual
deserves a certain thing or not, Nozick equates desert with entitlement and
believes that as long as individuals acquire things, goods, property etc in a
lawful manner, the worthines s of the individual does not matter. In other
words, there is no difference between worthiness and entitlement claim
over property by an individual as long as the same is by legitimate means
or methods. In this manner, his entitlement theory rules out any
interference from state as required by redistributionist theory of justice.
Even though, Nozick attempts to speak for all humans, he clearly comes
out as an ardent supporter of free market society that benefits only the
wealthy and powerful. On the other hand, it leaves the less privileged on
their own, while the rich are left to enjoy limitless privileges. In this sense,
he is a status quoist, who wants to maintain the prevalent wealth inequality
and call it as justice. Collecting taxes from the rich for welfare of the poor
is considered as theft or exploitation of the privileged. Helping the least
advantaged should be a voluntary act and not by social justice
interventions by the state. Thus, Nozick’s theory rejects any claim that the
free market itself c ould create injustice.
3.2.2 Justice as Entitlement Amartya Sen :
Amartya Sen’s theory is based on his key idea that economic and political
rights are interlinked and organically connected. Hence, according to him,
deprivation is an outcome of absence of entitlements. Starvation is not due
to scarcity of food, but due to absence of entitlement of the poor to food as munotes.in
Page 28
28
seen during famine s in British India. In such places, the poor suffer
starvation more due to governmental policy rather than lack of food
supply. In other words, the poor are denied entitlement to food supply that
is available, yet inaccessible mainly due to authoritarian governments.
Sen also brings in entitlement in his views on gender. Using gender data,
he demonstrates that in poorer regions of the world, a woman to men ratio
suffers mainly because the former lack economic freedom. Hence, they
also lack independence to assert their ent itlement to food and other basic
needs. Therefore, due to preference for male child, girls are neglected
within the family and thus their chances of survival till adulthood also
suffer.
More importantly, for us, Sen has argued that ideas of Reason, Libert y and
Justice do not belong only to the West. Ancient Indian texts also have
references to value s like Justice or Nyaya. In short, such values are
universal in characteristic and apply to all humanity without
discrimination.
In his The Idea of Justice (20 09), he discusses the Indian understanding of
Social Justice and Rationality. He deliberates on the wider problem of
global justice, something that was not much discussed in Rawls Theory of
Justice.
Like most critics of Rawls, Sen argues against the idea of Justice as a
product of contractual agreement. This is because it includes only those
who deliberated and entered into the social contract. In effect, this means
that the foreigners, future generations who were not part of it are excluded
from it. Impor tantly, for Sen, this is a problematic basis for Justice, while
the details of within the contract may not be important.
Sen criticism of Rawls justice theory, uniquely stands out due to the fact
that he believes that it is nor essential nor simple to dev elop a universal
Theory of Justice, one that can apply across time and place. In fact, Sen
argues that several theories of Justice are possible simultaneously due to
pluralistic character of the modern world. Further, while formulating
concept of Justice, his emphasis is on evaluating different and their
outcomes on justice, rather than finding an ideal theory. Thus, for him it is
more about comparing policies in order to establishment justice in the
society.
Sen criticises Rawls’s theory for neglecting th e impact of actual human
behaviour in just outcomes or social justice. In his ‘The Idea of Justice’
Sen also discusses the notion of social choice. Based on his welfare
economics, he argues that for any policy to be based on Justice, it should
involve a r easonable concern for interests of others.
Further, he invokes the human capabilities approach and looks at
democratic decision making by discussions, instead of mere regular munotes.in
Page 29
29
elections and resultant government formation. In simple words, he
emphasises su bstantive democracy instead of procedural or electoral
democracy. He also makes a strong case for the need of global aspect to
justice.
He calls for us to engage in deliberations on justice, by actual comparisons
of policies and examine claims of impartia lity and fairness. Instead of
focusing on procedures and rules, it is more important to focus on the
social order and their general impact on justice. Such discussions should
also be more global in outlook. While also taking into consideration that
there a re multiple ways of doing things, especially given the fact that the
modern world is essentially pluralistic in character.
3.3 JUSTICE AS EMBEDDED -MICHAEL SANDELS AND IRIS YOUNG
3.3.1 Iris Young :
Iris Young has taken a broad view of John Rawls theory and his critics to
argue that all these critics lack grounding in theory. According to her, all
these theories are based on understanding Justice as a problem of
distribution. What is common all critic s of Rawls theory of justice is that
they look at the question of justice as an outcome of distribution of rights
and goods etc in society. For Young, this faulty way of dealing with the
question of justice, and the right way is to look at the issue as ari sing out
of institutional arrangements and relations of power and domination in
society. She advocates the use of Jurgen Habermas’s concept of ‘Ideal
Speech Situation’ to develop a theoretical framework for justice.
Habermas’s ideal speech situation help s develop a theoretical framework
that focuses on more significant questions of institutional relations and
domination. Young traces back such a conception of Justice back to Plato
that provides an alternative understanding of Justice. She objects to two
things in the distributive justice view: one that it creates conceptual
confusions; and second, it wrongly focuses on outcomes of existing
institutional forms and relations. In sum, she maintains that questions of
distribution are crucial for social justice . But there are other questions that
deserve importance; those are of structure of power and decision making
and its outcomes for justice.
While comparing ideal speech situation with Rawls’s Original Position,
Young points out that the similarities as wel l as strong differences between
the two. What makes the original position problematic is the fact that in
emphasising the distribution of rights, liberties amongst members of
society, it ignores the very institutions, institutional relations and relations
of power that allocate these goods and lead to injustice of justice.
Another serious charge that Young levels on distributive theories of justice
is their lack of substantial and historically grounded understanding of munotes.in
Page 30
30
justice. For her, it very important t hat the historically specificity be
considered while advancing the framework for justice. Habermas’s
conception of ideal speech situation should be applied to actual situations
in order to lead to substantive theory of justice.
The logical problem here is that claims to a universal and objective theory
of justice in reality represent interests and values of the powerful or
dominant class. This leads to an assumption that a rationally oriented and
firmly grounded theory of justice is not possible. However, here
Habermas’s conception of ideal speech resolves this dilemma of retaining
universality of principles of justice and at the same time being readily
applicable to specific circumstances.
Embedded in the communications theory, the ideal speech situation has a
universal nature due to its insistence on formality of interests and values of
the speakers involved. In turn, such universality provides a firm grounding
to theory of justice while retaining its distance from specific local
circumstances.
However, the ideal speech situation is too formal and abstract to be
applied as a neutral standard of justice. Recognising this limitation, Young
introduces material considerations that are defined by the actual social
circumstances. Though this is similar to Rawl s’ original position, yet those
in the ideal speech situation, have the correct knowledge of the levels of
resources available in their society. In other words, they know what is the
level of material and social goods that are to be distributed in the soci ety.
This approach, rather than arriving at a single idea of a just society, makes
it possible, as many principles of justice as there are specific
circumstances in society. Therefore, it allows us to think that is not
possible to have one substantive fra mework of justice that applies to a
multitude of societies. Thus, it identifies the sources of domination and
also proposes an alternative way of organising society that does not have
unequal power relations amongst its members.
Young illustrates her argu ments by referring to the feminist’s standpoint
on the issue of women’s oppression due to child bearing and rearing. This
ideal speech situation is in regard of advanced industrial country. So, the
question of justice, here ideally involves creating a soci ety that is free
from domination and resultant exploitation. In this regard, it is possible to
ask how we create a just society that does not have any place for
domination of one over the other. In an ideal speech situation, a
discussion on such an issue should involve all women, men and children in
society debating the issue of cr eating a dominance free society, this too
within limits of reciprocity, equality and freedom from dominance.
munotes.in
Page 31
31
3.4 SUMMARY
Justice as fairness is been discuss by John Rawls’s ideas on Justice in his
A Theory of Justice (1971). The idea included issues of just and unjust
wars and of social justice in policy making and its implementation of
democratic liberties and constitutiona l rights. Rawls criticised
Utilitarianism as it ignored the distinctions between individuals when it
declared its aim as ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’. Rawls
firmly believed in mutually cooperative nature of society. Hence, human
cooperation was possible amongst all members as they possessed similar
aims and needs. This made them willing to cooperate for mutual benefit.
Robert Nozick’s views on justice are a strong defence of the minimal state
within the libertarian tradition. Referred to a s entitlement theory, he
advances his theory as an alternative to Rawls theory of justice. Nozick’s
theory is categorised as purely procedural theory of distributive justice.
But Nozick’s theory rejects any claim that the free market itself could
create in justice.
Iris Young has taken a broad view of John Rawls theory and his critics to
argue that all these critics lack grounding in theory. According to her, all
these theories are based on understanding Justice as a problem of
distribution. This approach, rather than arriving at a single idea of a just
society, makes it possible, as many principles of justice as there are
specific circumstances in society. Therefore, it allows us to think that is
not possible to have one substantive framework of justice tha t applies to a
multitude of societies.
3.5 UNIT END QUESTION S
1. Write the Note on Justice as fairness
2. Explain the idea of justice in social contract theory
3. Describe the concept justice as entitlement
4. Write on Iris young’s idea of justice
*****
munotes.in
Page 32
32
MODULE IV
4
COERCION AND CONSENT
(POWER, AUTHORITY, LEGITIMACY
AND HEGEMONY)
Unit Structure
4.0 Objective
4.1 Introduction to Power
4.2 Power: Definition and Meaning
4.3 Forms of Power
4.4 Faces of Power
4.5 Meaning of Authority
4.6 Types of Authority
4.7 Hegemony
4.8 Legitimation
4.9 Perspectives on Legitimacy
4.10 Legitimation Process
4.11 Summary
4.12 Unit End Questions
4.13 Reference s
4.0 OBJECTIVES
To understand and analyze the nature , features of Power and
Authority
To understand and analyze the meaning, feature of Legitimacy
To understand and analyze the nature and feature of Hegemony
4.1 INTRODUCTION TO POWER
Power is considered to be the central element of politics and it can be
argued that without power politics is purely theoretical activity. A student
of political science is always interested in the phenomena of power. The
famous political scientist Harold Lasswell defined politics as ‘who gets
what, when and how’. His definition of politics raises the question of
power as to who will decide the distribution of resources and values in the
society. Power may take different forms like economic, ideological an d
political, related and it is linked to authority and its legitimacy? munotes.in
Page 33
33
The unequal distribution of values, prestige, preferences, and resources
reflected the nature of power. Power has both normative and empirical
dimensions. The normative dimension gives moral or ethical reason for the
fair or unfair distribution of power whereas empirical dimension describes
the actual process of operation of power. A pluralist th inker will assume
that power is fairly distributed among the different sections of the societ y
and every group has equal access to power and can fulfil their demands
from the state. An elite theorist would challenge the above position and
claim that power distribution in society is shared by the elites and the
masses do not have similar channels o f access. A democrat will demand
for rule of law and government by consent as a way to prevent
concentration of power in the hands of few groups or people. A Marxist
thinker will argue that power is a means of class dominance because
power in the capitalis t society is concentrated in the hands of capitalist
class and politics is always a means to retain power by capitalist. Feminist
thinkers contend that politics traditionally has been the domain of men
because of patriarchy that subordinated the position o f women to the
household. In their view, patriarchy is a form of oppressive power that has
curtailed the freedom and liberty of women.
4.2 POWER: DEFINITION AND MEANING
Bertrand Russell says power is ‘the production of intended effects ’
Keith Dowding defines power as ‘the ability of an actor to bring about or
help bring about outcomes’
Max Weber described power as ‘the probability that a command with a
specific content will be obeyed by a given group of persons’
Talcott Parson defines power as ‘the capacity to mobilize the resources of
society for the attainment of goals for which a general public commitment
. . . may be made’.
Nicos Poulantzas defines power as ‘the capacity of a social class to realise
its specific objective interests.’
4.3 FORMS OF POWER
Power manifests in multiple ways and it has various elements through
which it asserts itself in the society. We will understand power in three
different forms.
Political Power :
Power is a feature of the political system, In democratic system power
rests in the masses. Fundamental rights, federal polity, separation of
power, independent judiciary are institutional means to fragment power.
The free and fair elections are mechanisms given to the citizens to elect
the government of their choice. On the contrary, in a dictatorship, power is munotes.in
Page 34
34
concentrated in the hands of the dictator or party or military. At the
international level it is said power operates through anarchy as there is no
centralized authority. The sovereign states a re considered as independent
and rational actors. Power is a highly contested concept in politics as its
nature, function and modality varies in temporal and spatial dimension.
Traditionally, political power is linked with sovereignty. In the 16th and
17th century the divine right theory rested on the premise that monarchy is
the embodiment of sovereign power. Thinkers like Thomas Hobbes
challenged the traditional theories of monarchy and stated that power is
dispersed among the individuals. The individua ls in the pre social and pre
political epoch had equal power due to which there was constant warfare.
Finally, the state was created by social contract to establish peace.
Thinkers like John Locke and later Jean Rousseau argued that sovereignty
rests with the people and the ruler will continue to rule as long as it enjoys
the consent of the governed. Rousseau’s idea of popular sovereignty
became widespread after the French Revolution
The American revolution of 1776 brought forth the idea of separation of
power and checks and balances. It means the three branches of legislature,
executive and judiciary function separately, and each will keep a check on
the other. The underlying logic was to prevent the concentration of power
in one single institution.
Econ omic power :
Economic power is located in the material resourc es and related to the
means of production, distribution, and it’s regulation. In modern times the
concept of market exemplifies economic p ower as it is the principle of
production, supply and distribution of goods in the state and society. The
industrialists, rich agri culturist farmers, traders and big business have
economic power because they own and control the means of production.
Karl Marx argued that the class that owns the means of pro duction
exercises real power in the modern society. In the age of capitalism the
capitalist class owns the means of production, and therefore it also
exercises economic power. The state in the Marxist analysis serves the
interests of the capitalist and bo urgeoisie. The latter class systematically
exploits the working class. The workers cannot seek help from the state
because the state exists to serve the interests of the capitalist society. The
solution, for Marx, lies in revolution by the working class an d followed by
the establishment of communist society. In communism private property
will be abolished and all economic means of production will be owned by
the society. Wealth will be equally distributed in society. Although Marx's
prediction of communist society has not been realized except in the form
of communist state (in former Soviet Union or China), across the world
many democratic states followed the welfare programme for its citizens. In
the welfare state a large segment of the economic activities known as the
public sector is run by the state. It is assumed that the market alone cannot
remove poverty and bring prosperity in the society. munotes.in
Page 35
35
The libertarian on the other hand has questioned the role of the state in the
economic sphere. F. A. Hayek and M ilton Friedman have argued t hat the
role of the state in the economic sphere of power threatens the rights of the
individual. Libertarians demand that economic freedom is essential and
call for elimination of any role of the State in controlling or directi ng
economic activity. Hayek says that state intervention in the economy
distorts the market. The individual choices in the market are destroyed by
the state intervention. Friedman also argues individual economic liberty
provides a guarantee against any ex cesses of political power.
Cultural power :
Culture plays an important role in the life of an individual and community
Culture provides a world view to understand, interpret, analyses and
experience the material and nonmaterial objects. Cultural objects include
form of utterances, interactions, pictures, songs, narratives, rituals etc.
Power plays an important role in the shaping of cultural objects. Cultural
objects are present in var ious forms of social organizations and practices
like family, community, association, religions, ethnicity and language.
The close connection between power and culture was analyzed in the
works of Max Webe r at the beginning of the 20th century. In the early
1970s with the work of Pierre Bourdieu and Michel Foucault closely
examined the interrelationship culture and power relationships in modern
society. Antonio Gramsci's notion of hegemony explored the role of
culture in generating domin ant ideas of the capitalist class that are
internalized by the working class, resulting in the perpetuation of class
inequalities.
In modern time’s communication, speech, symbols, ideas are loaded with
cultural power. Culture hierarchies define the param eters that further
intensify social discrimination. A dominant group in the society may
impose its cultural values on the minority groups, robbing them of
opportunities and access to material and nonmaterial goods. Since cultural
power is highly invisible, it's difficult to detect and assess the impact it has
on society.
4.4 FACES OF POWER
In the above section we learnt how power may exhibit in different forms.
Every society and state has all forms of power that are mentioned above,
though its scope and nature may differ. In some capitalist countries
economic and political power may be dominant whereas in dictatorial
regimes political power is given priority over economic, social and
cultural power. In the age of globalization driven by information
techn ology, cultural power plays an important role. It takes the forms of
images, videos, symbols, messages etc. It is important to know the actual
operation of power. Is it possible to observe how power flows like water
or is it invisible like the water curren ts? This brings into picture what is munotes.in
Page 36
36
called the face of power. In other words, it's the debate of how power
actually operates in modern society.
Power as Decision Making :
The first face of power is known as decision -making. It is the ability to get
other s to do something that they would not otherwise do. Power is seen as
an empirical phenomenon having two components. First are the decision
makers and second are on whom the decisions are imposed. It is possible
to identify the places or sites where decisio ns are made like parliament,
councils and international organizations. Second it is possible to observe
on whom decisions are imposed like citizens, foreigners, regions, world
public etc.
Robert Dahl and Nelson Polsby discussed the concept of power as
decision -making in the academic debates that came to be known as the
community power debates. Dahl defines power as A has power over B to
the extent that he can get B to do something that B Dahl depicted his
‘intuitive idea of power’ as ‘something like This: A has power over B to
the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise
do’. This concept of power i s popular among the pluralists who conceive
the state has an open field where different groups can compete for their
interest. For the pluralist political activities is based on free and fair
competition for all. This idea of power has been popular in the 1950 and
the 1916 in the United States where it was believed in liberal and open
democracy individuals are important, and they are free to form groups
because of interest. Political grou ps are fluid in nature and vary in the
context of time and space the first phase of power came under criticism
from the letters and the Marxist for taking a naive view of power.
Power as Agenda Sett ing:
The conception of power as agenda setting was developed by political
scientists Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz. They criticize Robert Dahl’s
idea of power as very simplistic for viewing power as an empirical
phenomenon and neglecting the other dimen sion of power known as
agenda setting. It is the process of functioning of power that enables a
certain group to pu t forth their issues across the political system and at the
same time it systematically denies other social or political groups from
raising their issues. In other words, a political system and the actors
involved in it ensures only those issues are raised that are compatible with
the interest of political or social elites. If decision -making approach to
power focusses upon the active participa tion of groups in the process, non -
decisions highlight the importance of political organization in blocking the
participation of certain groups and the expression of particular opinions
Bachrach and Baratz highlighted how the powerful groups suppress
chall enges to the existing order so that demands for change made by the
new or marginalized groups can be sidelined. For instance, despite being a
liberal and open democracy the African Americans in the United States
were systematically excluded from the social political process. The
demands for political and social equality were never allowed to enter into munotes.in
Page 37
37
the political or policy process. This is also known as non decision -making
wherein demands of the marginalized or oppressed minorities are kept on
the periph ery of the political system or even if it enters the legislative or
executive process diluted to the extent of making it defunct or diluted.
Elitist theory has analyzed the effect of non -decision -making on po litical
process. The status quo uses ‘mobilization of bias’ to filter out radical
proposals are weeded out and kept off the political agenda. In liberal
democratic regimes issues like debt of the developing countries,
intellectual property rights, military policies are often kept out of the
purview of the public scrutinizes .
The dimensions of power discussed above are of empirical and rational
nature. It assumes that power is visible it can be known who exercises
power over whom. Power often cloaks its working by setting agenda
which i s not visible to the public but on scrutiny it can be revealed.
It is assumed that individuals known their preferences and the ways to
achieve it. Stephen Lukes argues that the above two faces of power fails
to recognize how desires, wants and preferenc es are generated, shaped and
articulated through the operation of power. Here power operated by
inserting itself deep inside the mind and consciousness of the person.
Power as thought control :
Lukes’s radical conceptio n of power aims to demonstrate that power can
be exercised by causing subordinate groups to accept their position, by
shaping how they perceive of themselves and their interests. The radical
conception of power contends that individual desires and preferences are
insidiously shaped and structured by the society and the state. An
individual remains unconscious to these processes and it unaware of the
fact how it is manipulated by the power games. For instance, Marx has
contended that capitalism works by imposing a false consciousness on
workers, so that they fail to recognize their true interests. Similarly, many
feminists believe that patriarchal societies preserve themselves by
ensuring that women internalize gendered norms and understandings, and
thus fail to recognize their true interests in female emancipation.
John Gavent a, in his work Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and
Rebellion the weaker section of the society internalizes the dominant
values and beliefs of the elite or ruling class thus reinforcing the existing
inequalities. The acceptance of the values and norms of the elite class
produces quiescence among the subordinate groups. This conception of
power as preference manipulation minimizes the need to use explicit force
or manipulating the content of the decision -making process.
An important aspect of the third face of power is the distinction between
truth and falsehood. It refers to the individual understanding of the
difference between real and felt interests. Marxists thinkers have strongly
favored this concept of power in their class analysis. Capitalism is a
system of class exploitation and oppression; however the bourgeoisie uses munotes.in
Page 38
38
the ideological power to manipulate the consciousness of the working
class. According to the Marxist the dominant ideas, values and beliefs of
any society are the ideas of its rul ing class. Hence, the ideological power
of the capitalist system blind the working class to its exploitation thus
preventing the working class to engage revolutionary activity.
4.5 MEANING OF AUTHORITY
Politics traditionally has been concer ned with the exercise of power.
However at the same time, it is interested in the phenomenon called
authority. Generally speaking authority is a form of power through which
one person can influence or change the behavior of another. The main
difference bet ween power and authority is the way by means of which
compliance or obedience is created in the society or state. Authority based
upon a notion of the legitimate rule – a procedure through which
compliance is sought of the citizens. It imposes a moral obli gation on the
citizens. Power creates compliance through pressure, coercion or violence.
A more generic view of political authority could be to treat it as right to
rule.
4.6 TYPES OF AUTHORITY
The German thinker Max Weber has given important analysis a nd
classification of authority. Weber was concerned to explain why, and
under what circumstances, people were prepared to accept the exercise of
power as rightful or legitimate. In other words, he defined authority simply
as a matter of people’s belief abo ut its rightfulness, regardless of where
that belief came from and whether or not it is morally justified. For Weber
authority is a form of power; authority is legitimate form of power.
Weber has classified authority into three types ba sed on how they see k
a. Traditional Authority: Traditional authority is rooted in the belief,
custom and tradition and it seeks justification of the political system
through these bases. In the ancient times people had accepted that kings
exercise powers as divine rights and they have a hereditary right to inherit
this divine right. This is the reason which divine rights theory was popular
in the pre modern era. Some examples of traditiona l authority are found
amongst tribes or small groups or the traditional village. Political authority
based on dynastic and hereditary rules can be found in Saudi Arabia or
Bhutan but it is an exception rather than rule . In traditional authority the
distrib ution of offi ces are based on personal, familial or status -based
considerations. The traditional authority remains strong as long as people
believe in traditions and customs, once the customs loses its sanctity
traditional authority loses its respect.
b. Charismatic Authority: Weber’s second fo rm of authority is
charismatic authority. This for m of authority is based upon the charisma of
an indivi dual’s personality. Charismatic authority owes everything to the munotes.in
Page 39
39
personal qualities of the leaders and his personal capability to make a
direct and personal appeal to others. Some examples of charismatic
authority in India are Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, Mahatma Gandhi and
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. These great men by their sheer charismatic
appeal were able to inspir e the masses and channelize their energy for the
achievement of political goals. An interesting thing of charismatic
authority is it does not need formal offices or institutional structures. The
masses simply believe in the greatness of the leaders. Howeve r sometimes
leaders deliberately construct charisma about themselves, as in the case of
fascist leaders such as Mussolini and Hitler . Some political leaders
deliberately create charisma, either by cultivating their media image and
sharpening their oratoric al skills or, in cases such as Mussolini, Stalin,
Hitler and Mao Zedong . Charismatic authority often portrays the leader as
having messianic qualit y who has come to liberate the masses .
Charismatic authority sometimes can be long lasting. The intellectual
legacy of leaders like Dr Ambedkar, Dr Martin Luther King or Nelson
Mandela continues to inspire posterity. It must be noted charismatic
authority can fail if the masses loses faith in the leadership qualities of the
leader as it happened in case of Hitler or Mussolini. Charismatic authority
is less appealing in liberal democratic regimes where the limits of
leadership are constitutionally defined, but is nevertheless still significant.
c. Rational Legal Authority: Weber stated that the modern are is marke d
by the rise of rational legal authority. Legal -rational authority functions
through the existence of a body of clearly defined rules. In legal -rational
authority, the authority is attached to the formal office and its formal
powers and not to the office -holder. We refer to the office of the Prime
Minister or the office of the President that emanates from an
institutionalized and established offi ce defined by the constitution of the
state. Obedience to the authority of the prime minister or the pres ident
results not from respect to a particular person but to the post he occupies
it. The rational legal authority is based on certain criteria like official
rules, written documents, hierarchy of offices, official position with duties
and right, division of work, fixed procedure for recruitment to offices and
separation of the official and the personal.
4.7 HEGEMONY
Although Gramsci popularized the concept of hegemony, it is essential to
understand the work of Karl Marx. Marxism believed everything in life as
determined by economic forces. In other words, the relation of production
shapes our social relationship. Marx stated that everything in our social
life is determined by economic content. According to Marxism, men find
themselves born in a process independent of their will, they cannot control
it, they can seek only to understand it and guide their actions accordingly.
Marx states in any society there are two classes, haves and have -nots. The
former are ruling class and the latter are the servile class. To perpetuate
the exploitative system, the ruling class imposes its dominant ideas over
the working class. In the context of capitalist society, Marx argued, the munotes.in
Page 40
40
working class eventually tries and changes this situation through
revolution producing its ideas as well as its industrial and political
organization.
Marx divided the society into base and superstructure. The base is
composed by the material relations of production whereas the
superstructure refers to the political, social, cultural and ideological
institutions. The superstructure according to Marx is determined the
material forces working at the base.
Antonio Gramsci was writing the theory of hegemony when Europe was
going through the turbulent phase. The destruction caused by World War I
caused economic damage, social tension and political turmoil. As
predicted by Marx, communist revolution was not happening anywhere is
industrially advanc ed countries, rather it happened in semi industrial
Russia. In countries like Germany and Italy, extreme right -wing regimes
were propping up in the form of Nazism and Fascism. Ideologically,
Nazism and Fascism were opposed to communism, yet the working cla ss
in both countries supported the ideology. The development baffled many
Marxist thinkers as to why communism revolution was not happening and
why working class supported anti -class ideology. Antonio Gramsci tried
to provide the answer by deploying the c oncept of hegemony. Gramsci did
not agree with the notion put forward by Marx that the ruling class stayed
in power solely because they had economic power. He argued hegemony
is the shared ideas or beliefs which serve to justify the interests of
dominant g roups. Gramsci felt that hegemony kept the ruling class in
power because it allowed them to indoctrinate the minds of the masses.
Hegemony is the form of ideology that secures the consent of the ruled
class by insidiously imposing the values and culture of the capitalist class
on the rest of the society. As a result, false consciousness is developed in
the minds of the masses, and they tend to justify the rule of the oppressing
class. In the capitalist society the bourgeoisie due to economic domination
and intellectual and moral leadership have managed to established itself as
hegemonic force.
Gramsci stated that hegemony is a constant process of securing consent,
though its content is constantly changed. There are two types of social
control, says Gramsci , the first is known as coercive control - that uses
direct force., The second type is consensual control which arises when
individuals voluntarily adopt the world view of the dominant group. In the
modern age, Gramsci says hegemony operates within civil society wherein
the dominant group exercises hegemony over the subordinate group. The
religious, cultural, legal and educational institutions existing in the society
reinforces the ideological values of the ruling class and subtly ingrains the
values in th e minds of the masses. Thus, social hegemony and political
government are enforced historically in which the dominant group enjoys
its position because of its function in the world of production and legally
by state coercive power which enforces discipline on groups that do not
consent. munotes.in
Page 41
41
4.8 LEGITIMATION
Modern states, political institutions and governments have to depend upon
the co-operation of the governed. Use of power, despotism and terror is
used by the above entities, but the exclusive reliance on force is expensive
and often counterproductive. Even primitive regimes have to rely on
consent of the governed subject to sustain political rule.
The process through which political rule is transformed from the use of
brute force to one based on consent of the subjects or citizens is known as
legitimation process. A given command has legitimacy to the extent that it
secures willing obedience even where it conflicts with the obvious
interests of those commanded.
Meaning and definition :
The best known writing on legitimation is given the great sociologist Max
Weber. Weber considered legitimacy as one form of domination.
According to Weber, ‘every genuine form of domination implies a
minimum of voluntary compliance ’.
Robert A. Dahl writ es, “Leaders in a political system try to ensure that
whenever governmental means are used to deal with conflict, the decisions
arrived at are widely accepted not solely from fear of violence,
punishment, or coercion but also from a belief that it is moral ly right and
proper to do so.’
G.K. Robert says, ‘Legitimacy is that principle which indicates the
acceptance on the part of the public of the occupancy of political office by
a person or the exercise of power by a person or group either generally or
in some specific instance on the grounds that occupancy exercise of
powers is in accordance with some generally accepted principles and
procedures of component of authority.’
In political science the concept of legitimation is closely linked to the
nature and functioning of a political community called ‘State’. Since the
time of Thomas Hobbes the main issue about legitimation of the state is
how to secure the compliance of the subject or citizens. What must be the
basis of legitimation; force, violence, rights or liberties. What are the
instruments available with the state to create and enforce legitimation? Let
us understand how different political thinkers have conceptualized
legitimation .
4.9 PERSPECTIVES ON LEGITIMACY
In Hobbes view the state is created by the social contract. Hobbes argues
that in the state of nature every person is fighting for self -preservation and
every person is at war with the other. Finally, to est ablish peace and order munotes.in
Page 42
42
individuals come together and create a state and transferring their rights to
this sovereign —an individual or a group of individuals. When there is no
such sovereign, one may be created by a covenant —Hobbes calls this
“sovereignty b y institution”. But political authority may also be
established by the promise of all to obey a threatening power. Both types
of sovereign formation are equally legitimate. Political authority is
legitimate as long as the sovereign ensures the protection o f the citizens.
Hobbes makes no distinction between effective author ity and legitimate
authority in ’ thought. It might even be argued that Hobbes fails to
distinguish between legitimate authority and the mere exercise of power.
In Hobbes account the focus was on de facto mode of legitimation. He
didn't look into the ethical basis of legitimacy. The normative concept of
political legitimacy is often seen as related to the justification of authority.
John Locke provided a normative explanation of legitimacy. Locke’s
starting -point is a state of nature in which all individuals are equally free
to act in accordance with the norms of natural law. However, natural law
in the state of nature is not powerful enough to rule a society and cannot
enforce itself when violated. The problem is solved by creating a social
contract that transfers political authority to a civil state that can realize and
secure the natural law. Social contract, according Locke, does not create
political authority as it is embodied in individuals and pre -exists in the
state of nature. The legitimacy of the state is derived from natural law and
government has the obligation is to respect it. Natural law entails rights
and liberties of the citizens. The moment a stat e violates natural law it
loses its legitimacy.
Rousseau makes a distinction between legitimate social orders with a
system of rules that is merely the expression of power. Coercive power is
primarily a feature of the civil state which is not legitimate. Political
authority can be considered as legitimate if it is backed by the general will
of the people. Rousseau general will is the collective manifestation of the
people to generate political authority. In other words, Rousseau is
claiming sovereignty res ts with the people.
4.10 LEGITIMATION PROCESS
Legitimation in democratic system :
Legitimacy in modern times is intricately connected with democracy.
Democratic system promotes legitimacy in various ways. Consent is the
important principle of democratic legitimacy. A democratic constitution
provides a set of rights and liberties to its citizens. These rights in turn
legitimize the establishment of government by the process of re gular
elections that gives mandate to political parties to rune the government. In
this respect, democracy fosters legitimacy by increasing the opportunities
for political participation to the masses. Democratic governance is often
based on compromise, co nciliation and negotiation, through which rival
interests and groups find a way of living together in relative peace, rather
than resorting to force and the use of naked power. Finally, democracy munotes.in
Page 43
43
system provides mechanisms to redress the grievances that fu nctions as a
feedback loop that sustains political stability eventually.
Apart from democratic mechanisms several thinkers believe there are
other factors that contribute or aids legitimation process in the democratic
system. In advanced capitalist econo mies, democratic societies tend to
enjoy widespread prosperity so the capitalist system and welfare state
played important in ensuring the stability of the political system by
generating and distributing material wealth across the population. A
further fac tor is that democratic societies tend to be liberal as well as
democratic. It provides a range of opportunities for self -expression,
personal freedom and social mobility.
Legitimation in non -democratic system :
Non-democratic regimes like dictatorship, a uthoritarian states, military
junta, theocracies etc do not have the principal means of legitimation that
are used in democracies. For instance none of the above -mentioned
regimes conduct free and fair elections or guarantees set of fundamental
rights to i ts citizens. However, it doesn’t mean non d3emocratic regimes
indulges in coercive and violent means as an essential tools for sustaining
the regime. Violence and coercion is used but often in times of crisis as
the continuous use of violence will increas e the political cost for the
regime and generate hostile environment.
Some authoritarian regimes use elections as a facade to gain legitimacy
and helping both to create the impression of popular support and to draw
people into a ritualized acceptance of the regime. Nazi Germany and
Fascist Italy and communist regimes often used the mechanisms of
(rigged) elections to secure the mandate of the people. In reality people are
given extremely limited choice to vote and voting procedures are tweaked
to favour the ruling party. Non -democratic regimes have often used non -
political f actors to boost the legitimacy of the regime. Communist
regimes often bolster legitimacy by providing material and social benefit
to the citizens, a strategy that continues to be practised by China through
its ability to generate high levels of economic g rowth. Ideological
legitimation is sought by promising teleological goals either material or
ideological to the masses and claiming or usurping the state power for
people. Gamal Abdel Nasser always justified the seizure of state power
for Arab unity. Sau di Arabia’s rulers proclaim as the vanguard of Sunni
Islam and seek legitimacy to protect the same.
4.11 SUMMARY
The chapter has discussed important aspects of consent and coercion. It
discussed the definition, types and forms of power. It explained the
meaning and types of authority. It analysed the concept of hegemony and
finally elaborated the concept of legitimation
munotes.in
Page 44
44
4.12 UNIT END QUESTIONS
1. Define power and explain various forms of power
2. Analyze the various faces of power
3. Define Authority and explain its various forms.
4. Analyze hegemony as a form of power
5. Expl ain the meaning of legitimation and analyse its different
perspectives
6. Elucidate the process of legitimation
4.12 REFERENCES
Dryzek, John S., Honig , Bonnie, and Phillips, Anne (Ed.), The Oxford
Handbook of Political Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
2008.
Dryzek, John, Honig, Bonnie and Phillips, Anne (eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of Political Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
2006.
Gaus, Gerald and Kukathas, Chandran (eds.), Handbook of Political
Theory, Sage, London, 2004.
Heywood, Andrew, Political Theory An Introduction, (3th edn),
Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2004.
*****
munotes.in