iii. “Politics is concerned with authoritative allocation of values”- David Easton.

According to this
approach political science studies the methods whereby those who are in the seat of authority
distribute and allocate resources among different groups of people that form the population. This is
done in order to bring about an equitable distribution or equal distribution of state resources among
the people. Resources could include the state’s natural resources as well as state generated and
created resources to bring about the upliftment and welfare of the people.
Criticism- This sub approach is restricted a narrow in scope as it only relates to only one theme of
authoritative distribution.

According to the UNESCO Conference of September 1948, the systematic division of the
scope of Political Science actually took place in four distinct categories.
The four broad categories were-
1. Political Theory- a. And its evolution
b. History of Political Ideas
2. Government- The study of a. Political Institutions b. Constitutions c. National,
Regional and Local governments d. Public Administration e. Economic and Social
functions of the government f. Comparative Govt and Comparative political
institutions.
3. Parties Groups and Public Opinion- a. Political Parties b. Groups and Associations c.
People/Citizens’ participation in government and Administration. d. Public Opinion.
4. International Relations- a. International Politics b. International Relations c.
International Law d. International Organizations.

Subject Matter
The main topics to be studied under the scope and subject matter of Political Science apart
from the broad themes are as follows-
1. Origin and development of states.
2. Description, analysis and comparison of their present constitutions.
3. Governmental structures, political processes and systems of law.
4. Regulations imposed by states, upon individuals and groups, including the regulation
of business, social relations and education.
5. Technical processes and agencies through which laws are enacted, administered,
enforced and adjudicated.
6. Organization and activities of Political Parties and Pressure Groups.
7. Nature of public opinion and propaganda.
8. Relations (Political, economic, cultural, ideological) between states and the attempts
to regularize and control such relations by means of international law and
organizations.
Traditional Approach- comprises of philosophical, historical, legal sub approaches to political
science.
Philosophical sub approach- conceptual understanding- tries to study means of the subject-
clear linguistic issues.
Vernon Van Dyke- in the book Pol Sci a philosophical approach.
Aristotle defended slavery on the grounds that greeks(Helenic) and non-greeks (non-
Helenic), non-greeks can be subject to slavery.
Kant had the notion of human dignity and thus he countered Aristotle’s discrimination
Traditional Approach- sub-divided into-
1. Philosophical
2. Historical
3. Legal
4. Institutional
Philosophical-
a. The philosophical approach is concerned with the clarification of concepts used in a
particular discipline and this is an effort to clarify thought about the nature of the
subject and the ends and means of studying it.
b. Enhances linguistic clarity and tries to reduce linguistic confusion so that one may
understand the conceptions of reality and the reality
c. To make the conceptions of reality clear, consistent and coherent
d. Philosophical approach aims at evolving standards of right and wrong for the purpose
of a critical evaluation of the existing institutions, laws and policies.
e. One of the classical exponents of the philosophical sub approach was Vernon Van
Dyke who elaborated in his works Political Science: A Philosophical Analysis.
f. Most of the classical political theory represents philosophical approach and its themes
are generally concerned with moral reasoning which cannot be subject to scientific
tests although the empirical aspect of such reasoning can always be questioned from
the viewpoint of our ‘modern consciousness’. Example- Immaunel Kant’s concept of
human dignity which rules out any type of slavery is close to modern day
consciousness on the ground of modern-day consciousness, questions and counters
Aristotle’s defence of slavery. Hence this approach does not simply rely on the
political thought of the past, it is a subject of current and continuous debate.
g. Most of the classical thinkers proceeding from a hypothesis about human nature
dwelled on two main themes- a) Art of Government b) Grounds and Limits of
Political Obligations. Example- Italian renaissance thinker Machiavelli, his art of
governance was selfish and ungrateful nature of man. This was followed by social
contract thinkers- Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rosseau and John Locke. Thomas
Hobbes focused on absolutist (surrender their rights to the ruler) view of political
obligation. Locke was libertarian and opposed absolutist view and propagated liberty
of individuals against the state further propagated by Rousseau to be Popular
Sovereignty.
 h. John Stewart’s work- On Representative Government sought to explore the limits of
political obligation by defining the state control.
i. Thomas Hill Green was a British Idealist also in the Oxford group of idealists who
developed his theory of rights on moral grounds and by the theory he tried to limit the
authority of the states and this tradition was furthered by Harold J. Laski, who tried to
build an elaborate system of individual rights.
j. John Rawls Built the System of justice and said the art of governance should try to
provide justice to those on the bottom of the ladder without making those on the top
worse (positive discrimination). Karl Marx identified mans position in a social class,
individuals are always identified in a social class and projected the working class as
an instrument of revolution.
Concepts like authoritarianism- Hobbes tries to project that ruler will be all powerful and
people will be submitting to the ruler.

1. Leo Strauss was one of the contemporary champions of the philosophical approach to
the study of politics. According to him, political science and political philosophy are
coterminous as they denote an attempt to obtain true knowledge of political things as
well as standards of what is right and what is good. Political philosophy is a product
of our quest for a good life and society. Strauss highlights that only facts or values
cant suffice to have a proper understanding of politics. Values and facts are
indispensable parts of political philosophy which enable us to take a.....Without such
analysis, assumptions regarding politics take the character of opinion and political
philosophy seeks to replace this opinion with knowledge as highlighter by Socrates.
Strauss has criticized the contemporary political philosopher for example those who
have developed the Behavioural Approach to Politics which insists on a completely
value based approach and thus destroys the essence of true knowledge of politics.

The term historical approach to politics

1. May be denoted as the process of arriving at the laws governing politics through
analysis of historical events as highlighted in theories propounded by Hegel and
Marx. Hegel was an idealist, Marx a scientific materialist and Marx was inspired by
Hegelian dialectics. Karl Popper as described this as Historicism which mean
historical processes are defined by their inherent necessities which are beyond the
control of human ingenuity.
2. Historical approach stands for an attempt at understanding politics through a historical
account of political thought of the past as highlighted by George H. Sabine in his
famous work a History of Political Theory.
According to Sabine the political science subject matter coincides with the major themes of
discussion in the writings of the well-known political philosophers starting from Greek period
to modern times from Plato and Aristotle from the Greek period to social contractarians
(Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau), down to the utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and J.S Mill as
well as idealists like Green and socialist thinkers like Karl Marx. Most of these philosophers
raised 3 questions in their writings-
a. What ideals are sought to be realized by the state?
b. What is the meaning of concepts like freedom and equality?
 c. What are the grounds and limits of political obligation?

3. Sabine points out that each political theory is advanced in response to a specific
situation so it is necessary to recapitulate these circumstances under which a particular
theory was produced for understanding its relevance to the present situation.
4. Moreover, any political theory is not only a product of history, but has also served as
an instrument of molding history by its ideological force. All great political theories
are valid for all times
5. Critics of the historical approach point out that it is not possible to understand ideas of
the past in terms of the contemporary ideas and concepts. moreover, ideas of the past
are hardly any guide to resolve any crises of the present-day world which were
beyond comprehension of the past thinkers. David Easton has warned against “living
parasitically” on ideas which were century old and failing to develop a new political
synthesis and it was this challenge to historical approach which encouraged the
development of behavioral approach.
6. There has been a recent revival of interest in values and this has led to a renewed
interest in rich heritage of political thought for evolving guiding principles of our own
age. Examples-
a. John Rolls had published the book Theory of Justice and took inspiration form writings of
Locke and Kant and rejected the Utilitarian philosophy.
b. Robert Marcuse built his neo-Marxist theory of freedom by reverting to Hegelian concept
of civil society.
c. C.B Macpherson built his theory of democracy by reverting to Aristotle and J.S. Mill while
rejecting Bentham’s utilitarianism and the contemporary elitism of Joseph Schumpeter and
Robert Dahl.
3. Legal approach to Indian politics will try to analyze legal implications of various
provisions of the Indian constitution, duly documented by the SC decisions as well as
opinions of legal luminaries, procedure of formation and legal position of the 2 houses of the
Indian parliament and state legislatures, procedure of election or appointment, powers and
position of the Indian president, Indian Prime minister, Governors of the Indian states, chief
ministers of the Indian states, central and state cabinets, role and powers of the Supreme court
and High courts of India, the Indian federal set up, position of Fundamental rights and DPSP
etc.
4. Legal approach to International Politics will largely tend to analyze it in terms of the
requirements of International Law.
5. The legal approach may prove inadequate in understanding the complex political forces,
processes and behaviour which might operate outside legal-formal framework, yet the legal
approach is not entirely insignificant.
6. According to Vernon Van Dyke both the procedures and substance of political action at
every level are often controlled by law. In the field of both domestic and international
politics, law frequently prescribes the action to be take in given contingencies, it also forbids
action or fixes the limits of permissible action.
7. All political processes to become effective and stable must culminate in legal provisions
whether it is an independence movement in a colonize d country or an agitation for civil
rights movement. Besides the study of constitutional and international law, the legal approach
to politics continues to play a pivotal role in the social and political life of almost every
country.

Institutional Sub Approach –

1. Institutional approach is closely related to legal approach and that’s why there are
often taken together as legal institutional approach yet there are differences between
them.
2. The institutional approach does not solely rely on other disciplines like philosophy,
history or law for understanding politics. Amongst the traditional approaches the
institutional approach alone gives independent identity to systematic study of politics.
3. Traditionally politics has been defined as the study of state and government.
Government itself is an institution with various organs such as Parliament
(legislature) cabinet(executive) and courts (judiciary). Political parties which exist
separately are also a type of institution. Apart from this there may be social cultural
economic institutions having their own importance like school, market, club etc. A
student of politics will only be interest in institutions which have a direct bearing on
Politics.
4. What is an Institution? It is a set of offices and agencies arranged in a hierarchy where
each office/agency has certain functions and powers.
5. Each office or agency is manned by persons with definite status and role and others
are also expecting them to perform this role
6. An activity of an institution is not confined to its office holders. for ex ordinary voters
who participate in pro setting up a legislature through elections are not themselves
office holders therein. Acc to Van Dyke, “an institution is any persistent system of
activities and expectations or any stable pattern of group behaviour.
7. The followers of the institutional approach try to study the organization and
functioning of the government, its various organs, political parties and other
institutions affecting politics.
8. For example- Aristotle’s classification of government beginning with Monarchy,
Tyranny, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Polity and Democracy, down to the modern
classification of government which includes democracy and dictatorship,
parliamentary and presidential forms of governments and unitary and federal,
identification of the levels of government which includes federal, state and local
levels, the different branches of government which includes the executive, legislative
and judicial, composition and powers of each of these and their inter-relationships
mainly in legal terms are the chief concerns of this approach.
9. The institutional approach tries to identify and elaborate description of the face
therefore it exemplifies a shift from the normative to the empirical approach and from
a historical to a contemporary concern within the sphere of the tradition approach.
 However, it relies heavily on description rather than explanation. Hence it fails to
qualify as a contemporary approach.
10. Drawbacks of the institutional approach-

a. Institutional approach has a preoccupation with the institutions and neglects the
individuals and that is the reason why the study of voting behaviour or political
attitude of individuals does not come under domain of this approach and is left to
sociologists.
b. The institutional approach practically neglected the study of international politics
and confined its understanding to just international relations and description the
UN and its specialized agencies and left the study of international politics to
historians and students of international law.
c. The institutional approach being concerned with established institutions alone,
neglected the role of violence or threat of violence, political movements and
agitations, war and revolutions etc.
d. The approach neglected the role of informal groups and processes in shaping
politics.
11. In spite of the drawbacks, it should not be forgotten that institutions form a very
important part of politics because any discussion of politics without reference to
corresponding institutions will lead us nowhere. All the more so because in the
present global scenario, mostly in the developing countries, constitution making and
institution building is the order of the day. Institutional approach is inadequate in
itself but any other approach will also be incomplete without paying due attention to
institutions.

Behaviouralism or behavioral approach to pol sci is particularly associated with the

work of American Political Scientists and has occupied a very important place in
modern political science, particularly the methodological side. It systematically
emerged after the 2nd world war though its roots lay in the older works of Graham
Wallas in his book Human Nature in Politics and Arthur Bentley in his book the
Process of Government published as early as 1908. Robert Dahl defines
behaviouralism as a “protest movement within political science”. The common points
shared by behavioralists are a strong dissatisfaction with the traditional political
science. By this Dahl hinted at the limitations of the traditional approach comprising
of the philosophical, historical, legal and institutional approaches of the traditional
political thinkers. This may be called the negative side of behaviouralism involving
the criticism of traditional political analysis. On the positive side, Dahl points out,
behaviouralism implies “a belief” that political science and political analysis must be
mainly empirical.

Different Phases of Behaviouralism-

1. First Phase:1900-1910- Graham Wallas and Arthur Bentley
Both Wallas and Bentley were inclined to lay greater emphasis on the informal
processes of politics and less on political institutions in isolation.
 Wallas sought to introduce a new realism in political studies in light of the new
findings of contemporary psychologists.
Human nature was too complex to explained by simplistic utilitarian propositions.
Wallas therefore insisted on exploring facts and evidences for understanding
human nature and its manifestations in human behaviour. The chief message of
Wallas was that political process could be understood by analysing how people
behaved in a situation not by merely speculating how they would have behaved.
Bentley, a pioneer of the group approach to politics, primarily sought not to
describe political activity, but to provide new tools for investigation. He was very
fascinated by the study of informal groups that he almost completely ignored the
formal political institutions. He was greatly inspired by sociology so he proceeded
to undertake a study on pressure groups, political parties, elections and public
opinion.

2. Second Phase:1920-1940- Charles E. Merriam, the founder of the Chicago school

of politics also made a substantial contribution to the behavioral movement
particularly in the second phase and is often regarded as another pioneer of the
behavioral approach. His article “The Present State of the Study of Politics”
published in the American Political Science Review in 1921 and his book “New
Aspects of Politics” published in 1925, are very relevant. In these works, Merriam
criticized contemporary political science for its lack of scientific rigor. He further
argued that students of politics should take full advantage of the recent advances
in social sciences in order to develop interdisciplinary and scientific character of
political science. Merriam was also an ardent champion of democracy and wanted
rigorously to put science into the service of democratic principles and found no
inconsistency in promoting science and democracy together.
G.E.G Catlin in his work “Science and Method of Politics”, published in 1927,
advanced the case for a value-free pure science. He treated “power” as the essence
of politics and argued that analysis of power should not be inclined in favor of any
particular value system. This view of politics as the science of power as well as a
case for treating politics as a policy science was later developed thoroughly by
Harold Lasswell in his celebrated work, “Politics: Who gets what, when, how”
published which proved to be a landmark in the empirical approach to politics as
the study and analysis of power.

3. Third Phase: Post 1940s and beyond-

a. David Truman’s paper, “The Impact on Political Science of the Revolution in
behavioral sciences” published in 1955.
b. Robert Dahl’s paper “The Behavioral Approach in Political Science”
Published in the American 1961
c. E.M Kirkpatrick “the impact of the behavioral approach on traditional
political” science published in 1962
d. David Easton’s paper on “The Current Meaning of Behavioralist in Political
Science” published in 1967
e. Heinz Eulau’s article on “Political Behaviour” published in the International
Encyclopedia of the Social sciences in 1968. These were the important
contributions as far as the 3rd Phase of Behaviouralism was concerned.

According to David Easton the intellectual foundations of behaviouralism consist

of 8 major tenets of the Behavioral school-
1. Regularities- The behavioralists think that there are some uniformities in
political behaviour which can be expressed in theory like statements so as to
provide for explanation and prediction of political phenomenon. Even
assuming wide diversities in human behaviour, there are some findings which
are valid from the empirical point of view.
2. Verification- Behavioralists think that only the empirical method can lead to
experimentation and verification of human behaviour governing political
phenomena. It requires that the validity of such theory like statements must be
testable, by reference to
3. Techniques- Unlike the traditionalists, the behavioralists attach great
importance to the adoption of correct techniques for interpreting political
phenomenon. David Easton thinks that political science can be really
scientific, if proper techniques are chosen. It also refers to the means for
acquiring or interpreting data which should be examined self-consciously,
refined and validated for the purpose of observing, recording and analyzing
behaviour.
4. Quantification- The term quantification means measurement. Quantification
is a very important tool used by statistical experts. They try to integrate and
differentiate the data concerning political phenomena. While the traditionalists
thought that political phenomena cannot be measured, the behavioralists think
that like other pure sciences, political science can use methods of
quantification and sampling of data regarding political events.
Data should not only be collected but also measured and quantified so that the
conclusions of a researcher maybe verified on the basis of quantified evidence
5. Values- The research should be value-free so that the researcher may not be in
a position to examine a political issue from his own subjective stand point of
valuational judgement. Moral and ethical questions should be discarded in
order to give a scientific explanation.
6. Systematization- System building mean theory-building and theory-
implementing. The behavioralists charged that the traditionalists did not make
any proper scientific analysis of political data so the traditionalists could not
be successful for systematization of political data. This could be done only by
the modern behavioralists. It is on the basis of well-organized, logically
interrelated structure of concepts and propositions that hypotheses have to be
advanced, and that hypotheses, in their own turn have to be capable of
undergoing rigorous testing.
7. Pure Science- By the term pure science the behavioralists mean that only the
scientific method, that is the empirical method, be used for data collection,
data verification and systematization. Thus, the principles of political science
 as pure science could be applied to different fields of political studies. David
Easton believes that like pure science, political science must also have a great
potentiality to serve as applied policy science. This means that the
understanding and explanation of political behavior is essential to utilize
political knowledge in the solution of urgent practical problems of society.
The ultimate aim should be to make social sciences similar to pure and natural
sciences.
8. Integration- It signifies integration of political science with other social
sciences in order to evolve a comprehensive view of human affairs, to
strengthen its validity and generality of its own results. Since the
behavioralists subscribe to the interdisciplinary approach, they do not treat
political science as a separate or distinct discipline. To them political science
is one of the social sciences and for this reason, it should be integrated with
other social sciences like sociology, psychology economics etc. and even with
some natural sciences.
Achievements of behaviouralism
1. Modern political scientists point out that behaviouralism has produced a type of
revolution in two respects, a. Theory building and b. Techniques of research.
2. Behaviouralism has largely modernized the thinking and application of social and
political principles.
3. Behaviouralism has also made the analysis of political science modernized and
sophisticated involving case and content analysis.
4. Behaviouralism has also led to the development of interview and observation
techniques.
5. In social and clinical psychology, the interview method has made counselling and
psycho-therapy highly beneficial to the cased of social and psychological mal-
adjustments.
6. Sample surveys and questionnaires have particularly helped in the electoral studies

Concluding observations and criticisms-

It can be stated that behavioural political science rejects the place of norms, values and goals
and tries to rely only on facts, as far as the study of the discipline is concerned. It likes to
follow the new techniques of mathematics, statistics, engineering etc. and tries to come up
with sample surveys, multi-variate analysis, game theory, case analysis and content analysis
etc. for presenting conclusions in a scientific way.
By the middle of 1960s behaviouralism gained a prominent position in the rise of
behaviouralism was symptomatic of a crisis in political theory because of its failure to come
to grips with normative issues.
Another critic Sheldon Wolin declared that the pre-occupation of political science with
scientific methods signified an abdication of true vocation of political theory.
Within the sphere of philosophy of science, the publication of Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions” had promoted the view that significance of scientific method lies
in its capacity of problem solving and crisis management and not in methodological
sophistication.
Therefore, the traditionalists point out that political science must be value-laden and that the
value factor cannot be ignored in a social science like political science. This was the main
difference between the traditionalists and the behaviouralists, as the behaviouralists did not
admit the role of values in political analysis. Another main point of argument of the
traditionalists was regarding the relativist character of political science because of which it
could never make absolute and universal statements as in pure sciences.
Post Behaviouralism
Due to the criticisms mentioned by the traditionalists and due to various limitations of
behaviouralism, by the end of 1960s some of the leading American behaviouralists like David
Easton, worked out a modified version of the behavioural theory which was called the post
behavioural revolution or the neo-behavioural revolution that represented a shift of focus
from strict methodological issues to a greater concern with public responsibilities of the
discipline and with political problems. Easton restored the place of values in the neo-
behavioural theory and that is why it could be said that politics involves authoritative
allocation of values. In 1969, David Easton heralded this new revolution in his presidential
address to the American Political Science Association.
Post-Behaviouralist Trend
1. Reaffirming the place of norms and values in the study of Politics.
2. Laying more emphasis on the substance than on the exhibition of facts.
3. Advising political scientists to abandon the mad craze for scientism.
4. Insisting on giving an interdisciplinary approach.

All the above four trends mentioned, depict a return to the past, i.e. a return to the traditional
approach.
Seven Tenets of Post Behaviouralism-
1. Substance must come before technique- It may be good to have sophisticated tools
of investigation but the more important point is the purpose to which these tools are to
be applied. According to the post behaviouralists these tools should be important to
solve contemporary urgent problems.
2. Post-Behaviouralists insisted on modernity and social change, not on social
preservation or maintaining status-quo. Therefore, research in social sciences must not
lose touch with reality.
3. Post-Behaviouralists said the political scientists must be aware of what is meant by
“brute realities of politics”. This means that political scientists could not close their
eyes to the realities of the situation and had to reach out the real needs of human kind.
4. The post behaviouralists reinstated values in political analysis. They emphasized that
if knowledge was to be used for the right goals, values had to be restored to the
central position.
5. The post behaviouralists admit that political scientists have to play the role of
intellectuals and perform major tasks in society. According to the post
 behaviouralists, political scientists are social scientists trying to face the reality, solve
problems and who would have a dominant role to play for the betterment of human
kind and society.
6. If the intellectuals (political scientists) understood the social problems and felt
themselves involved in them, they could not keep themselves away from action.
Therefore, the post behaviouralists ask for action-oriented science and not
contemplative science, which means that post behaviouralists wanted political science
to be viewed as a science for crisis management. And hence the role of intellectuals
was positive in society and they were supposed to determine proper goals for the
society.
7. Mad-craze for scientism should be discarded because social sciences cannot be
converted into pure or natural sciences the study should also be related to the past and
present and also the future and it should also be able to borrow necessary material
from different sources.
Criticism of Divine Theory-
The divine origin theory is
1. Absolutely baseless
2. It is against experience and lacks historical evidence
3. It ignores the human nature of the king who is not perfect but subject to human
failing.
4. In the garb of religious support, it sanctions exploitation
5. Being based on superstition, it is not political but a religious explanation of the origin
of state
6. Supporting autocracy and actually supports immorality
7. It is traditional in nature and against all progressive ideas
8. It ignores the rights of the people and supports the king
9. It is an imaginary theory without foundation
10. It is against the moral conscience of humans and is against democratic ideas.
Theory of Force as the Origin of State- module pg 39
According to Leacock the Theory of Force as the Origin of State holds that the state is the
result of war i.e., the product of the use of force by the strong against the weak. In the words
of Voltaire, “The first king was a fortunate warrior.” According to the views of Leacock and
Voltaire, the earliest rulers were successful warriors who defeated and subjugated others in
war. E. Jenks- Module Page 39.
Criticisms of the theory of force:
● The theory of force over exaggerated the selfish motives of the individuals. They
completely neglected the human nature of cooperation.
● If you look into the other theories of the state, especially the evolutionary theory of
the origin of the state. It came up with a number of factors such as blood ties, political
consciousness, et al. Force may have been one of the reasons.
● Like the divine origin theory, the theory of force goes against the spirit of
democracy.
● Today in the age of globalization, the nation states try to cooperate more with one
another rather than using force on one another. Article 2 of the UN charter states that
member
states would not use force on one another.

Social Contract Theory:

There was a state of nature before the state came into existence where the individuals
did not have law and order and did not feel secure. They intended to form a civil
society which would culminate later into a political society.
Important scholars are:
Thomas Hobbes who gave the first stage of development of the social contract theory
followed by John Locke and these theories reached their zenith with J.J. Rousseau.

Thomas Hobbes: According to him the life in the state of nature was guided by the
selfish interests of the individuals who constantly fought with one another and there
was total anarchy.
He used five terms:
Solitary
Poor
Nasty
Brutish and,
Short.
Because the individuals felt insecure and unhappy with this life, they wanted to
abandon the state of nature and therefore they decided to make a contract to set up a
civil society which lead to the surrender of all rights to one common authority which
became the ruler or the monarch or the Leviathan. The king was not a party to the
contract.

Implication of the Hobbesian theory:

 The king is not a party to the contract that means he stands above the contract.
 Since he is above the contract, he is not answerable to the people.
 Since he was not responsible to the people he could have ruled in any arbitrary
manner.
Hobbes’ ideas paved the way for the concept of absolute monarchy as a form of
government.

Evaluation of Hobbes:
 He portrayed that the state of nature had people constantly fought with one
another due to their selfish interests. Selfish nature cannot be always claimed.
 His premise that individuals are always guided by the motives of self-interest
also doesn’t tally with the conclusion that the contract is irrevocable.
 Contracts are generally bilateral but the Hobbesian contracts are unilateral
because the ruler isn’t party to the contract.
 Hobbes’ ideas also lead to the legal view of rights. He speaks about absolute
sovereign which is indivisible. His idea is contradicted by Lasky who said that
Hobbes’ legal view of rights is insufficient to political philosophy because he
 fails to recognize or rather fails to distinguish between the rights recognized
by the state and the rights which require the recognition as the indispensable
condition for the development of the human personality. The very conception
of rights emanates from the personality of individuals and only its legal
sanctions come from the state.
 It is often said by certain scholars that Hobbes’ ideas on the legal sovereign
laid the foundation of the authoritarian state. This goes against the notion of
popular sovereignty.
Significance of Hobbesian Theory
Despite of the criticisms mentioned above, one cannot overrule the significance o fhobbesian
analysis-
1. Hobbes for the first time introduced the concept of legal sovereignty.
2. Pointed out by Iver Brown Hobbes was the ‘first great philosopher of discipline’
because order and discipline according to Hobbes is the highest human good and
state absolutism is required to maintain this particular good to maintain social
integrity. Therefore, out of the various political systems that one comes across the
school of political philosophy which followed authoritarianism as the highest form of
government finds in Hobbes a principal exponent who have supported it as a form of
government.
3. Hobbes by making a clear distinction between natural law and civil law laid the
foundation of the Analytical school of Jurisprudence which was elaborated by Bentham
and Austin later who are mainly noted for the monistic theory or monism in short. This
theory is known as the monistic theory of sovereignty.

John Locke, like Hobbes, speaks of the state of nature as well. The Lockean state of
nature was slightly better than the Hobbesian state of nature as men were living
peacefully. But at some point, of time they were conflicts between them. They were
confronted with 3 problems-
1. There was no definite recognized system of law.
2. There was no definite authority to settle disputes between individuals or an ultimate
authority to ensure security.
3. There was also no judicial authority to settle disputes between people.

At one point of time the Individuals lost the security in the society and decided to
abandon the state of nature and as such they wanted a new civil society which was based
on a contract.
Unlike Hobbes, Locke mentions about two contracts. The first is a social contract. By
the social contract the individuals surrendered only a part of their rights to the civil
society or the state and the second contract was a political contract. By this particular
contract the individuals on their own initiative decided to setup a king or a monarch who
would have the ultimate duty of serving the welfare of the people. Locke’s ideas on
social contract can be found in his famous work Two Treatises of the Government.
Locke sought to justify the glorious revolution of 1688. He was an ardent advocate of
constitutional monarchy. In his work Two Treatises of the Government, he argued that if
a monarch behaved in a despotic manner, people had the right to remove him. This
shows that Locke supported the right to revolt. Brought up in the tradition of British
conservatism, Locke supported limited monarchy and was not the sworn enemy of
monarchy but he sought to establish it “in the consent of the people.”

Implications of Rousseau’s writings:

● ‘General Will’ is an abstract concept but it is a way of expressing of how one can
serve the general or common interest of all the people as a whole in the society and not
the private interests or the individual interests in particular.
● Since in Rousseau’s general will we don’t find any monarchic reflection so it is
inferred that he is opposed to the notion that any one individual would hold the
supremacy in the sovereign state and the supremacy would lie in the group of all the
people.
● Rousseau therefore completely is a supporter of democracy and is the champion of
popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty means that the sovereignty lies in the hands of
the population at large and not in the hands of any individual or a monarch.
● But the democracy that Rousseau had advocated is different from that of today.
Democracy is of two types:
o Plebiscite or Direct democracy: Where the people are involved directly. Ex: Swiss
way of passing a referendum or the ecclesia in Greece.
o Indirect democracy:
Rousseau was against indirect democracies.

Brief Appraisal of the Social Contract Theory (General):

1. The first criticism came from Sir Henry Sumner Maine, who had done immense
historical research on the early political institutions which were prevalent in the
society. He said that the SCT is not based on any Historical evidence. Thus, this was
different from the Historical Social contracts.
2. To shift the modern idea of the contract to the eThearliest times is thus bad logic.
The idea of contract is an individualist idea; it makes the will of individuals the basis
of political authority. Primitive people were not at all aware of this idea. Lives of the
primitive people were largely governed by custom at the various levels of groupings
like family, clan, tribe etc. law, sovereignty and political institution grew from this
process in a slow and gradual manner, not by a compact of freely contracting
individuals.
3. David Hume argued that government was not created through a deliberate decision
of the people. It arose because people realized that it was to their advantage to
support any authority that enforced the rules of justice effectively. Hence the idea of
social contract as depicted by Hobbes, Locke and others were both historically
improbable and philosophically unnecessary to impose allegiance.

4. Moreover, a contract to be valid, requires the force or sanction of the state, which
exists above and apart from the contracting parties. The so-called social contract had
no such sanctions, because it precedes the establishment of the state itself.

5. The second criticism came from Tom Paine (philosophical viewpoint). He criticized
the conception of the contract because according to him the contract is eternally
binding and as a consequence, a deadweight on the wheel of progress. The contract is
of a static quality so there was an element of conservatism involved.
6. The third criticism according to some scholars is highly mechanical because the
scholars who have said this feel that the state is more of a natural institution rather
than a mechanical construct which is based on a contract. It cannot be based on an
artificial contract. The natural institution takes its own time to grow and develop
which cannot happen in a mechanical construct. This view has been accepted by
Aristotle in his work Politik.
7. The last criticism was that the last theory illogically postulates the existence of
natural liberty and rights in the state of nature. Rights are the product of developed
social consciousness and partly the product of laws which are partly enacted by the
state. In a state of nature there was no political consciousness and there was no
authority armed with laws to enforce the rights and protect the people. It doesn’t
develop on its own.

According to Willoughby in spite of the criticisms one cannot overlook the SCT’s
contribution to democracy. The contractualists laid the foundation of democracy. It also
proved to be an antidote to the divine origin theory. The contribution of the
contractualists to the development of the modern theory of sovereignty is also
noteworthy. It paved the way for the analytical school of jurisprudence which was later
on elaborated by scholars like Bentham and Austin which came to be known as the
monistic school or monism. Hobbes’ writings had some elements which had some hints
in the writings of Austin and Bentham. There is an anticipation of Austin in Hobbes’
writings. The concept of Political sovereignty can also be discovered in Lockian writings
but he mentions about political monarchy. Rousseau was also a forceful author who
paved the way for Popular Sovereignty. This paved the foundation for Direct
sovereignty.
The concept of separation of power which is actually a boulevard of Political
sovereignty was indirectly present in Lockian writing which was later on elaborated by
Montesquieu in his book spirit of laws.
In spite of the criticisms of the contract theory, One cannot overlook its contributions.
 1. According to Willoughby, the contractualists laid down the foundation of
democracy.
2. By Tom Paine’s stress on the democratic premise, the social contract theory proved
to be an antidote to the divine origin theory.
3. The contribution of the contractualists to the development of the modern theory of
sovereignty is also noteworthy. There is an anticipation of Austin’s legal sovereignty
in Hobbesian writing.
4. The concept of political sovereignty can be found in Lockian writings.
5. Rousseau’s powerful concept of popular sovereignty paved the way for direct
democracy.
6. Finally, the theory of separation of power, which was a bulwark of political liberty.
Was also present in Lockian writing and later in Montesquieu’s work the Spirit of the
Laws.

Historical/Evolutionary Theory of the origin of State-

According to this theory the origin of the state cannot be explained by only by the terms of
force or divinity. Rather it is said that this theory emerged out of the interaction and
combination of a number of elements which can be called as the Historical factors.
There are 5 elements or factors involved. According to this theory the state developed over a
period of time. The five factors are:

● Kinship or blood ties:

MacIver states that “Kinship creates society and society at length creates state.”
Sociologists have provided proof of the fact that kinship actually has played a very
important role in the evolution of the state. The primary unit of the human society has
always been the family. The members though have always been united. These families
have expanded in to clans and the clans evolved into tribes which have finally
culminated into the formation of the state and the final transformation into a nation-state.
Here sociologists view that blood ties have been supported very strongly by the historians
who state that the ties of blood have led the very foundation of a nation-state.

● Religion:
The people were much uncivilized initially and as such they tried to associate any
occurrence to a divine force. Taking advantage of such superstitious beliefs some people
who took advantage and came up to be socio-religious superiors who extended their
political authority over the common people and claimed that they had the power to
prevent such natural occurrences to happen. In this way the religious fears united the
common people by the way of respect of the socio-religious superiors. In course of time
these superiors became important and in this way the state was formed.

● Force1:
It is used to maintain self-preservation and self-defense. In this way the state has come
into being.

● Economic Activities:
The economic activities of individuals for a long period of time led to the emergence of
society. As the people were very simple thus, the activities were also very simple. The
system of barter existed minutely. As times progressed economic necessities of the
individuals started to grow and as such the requirements of specialization of labor was
required and thus the economic system became more and more complex. Specialization
of labor dealt with certain sections of the society became skilled in a certain profession
and with this; there emerged weavers, et al. The concept of private property came up with
the specialization of labor. This private property divided the society in the propertied
and the ones property less. As such this has also been elaborated by Marx in his writings
where he has said that in every stage of human civilization there has been antagonism by
the two sections of the society which is evident in the different systems. With the system
people started to feel that there was constant antagonism and hence a political authority
was required to control and regulate the economic activities and promote law and order.
This authority became the state.

● Political Consciousness:
The emergence of the state was largely due to the political consciousness. It involves
political awareness and other factors which are to understand the necessities for political
organization which would control their political activities and also direct them as to how
to conduct these political activities. This conduct was absent in the primitive stage of the
early civilizations; and with political consciousness led to the formation of the state.

Evaluation:
This theory is the only theory regarding the origin of the state which has been accepted by the
political scholars. The reason is it is not partial or one sided. It doesn’t believe in the origin in
the state of the divinity or force alone. In contrast this particular theory according to some
scholars:
“The state is neither the handiwork of God nor the result of superior physical force, nor the
creation of resolution or convention nor a mere expansion of the family.” According to this
theory the state is not an artificial creation; rather it is a natural institution which emerged an
evolved out of a natural process of historical development. Therefore, this theory is also
regarded as one of the most objective theories of state origin.
Right’s Discourse: [Pages 106 – 112]
What are rights?
Rights are those conditions of social life without which no man can seek, in general, to be
himself at his best self or best personality. They are guided by certain mutual relations and
these relations are well conducted by well-established rules of conduct. The sum total of the
opportunities provided by the state for the expression of an individual’s personality is known
as rights. Since rights seek to bring out the development and enrichment of the individual and
thus, it results in the enrichment of the state. Therefore, the state would always try to provide
to the set of rights. According to Laski every state is known for the types of rights that it
provides to its citizens.
Different characteristics of rights:
● None of the rights are guaranteed by the state. It has to be recognized by the society and
adopted by the state. It should also be noted that rights are not available to only a few
persons but to all persons of the state.
● Rights from the above discussion are those characteristics without which an individual
cannot develop his/her personality.
● Rights imply duties and are the two sides of the same coin.
● Rights are not static in nature but are actually dynamic in nature. They have a tendency to
grow and evolve and change in accordance to the circumstances.
● Rights are not absolute and cannot be absolute and they are subjected to reasonable
restrictions in the larger interests of the society.
● The state does not create rights; it recognizes and guarantees them.

Traces of natural rights are found in Greco – Roman workings. It was popularized by
Hobbes, Locke, and Spinoza.
Locke especially attached importance to natural rights & even went on to the extent of
making it the source of all political obligations.
According to Locke, there was need for a civil society required for safeguarding rights of
individuals. Rights mentioned by him are Right to Life, Property and Liberty. Lockian
writings have had a tremendous influence on the American declaration of rights of man &
even Rights of property had an impact on the Upheavals in Europe.

Theories of Rights- (theories of rights)- OP Gauba search term.

1. Theory of Natural Rights- This is one of the oldest theories regarding rights and we
find traces of this theory in the writings of Greek and Roman thinkers. But it was in
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that the theory was popularized by
philosophers like Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza etc.
Locke especially attached great importance to natura rights and went to the extent of
making it the source of all political obligations. According to Locke, the need for a
civil society was felt for safeguarding the natura right of men.
The three natural rights mentioned by Locke were right to life liberty and property.
The ideas of Locke exercised profound influence on the American Declaration of
Rights of Man.
According to Natural Theory of Rights, the rights inherent in human nature and
existed even prior to the creation of the state. The state cannot curtain or alienate these
rights. It is asserted that most of the other social, legal or moral rights are based on
natural rights.
The chief assumptions underlying the theory of natural rights are as follows-
a. Firstly, these rights are in the form of gifts from nature and cannot be taken back
from the individual except by nature itself.
b. Secondly, man is born with these rights and they are not given after his birth by
someone as a matter of grace.
 c. Thirdly, these rights are prior to the state and the state was created for the
protection of these rights. The state cannot destroy or take away these rights.
d. Fourthly, these rights are absolute and cannot be limited by the state. The state is
merely expected to protect these rights.
e. Finally, these rights are essential for the happiness of the individual and he can
develop his potentialities only through the exercise of these rights.

2. Legal Theory of Rights- OP Gauba

The theory of legal rights holds that all rights of man depend on the state for their
existence. There can be no right in the proper sense of the term unless it is so
recognized by the state. According to this theory, no rights are absolute, nor are any
rights inherent in the nature of man as such. 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. This implies: (a) in the first place, that there are no rights
prior to the state, because they come into existence with the state itself; (b) secondly,
it is the state which declares the law and thereby guarantees and enforces rights—no
rights can exist beyond the legal framework provided by the state; and (c) finally, as
the law may change from time to time, the substance of rights also changes therewith
—there can be no 'fixed' rights in any society, not to speak of eternal or universal
rights.

Do you think Locke was a Libertarian?

Drawing inspiration from the 'natural rights' theory of John Locke, libertarianism
holds that certain rights of the individual which precede his political life, are
indefeasible and these cannot be surrendered in favour of the collectivity. It
particularly defends the right to acquire and hold property and freedom of contract.
These rights are by no means the product of the state itself, hence the state cannot be
allowed to intervene for any artificial balancing of rights. It even condemns taxation
of the rich for the benefit of the poor. It argues that taxation for welfare of certain
sections of society involves the forced transfer of fruit of one man's labour to another,
which serves as a disincentive to individual. On the contrary, if all individuals are free
from state compulsion, they will put their best into the system. In effect this means
that laissez-faire capitalism is most conducive to social progress. An extreme form of
libertarianism holds that all government is illegitimate; hence it comes closer to
'anarchism'. However, while anarchists project a vision of society wherein use of
force would become redundant, extreme-libertarians look forward to the
establishment of a system in which function of protection would be assigned to
private protective agencies. On the other hand, moderate libertarians concede that
government may legitimately engage in police protection and enforcement of
contracts for which civil as well as criminal courts might be established. In addition, it
may undertake national defence, but nothing beyond these functions. Thus, they
uphold, at best, a 'nightwatchman state'. The amount of taxation, they hold, should be
restricted to serve these purposes only. The chief exponents of libertarianism include
F.A. Hayek (1899-1992), Isaiah Berlin (1909-97), Milton Friedman (1912-2006) and
 Robert Nozick (1938-2002). Thus Robert Nozick, in his Anarchy, State and Utopia
(1974), following Locke's method argues that individuals do have certain rights in the
state of nature.

Hegelian Concept of Civil Society-

German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) sought to distinguish 'civil society' from the
state which were based in 'universal egoism' and 'universal altruism' respectively. In Hegel's
view, civil society represented an organization in which an individual dealt with all other
individuals (apart from the members of his family) as means to serve his self-interest. It is the
sphere of economic activities where an individual tries to know the need of others and to
satisfy them in order to satisfy his own needs. Another German philosopher Karl Marx
(1818- 83) accepted Hegel's description of civil society, but he did not accept Hegel's
distinction between civil society and the state, Marx believed that in actual practice civil
society represented the state itself. It recognized individual as a citizen and conceded equality
of all individuals in the eye of law. But since the economic power in the contemporary civil
society was in the hands of capitalist class, law also served the interests of this class.

EXPONENTS OF POSITIVE LIBERALISM (Page 248 OP Gauba PDF)

John Stuart Mill (1806-73), was the first prominent liberal thinker who started with a defence
of laissez-faire individualism, but on realizing its weaknesses in the light of new socio-
economic realities, he proceeded to modify it. In the event he proved himself to be the chief
exponent of positive liberalism. After Mill, Thomas Hill Green (1836-82) and L.T. Hobhouse
(1864-1929), both English political thinkers, made important contributions to the theory of
positive liberalism. Green and Hobhouse insisted on a positive role of the state in removing
social inequalities, and they stated their case eloquently and convincingly. Subsequently in
early twentieth century Harold J. Laski (1893-1950), an English political thinker, and Robert
M. Maclver (1882-1970), an American Sociologist, sought to provide new foundations for
the liberal theory-a pluralistic base in lieu of its hitherto individualistic base which was not
found to be strong enough.

John Stuart Mill-

J.S. Mill is the most brilliant of nineteenth-century liberal thinkers. He played an important
role in drawing a distinction between the political and economic spheres, and in working out
the implications of liberal theory in these spheres. Thus, while in the political sphere he
proved himself to be a strong supporter of constitutional and representative government, in
the economic sphere he showed socialist leanings and laid the foundations of the 'welfare
state'. In this way, Mill gave a positive direction to liberal theory. Revision of Utilitarianisdm
Mill was brought up in the Utilitarian tradition of Bentham; he was also the most ardent
champion of individualism. As C.E.M. Joad, in his introduction to Modern Political Theory
(1924), has elucidated:
Mill, in common with other Utilitarian thinkers . . . insists on regarding every political
question in terms of the happiness or unhappiness of human beings, and not... in terms of an
abstraction such as the General Will or the personality of the State. While conceding,
therefore, the contention of the Absolutists that since the State is a natural growth or
organism, it is only in the State that the individual can enjoy the fullest happiness of which
his nature is capable, he goes on to point out that this admission does not mean that the State
does not exist for the happiness of individuals. He then proceeds to draw the conclusion that
it is the business of Government actively to promote the happiness of individuals, and that, if
it fails in this respect, it must give way to some other form of social organization that
succeeds. Mill agreed with Bentham in identifying happiness with pleasure and unhappiness
with pain. But he disagreed with Bentham's view that happiness could be measured by
quantitative differences of pleasures, not by qualitative differences. Mill maintained that
some pleasures were qualitatively superior to others. This implied a departure from
Bentham's position on the method of aggregation and maximization of pleasure, happiness or
utility. As C.B. Macpherson, in his Democratic Theory—Essays in Retrieval (1973), has
noted: Mill revolted against Bentham's material maximizing criterion of the social good. He
could not agree that all pleasures were equal, nor that the market distributed them fairly. He
held that men were capable of something better than the money-grubbing and starvation-
avoiding existence to which Benthamism condemned them. He rejected the maximization of
indifferent utilities as the criterion of social good, and put in its place the maximum
development and use of human capacities—moral, intellectual, aesthetic, as well as material
productive capacities.

John Austin- was import thinker who paved the way for monistic school of sovereignty
 His monistic theory of sovereignty-he was a English jurists of the 19 century his
th

theory is known as the monistic or classical theory of sovereignty to be found in his

book “Province of Jurisprudence Determined” published in 1832. [ ] the theory of
sovereignty as a legal concept was perfect by Austin, he is regarded as the greatest
exponent of the monistic theory of sovereignty. Austin’s theory was largely
influenced by hobbesian social contract theory and Bentham’s writings. Austin
presented a legal interpretation of sovereignty which has influenced political Sc and
law profoundly. 
 Austin’s theory is based on his definition of law. He defined law as “the command of
a superior to and inferior.” He defined of sovereignty as follows:
“if a determinate human superior, not in the habit of obedience to a like superior, receives
habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society, that determinates superior is sovereign in
that society, and that society [ including the superior] is a society political and independent.”
Austin further remarked the position of other members of the society towards that superiors is
a position of subjection and dependence. Finally “law is the command of the sovereign”.
 IMPLICATIONS OF AUSTINS THEORY it has 4 implications
 1) as Harold J Laski, the state for Austin is a legal organization in which there is a
‘determinate authority’ vested with sovereign power. So the sovereign power
according to Austin is clearly identifiable since he is a ‘determinate authority’. Hence
Austin made it clear that the people cannot be sovereign because the people as such
are an indeterminate entity 
 2) the ‘determinate authority’ enjoys absolute and unlimited sovereign power. As such
the sovereign receives ‘habitual obedience’ from the people, in the sense that the
people develop habit of paying blind obedience to the sovereign. At the same time the
sovereign is not the habit of paying obedience “to a like superior” simply because
 there is nobody who is superior to the sovereign in society. On this point hobbesian
social contract theory has influenced Austinian ideas.
 3)
 4)

04-02
(…)
05-02
Pg-85
WHY IS AUSTIN’S THEORY OF SOVEREIGNTY CALLED THE MONASTIC
THEORY ?
By establishing a single source of all positive law, Austin put fotward a monistic view of law,
state and sovereignty. It is significant that Austin’s theory solely dwells on the legal character
of sovereignty, it does not repudiate moral or social limitations on the power of the state. He
does not declare the state as a, “perfect embodiment of reason”, as the idealist theory had
maintained. Austin is an exponent of absolute and unlimited sovereignty, purely from legal
and formal point of view. He admits that sovereign authority habitually observes fundamental
moral principles, though not legally bound by any external authority. He does not envisage an
irresponsible sovereign but holds that the sovereign cannot be formally made responsible to
any authority similar to himself/herself. His/her authority is legally superior to all individuals
and groups within his/ her jurisdictions. 

John Austin’s monistic theory of Sovereignty:

● He was one of the early proponents of Sovereignty.
● His theory is also known as the Monistic theory.
● He was an English jurist. His ideas are to be found in the famous book of ‘Lectures in
Jurisprudence’ which was written in 1832
● He was influenced by the Hobbesian Social Contract Theory and the Benthamite principles.
● Austin justified the principles of Legal Sovereignty which has profoundly influenced
political science and jurisprudence.
● Austin’s theory is based on the definition of law: “The command of a superior to an
inferior.”
● Austin’s statement of sovereignty is as follows:
“If a determinate human superior, not in the habit of obedience to a like superior, received
habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society, that determinate superior is sovereign in
that society and the society (including the superior) is political and independent.”

He further remarked: “The position of the other members of the society towards that superior
is a position of subjection and dependence.”

Finally, “Law is the command of the sovereign.”

Implications of the Austin’s theory of sovereignty:
● The sovereign is a “determinate state” which was stated by a Laski on Austin.
● The determinate authority enjoys absolute and unlimited power and control. As such the
sovereign receives ‘habitual obedience’ from the people in the sense that the people develop
the habit of pain like obedience. There is nobody superior to the sovereign in the society and
it is on this particular point that the Hobbessian theory of social contract has influenced the
Austin theory of sovereignty.
● Austin had said that “Law is the command of the sovereign”. This implies that the
commands issued by the sovereign become a law in the society. Any disobedience would
result in physical punishment. Therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the people to obey to
the sovereign’s commands which results in the blind subjugation of the people.
● Sovereignty in the Austinian sense is indivisible. Therefore, it must belong to one
determinate authority and cannot be divided between two bodies.

Criticisms of Austin’s theory:

Austin’s theory has been criticised by a lot of political scientists and sociologists such as Sir
Henry Sumner Maine, Sidgwick and by the various other pluralist thinkers. Lindsay, Laski,
Cole, Duguit, etc. were also included.
1. Henry Maine’s criticism:
a. It goes against the democratic structure of governance. Austin completely rejected the idea
of popular sovereignty which constitutes the basis of democracy. The people cannot be
designated as sovereign simply because they are an indefinite mass and an indeterminate
entity. There can be only one determinate authority vested with absolute and unlimited
sovereign power. According to Henry Maine that this particular opinion of Austin is not
acceptable because sovereign power in a democracy is vested in the people although they
may not be determinable. Sovereignty cannot be absolute and unlimited because sovereign
power of the state is restricted by public opinion.

2. Austin’s theory is also anti democratic also because he supported a hierarchical society. A
democratic society is theoretically a society of equals. Therefore Austin’s theory goes against
the democratic concept of individual equality.
3. Austin’s idea of law as the command of the sovereign has also been severely criticised by
modern political scholars because, the source of law is not the sovereign’s command. For
example, Raja Ranjit Singh of Punjab who never issued any written commands to his
subjects. Rather he ruled his subjects with the long usages of verbal sermons.
4. Sociologists have also criticised Austin’s idea of law as the command of the sovereign on
the same point and they have argued that law in fact has nothing to do with the sovereign’s
commands. Among these Sociologists must be included the French scholar Duguit. He says
that the people obey law not because it is the command of the sovereign but since it is
necessary that it must be obeyed. According to Laski it is the individual’s conscience that
forces them to obey the laws.
5. Austin’s theory of sovereignty is based on the idea of force and not consent of the people
The most important objection advanced against Austin’s theory is that like Hobbes Austin
also advocated a form of dictatorship where the sovereign would have an absolute
unrestricted power and the people would be in blind subjugation of the state.

Yes. I do agree with the above-mentioned question statement. I will further elaborate and reason my
agreement by providing arguments for the same. It is also that the Philosophical Sub-approach of
the Traditional Approach to the study of Political Science is classical. The philosophical approach is
concerned with the clarification of concepts used in a particular discipline and this is an effort to
clarify thought about the nature of the subject and the ends and means of studying it.

This approach aims to make the conceptions of reality clear, consistent and coherent and it further
enhances linguistic clarity and tries to reduce linguistic confusion so that one may understand the
conceptions of reality and the reality

Philosophical approach aims at evolving standards of right and wrong for the purpose of a critical
evaluation of the existing institutions, laws and policies.

Most of the classical political theory represents philosophical approach. Its themes are generally
concerned with moral reasoning which cannot be subjected to scientific test although the empirical
aspect of such reasoning can always be questioned. Moreover, the moral aspect of such reasoning
can also be questioned from the viewpoint of our 'modern consciousness'. For instance, Kant's
concept of 'human dignity' which rules out any type of slavery, is closer to modern consciousness
than Aristotle's defence of slavery. Then most of the political thinkers proceeded on some notion of
'human nature' which can now be questioned in the light of the findings of the contemporary
psychology and social sciences.

Hence the philosophical approach does not simply rely on the political thought of the past; it is a
subject of current and continuous debate.

1) Most of the classical thinkers, proceeding from a hypothesis about human nature,
dwelled on two main themes: 'art of government' and 'grounds of political obligation'.
Aristotle postulated: 'man is by nature a political animal and then elaborated his views
on these two subjects. Machiavelli mainly dwelled on 'art of government' on the
assumption of the very selfish and ungrateful nature of man.

2) Thereafter, 'art of government' ceased to be a part of mainstream political theory.

Hobbes mainly focused on the grounds of political obligation; his absolutist view of
political obligation was carried on by Rousseau and Hegel on different grounds.
 3) Locke was probably the first thinker to repudiate this absolutist view and to postulate
'rights' of the individual against the state. That is why Locke is regarded as the pioneer
of individualism which later developed into liberalism.

4) While the classical political theory was dominated by philosophy and dealt with the
description, explanation, prescription and evaluation of the political phenomena;
empirical political theory claimed to be a science and has been primarily concerned
with the description and explanation of the political reality.

5) Leo Strauss was one of the contemporary champions of the philosophical approach to
the study of politics. According to him, political science and political philosophy are
coterminous as they denote an attempt to obtain true knowledge of political things as
well as standards of what is right and what is good. Political philosophy is a product
of our quest for a good life and society. Strauss highlights that only facts or values
can’t suffice to have a proper understanding of politics. Values and facts are
indispensable parts of political philosophy which enable us to take such analysis,
assumptions regarding politics take the character of opinion and political philosophy
seeks to replace this opinion with knowledge as highlighter by Socrates. Strauss has
criticized the contemporary political philosopher for example those who have
developed the Behavioural Approach to Politics which insists on a completely value
based approach and thus destroys the essence of true knowledge of politics.

Hence to conclude my stance on the statement in question, it is essential to understand the

relevance of the Philosophical approach in the modern day which is of continuous and ongoing
nature and that is why it is said that the philosophical approach does not simply rely on the
political thought of the past; it is a subject of current and continuous debate.