Political Philosophy 1 - Copy.docx

Name : Anagha Pradeep Reg No- 37079 Programme – M.A Political Science Course – Political Philosophy: Key Concepts 1 (PO414N) Tutorial Group – B Question – Quite often the state has been viewed as neutral(organization), and protector of individual rights and facilitator of freedom. Comment on this statement with special reference to the liberal theories of the state.

The idea of state as a body or apparatus for governance and regulation has undergone tremendous transformation. The most widely accepted notion of the state is based on the modern Western Political thought which considers the state as an impersonal and authorized body to administer a certain territory and facilitate freedom for its citizens. This paper would try to trace the evolution of the idea of the modern state with special focus on the liberal theories and critique of the same. Though the above mentioned idea of state is said to have emerged in the ancient world (especially in Rome), it was not until 16th century that the question of the nature and function of state started dominating the discussions and debates among political theorists. This idea of state as an impersonal and sovereign body could not exist in the medieval period where the political rights and duties were closely linked with property and religion and people were seen merely as dutiful subjects of the monarch. But various developments in the 16th century like the flourishing of Renaissance culture and its interest in classical political ideas, challenge to Catholicism, struggle between state and church, peasant rebellions, spread of trade, etc provided an impetus to the quest for the idea of a modern state among political philosophers and theorists. Different theorists beginning with Machiavelli and Jean Bodin, thus, came up with their own theory regarding the nature, origin, scope and function of state. The Liberal theory Liberalism as a political philosophy emerged during the 16th and 17th century with the emergence of the new bourgeois class (middle class), as a progressive revolt against the reactionary forces of feudalism, monarchy and the church. Though liberalism itself has evolved over time, it could be generally said the liberal theory of modern state focuses on the questions of sovereignty and citizenship. It regards state as an agency to secure the life, liberty and property of individuals. The functions of state itself, as defined by them, have evolved with respect to the requirement of the bourgeois class. Accordingly, Classical liberalism of the 18th and 19th century which advocated the negative state with minimal functions, changed to modern liberalism in the late 19th and early 20th century which supported the positive state with welfare functions. Hobbes, Locke, Rawls, Adam Smith and Mill are some of the important figures associated with the liberal theory of the state. Hobbes was one among the early theorists who delved into the question of rights of states and duties of subjects in his books ‘De due’ (1642) and ‘Leviathan’ (1651). He was preoccupied with two questions - firstly, why is a great Leviathan or State necessary and secondly, what form should the state take? The theory of state, thus formulated by him, was with keeping in mind the theory of human nature, sovereign authority and political obligation. For Hobbes, the state of nature i.e, the condition without any political association is characterized by war of every man against every man. Accordingly, the state for him must be regarded both as absolute and legitimate so that the worst of evil- civil war- could be permanently averted. The basis of this state would be the individuals who are free and equal. Such a definition of state along with his some of his other views also earned him the title of being the liberal illiberal. His theory of state is liberal because he attributes the existence of state itself to individuals who are free and equal and also unearths the best condition for human nature- generally understood as selfish, egoistic and self-interested to find expression. His theory also stresses on the need for consent in the making of a contract to regulate human affairs and also for legitimizing and justifying such regulation. But at the same time, it is also illiberal as he

advocates for an absolute all-powerful state to create the laws and secure the conditions of social and political life. John Locke strongly opposed the Hobbesian argument that individuals can only co-exist peacefully if they are governed by an indivisible sovereign. This would be undermining the nature of humans and also in such a condition it is doubtful whether people who do not trust each other would trust an all powerful ruler to look after their interests. He outrightly rejected the idea of a Great Leviathan. He argued for a state that would safeguard the life, liberty and estate of its citizens. For him, society which is the sum of individuals exists prior to the state and the state is established to guide the society. As opposed to Hobbes, the state of nature is not a state of license for Locke. Individuals are bound by duty to God and governed by the law of nature which is based on the principles of morality. Also, Locke stresses that the formation of state does not indicate the transfer of the rights of all individuals to the state. Consent is also key to Locke. The government rules and its legitimacy is sustained by the consent of the individuals. Though Locke could be said to have laid the foundation for the development of liberalism, he did not anticipate the vital components of democratic representative government like competitive parties, party rule and the maintenance of political liberties irrespective of class, color, sex and creed. He did not consider the need for regular elections let alone Universal suffrage. James Mill and Jeremy Benthamen went a step ahead and advocated for a liberal democracy which would ensure the accountability of the governors to the governed. Both of them were highly impressed with the progress made in natural science and followed a secular outlook. They considered the concepts of social contract, natural right and natural law as misleading and stressed on the argument that the key to understanding humans and of the system of governance best suited to them lies in the realization that they act to gratify their desires and reduce pain. It was keeping in mind this idea that Mill, Benthamen and other Utilitarians argued for a state whose chief function would be to protect the democratic rights of the citizen and ensure the free functioning of democracy safeguarding its subjects from any form of oppression. They advocated for regular elections, abolition of the powers of the monarch, division of power within the state and free market. But at the same time they did not argue for a minimal state whose scope and power was strictly limited. Most of them argue that the state should have a range of service functions beyond rights. Here it is noteworthy that the utilitarians in the name of public good advocated a new system of administrative power for person management and also pushed for state intervention whenever laissez-faire was inadequate. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that Benthamen and James Mill were reluctant democrats as they found grounds for excluding the labour class and women from the sphere of franchise. Democracy for them was not an end but a means for the governance of a society which is focused on the maximization of private gains. J.S Mill unlike Benthamen and James Mill advocated for a democracy that would ensure individual liberty in all spheres of human life which in turn would ensure the highest and harmonious development of individual capacities.. In his work ‘On Liberty’ he puts forward his ideas on the question of the autonomy of individuals and minorities. For him, the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. He also strongly argues for a system of representative democracy which would not only make the government accountable to the citizens but would also make wiser

citizens who would be capable of pursuing public interest. But J.S Mill had a rather regressive stand with regard to the system of voting. He argued for a plural system of voting which advocates that all adults should have a vote but the wiser and more talented should have more votes than the ignorant and less able. He took occupational status for the allocation of votes; thus the privileged could never be outvoted by the weak and unprivileged. The views of J.S Mill have often been compared to John Rawls, considered the champion of justice and liberty, who was of the opinion that only in a liberal state and society can justice exist and flourish. Critique of liberal theories Though the liberal theories of the state encourages for a free and just world, it also has its shortcomings. It has faced maximum wrath from the Marxist school of thinkers as well as feminist as it has failed to address the question of social cleavages of gender and class. Both Marx and Engels relentlessly opposed the idea of having individual as the starting point of the analysis of state. As Marx points out “man is not an abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the human world, the state, society.” Individuals exist in interaction with and in relation to others and their nature can be studies only as a social and historical product. For Marx and Engels, the key to understanding the relation between people is class structure which the liberal theorists have failed to look at. Class divisions arise when surplus is generated and the ones who are able to capture the means of production form a dominant or ruling class both economically and politically. Marx maintains in almost all his essays that the state is directly dependent on the economic, social and political power of the dominant ruling class. The famous slogan of the Communist Manifesto points out the Marxist critic very well: The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. The ruling class maintains their grip on the state through alliance with the government. This idea has been becoming very evident in the present times when governments across the world are becoming tools for the Capitalist to execute their plans and interests. Neoliberalism has in fact become a threat to the sovereignty of state itself. From a feminist perspective, the liberal theorists have been criticized for ignoring the questions of gender equality and the private public dichotomy. Most liberal theorists had not even argued for suffrage right of women and the labour class. State had for long continued to be bourgeois structure with patriarchy entrenched in it. The liberal theory while focusing on individual flourishing and public good has also failed to address the problems in the private domestic sphere. Thus, state has also stayed away from addressing the question of violence and other crimes in the private sphere. Keeping in mind these critiques and the general state of affairs around the world it could well be argued that the state has most often been able to guarantee rights and freedom to only certain sections of the society and the underprivileged and marginalized sections have often been neglected.

References David Held, “Central Perspectives on the Modern State. Open University.1984