25. Describe Plato's concept of justice and examine critically.

Plato’s Concept of Justice:

Plato had given great prominence to the concept of justice, it was clear fact that he subtitled his
book of ‘Republic’ as ‘Concerning justice’, the nature and occupancy of justice was the
important issues of Republic. Plato while explanation his theory of justice, he observed different
prevailing theories of justice, after rejecting them he proposed his own views on theory of
justice. The following theories of justice were rejected by Plato.
Traditional theory
This theory was produced by Cephalous, and his son Polemarchus, they defined justice as
speaking truth and paying what was due to Gods and men. It was considered that, good is done
to friends and harm to the enemies. Plato disallowed this theory because justice means doing
well to all and harm to none, which depends upon the principles of morality. He further said, it
was not possible to distinct between enemies and friends because the appearance would be
often deceiving. Another flaw of his theory was, it treats justice as an individualistic rather than
social concept. Justice cannot differ from person to person and it must have universal
application. This theory was not tolerable because it’s handmaid of those in power and gives
sufficient scope for misuse.
Radicalist Theory
This theory was linked to Sophists and produced by Thrasymachus, preserved justice as the
interest of the stronger. It trusts in the principle of might is right. When the government
strongest, it makes laws to the suitability of the rulers and justice for the people, seeking the
interest of the ruler rather than follow their own interests. Sophists said that injustice is better
than justice every person would like to promote his own interest would go against interest of
ruler. Therefore, Thrasymachus claims that, injustice is better than justice and unjust man is
wiser than the just.
Plato had disallowed this theory of justice because firstly, Justice can never be the interest of
stronger. The government is an art and it must aim at the perfection of the material viz., the
subjects rather than its own faultlessness. A ruler must be selfless in his duties as ruler, must
work for the progress and governed. Secondly, justice is always better than injustice because a
just man is wiser, durable and better off than an unjust man and knows his limitation. He tries
to work within limits and does his appointed purposes. Thirdly, Plato condemns the extreme
individualism of the Sophists and holds that individual is not an independent unit but a part of
an order. Fourthly, there cannot be dual standards for Justice one for the ruler and the other
for the subjects. Thrasymachus could not give any rational justification, this concept has no
universal application.
Pragmatic Theory
This theory was proposed by Gloucan, he stated that, justice is an artificial thing, a product of
social agreement. Justice is the child of fear and is founded on the need of the weak. Therefore,
justice is not the interest of the stronger but it is the necessity of weak.
Plato left out and condemned this theory because it considers that justice is something external
or an importation. He said that, justice is rooted in human mind.
Concept of Justice by Plato:
After rejecting those prevailed concepts of Justice, he proposed his own concepts of justice. He opined
that, justice must be present both in individual and in society. He thought that justice in the state
existing in bigger and much noticeable form, he tried to put it with the help of state. According to Plato,
there are three constituents inhuman mind namely reason, sprit and appetite, which are presented by
the rulers, soldiers and farmers. He opined that each of these three makes a valuable contribution for
the creation of the state. Justice can be done if each group performs their duty without interfering each
other. Justice is a bond which holds a society together, pleasant union of individuals, each of whom has
found his life work in accordance with his natural fitness and training, it is both public and private virtue.
Plato’s concept of justice was explained by Barker as, social justice many be defined as the principle of
society, consisting of different types of men (producing type, military type, ruling type), who have
combined with each other to perform their own duties.

Hence, the concept of justice by Plato, based on three principles. First it works as functional
specialization like giving a definite function to each one according to his capacity and merit, second, it
works, noninterference of different groups. So that they can concentrate on their own duty. This sort of
work required for the unity and welfare of all the members of sate. Third, it implies harmony in between
the three classes (groups) representing wisdom, courage and temperance respectively.

Criticism of Plato’s Concept of Justice:

The concept of justice by Plato has been exposed to criticism, the following charges are leveled.

First, the concept of justice by Plato is mainly grounded on moral principles. Which lacks legal sanction,
hence, is not enforceable. It is based on self- control and self –rejection in the interest of society. At any
stage of history more moral sanction cannot protect the social good.

Second, Plato’s theory of justice could be practical only in the city-state. It toughly enforces the principle
of division of labour and except everyone to do his allotted duty to satisfy society. In the present
context, it is not possible nor can be fixed. If duties can be given to the members of each class because
the population has increased so much.

Third he said that each individual owns their qualities like, reasons, spirit and appetite, he wants each
individual must contribute to the development of only one faculty. He wants ruler class to develop
faculty of reason. The soldier class to develop faculty of spirit or courage while appetite for the peasant
class.

Fourth, his concept of justice gives absolute power to one class like, the philosophers, because they
have lot of wisdom. Thus, there is a scope for inequalities of power and privilege in his concept of
justice. However, he failed to realize grant of absolute power in the hands of any person or class of
persons though morally and spiritually trained lead to degeneration on and corruption.
Fifth, to spot the misuse of power by ruling class, he pleaded for communalism of property and wives in
complete violation of human psychology.

Sixth, Prof. Popper, said that, Plato’s concept of justice gives rise to totalitarianism and it ignores the
humanization principles like equality, freedom and individualism.

Seventh, Plato subordinates, individuals completely to the state and shows him a meagre means for the
promotion of the interest of the state.

Eighth, his justice gives rise to a class-state in which ruling is the privilege of a particular class.

26. Discuss the Plato’s contribution to the history of political thought

The political thought of Plato was resulted partly from current intellectual climate and principal political
conditions and partly from the ideas of from Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus and Socrates. In fact no
political philosophy is intelligible save in the context of its time, and this is true about Plato’s philosophy
as well.

After the death of Pericles in 429 B.C., the Athenian leadership had destroyed to a

low level. The execution of Socrates made Plato to reconsideration he took the task of rebuilding
philosophically the moral fiber and political organization of Athens and to achieve this end, he agreed
certain solutions which were observed as the most inspiring and excellent ideas in the history of political
thought.

If Plato was influenced by the conditions overcome at that time, among the Greek thinkers, Pythagoras,
Heraclitus and Socrates influenced him. From Pythagoras he learned the theory of Tripartite Man, which
says human mind is made of three elements. The appetite, the spirit and reason. Socrates had the
utmost influence on Plato’ life, he was influenced by Socratic theory of knowledge, he advanced it into a
system of Metaphysics. It says, each theory which we observe in this world in an imperfect imagination
of a perfect original called the ‘Idea’ or ‘Form’. There is seeming ‘Dualism’ i.e., there are two worlds –
the world of being and the world of becoming. The world of being is a static world of perfection or an
ideal world, which is real because it is ideal or perfect. The world of becoming which is an active world of
imperfection, a world of particular things, which is imaginary because it is imperfect. The former is world
of reason later is world of sense – perception.

Plato was also obligated to Socrates for his identification of virtue with knowledge.

Socrates said that, there could be no ‘virtue’ or ‘excellence’ without knowledge. Storage of facts is not
knowledge. Socrates said knowledge and morality are identical. Knowledge influenced the total
personality, hence, all qualities are inferior to knowledge. In fact, the proposal ‘virtue is knowledge’ is
the important idea of the Republic. The entire theme of Rule of Philosophy which Plato build up in the
‘Republic’ is based on Socrates proposal that virtue is knowledge. His contribution to the history of
political thought may well be understood after examining his views on justice, education and
communism of wives and property and Rule of Philosopher king.
Concept of Justice by Plato:
After rejecting those prevailed concepts of Justice, he proposed his own concepts of justice. He opined
that, justice must be present both in individual and in society. He thought that justice in the state
existing in bigger and much noticeable form, he tried to put it with the help of state. According to Plato,
there are three constituents inhuman mind namely reason, sprit and appetite, which are presented by
the rulers, soldiers and farmers. He opined that each of these three makes a valuable contribution for
the creation of the state. Justice can be done if each group performs their duty without interfering each
other. Justice is a bond which holds a society together, pleasant union of individuals, each of whom has
found his life work in accordance with his natural fitness and training, it is both public and private virtue.
Plato’s concept of justice was explained by Barker as, social justice many be defined as the principle of
society, consisting of different types of men (producing type, military type, ruling type), who have
combined with each other to perform their own duties.

Hence, the concept of justice by Plato, based on three principles. First it works as functional
specialization like giving a definite function to each one according to his capacity and merit, second, it
works, noninterference of different groups. So that they can concentrate on their own duty. This sort of
work required for the unity and welfare of all the members of sate. Third, it implies harmony in between
the three classes (groups) representing wisdom, courage and temperance respectively.

Concept of Education by Plato

Plato’s theory of education is connected to his theory of justice, education act as an important role to
bring harmony. Plato believed that knowledge is virtue and it is the duty of sate to provide knowledge.
Plato asserted that the three classes in the state must be properly trained and educated so that they can
do their duties with efficiency. That means state should give priority to education. Plato very effectively
mixed these two concepts of education and justice. Plato always believed that education is related to
individual and societal characteristics. The important characteristics of platonic or spiritual education are
here under:

 Plato stressed that all concerned be communicated for proper education. He believed that
education is a kind of positive measure by which ruler can mould the characters of the people,
he never supported the idea of keeping education with private hands and stressed the need of
keeping education with state only.
 Plato never accepted to keep the education options with parents and stressed the need to make
it obligatory. He stated that education should made obligatory to all the citizens of the state, so
that they can develop their mental faculties and can become respected units of state.
 Plato did not accepted the barring of women from education on the Athenian system, both men
and women must be given education
 The education of Plato was for artisans and also for the peasants. He stated that, “Men of
copper can be made into men of silver and even of gold, if they possess their attributes”.
 Plato was in support of firm censorship of all literary and artistic works to make sure that, youth
did not come under bad influences.
 Plato insisted that education must provide moral and physical improvement of the child, he said
that healthy mind can only reside in the healthy soul.
 The important aspect of his education was to prepare the philosopher king. The philosophers
after passing through a rigorous education would be able to run the government.
Plato’s communism of Wives and Property
An important aspect of Plato’s political thought is communism of wives and property. He asserted that,
during the acquisition of property and family would stand in the way of philosopher king to take proper
decision about the community.

Communism on Property:

Plato understood that, private property was a hesitant piece in the way of the unity of state, he wanted
to abolish by Communism of Property. He was afraid that the having private property would promote
selfish thoughts and diverge the devotion of philosopher ruler from public service. Hence he gave two
ruling classes the right to have private property. It was noted that the communism was only for the
guardian class expect them to make rejection of private property. The guardians reject the property and
family for the good of the society.

Communism of Wives:

His thought of communism of wives was the extension of his communism of property. He was of the
opinion that man always give importance to his family and children over the interest of nation, hence he
gave greater importance to communism of wives. Plato’s communism of wives was based on certain
principles which were mentioned below:

1. The scheme also for the sake of guardian class only like that of communism of property, and
majority of artisan and present class were excluded from it.
2. Communism of wives sure to control the thoughts of selfishness and free the women from the
labour of home which allow them to work for the cause of state.
3. There was no system of lasting wedding between the guardian class and women were shared for
all men.
4. All the guardian have to live both men and women were to live together and share barracks
5. It was the obligation of state to organize a brief mating between best men and best women for
one year to yield best children to increase the population of the state.
6. After the birth of children all of them must be separated from their mothers, no child must know
their parents and the duty of rearing lies upon the state nurses. State, to provide the best
education to them to nurse them as best citizens.
7. The entire guardian class was transformed into big family and children born in a specific season
must be treated as brothers and sisters.
8. The weak and disfigured children must be killed as soon as they born so that their birth should
not be burden on the state
9. He showed dissimilarity in communism of wives, he said that, guardian people to reject the
property but in the case of wives he said that, women were given the common ownership to the
guardians.
Plato’s Rule of Philosopher king
Plato divided human mind into three elements such as Reason, Spirit and Appetite. He said that, “Until
philosophers are kings, or kings and princes of the world have the spirit and the power of philosophy,
cites will never rest from their evils”. He asserted that only knowledgeable and capable people must rule
the state. Following are Plato’s Rule of Philosophy:

1. Plato did not in support of democratic structure of government, in which everyone has the right
to join in the activities of the state, he criticized it as a government of ill-informed. He desired to
give full power to the philosopher king in his ideal state and was in support of government by
the elite. He said that all the people do not have the similar powers to produce virtue so every
one cannot participate in government activities, only few people have the capacity to run the
government.
2. Philosopher king must have love for wisdom and love seeker for truth, so that he can determine
what will be best suited for the state and society.
3. His philosopher ruler get strenuous training for 35 years to get better administrative capacity to
rule
4. The philosopher rulers allocated absolute powers by him and they are not responsible to public
opinion
5. He said that, even though they are given absolute powers, he enacts limit on their power by
holding that they must respect fundamental articles of constitution and should not change
them.

28. Examine critically Plato's theory of education

Plato believed that the state could promote justice and right action and prevent crime by a proper
system or education. His education scheme is compulsory; state regulated and is meant for both the
sexes. By this method, Plato wanted to exclude incompetent persons from holding political Offices in the
state and enabling the wisest and the best to rule for the common good.

Plato disliked the Athenian system of Education, which was compulsory but privately managed. He liked
Spartan System of Education, which was state-regulated. His Education System is both intellectual and
physical. He says that through education the eye must be turned to light. Education does not mean the
storing up of external knowledge. It means the bringing of the soul into proper environment for its
development. Plato education scheme is systematic and progressive and has two phases which are
Elementary and Higher.

Critical Analysis of Plato Scheme on Education

Plato Education System has deeply influenced human thought and action. Modern civil and military
services properly trained and sifted are in line with it. His emphasis on women education is
commendable. He is right compulsory and state-regulated, but in spite of all these, there are following
defects in it:

1. It is primarily meant for the ruling class only and ignores the lower classes, which represents the
over-whelming majority of population.
2. Its censorship means that there should be no freedom of speech and expression of opinion
other than what the state suggests and allows, which is unacceptable in modern times.
3. In curriculum, Plato does not propose for the future legislators any study of finance, law and
military tactics but only of abstract mathematics.
 4. It is more theoretical and less practical.
5. It is too expensive to be afforded.
6. It condemns the guardians to a life of military monasticism. Jowett finds two self-contradictory
statements in Plato’s Education Scheme; viz the extraordinary use of music and the absolute
control of the sour over the body, which is impossible.

24. Critically examine Plato’s theory of communism.

An important aspect of Plato’s political thought is communism of wives and property. He thought that,
Guardian class must be free from physical uncertainties so they can focus on public service. He asserted
that, during the acquisition of property and family would stand in the way of philosopher king to take
proper decision about the community. Plato said that mixture of political and economic power was
restricted to lead to corruption and deprivation in the state and an operative system of administration
could operate only when economic power was absolutely separated from political power.

Criticism on Communism of Property:

Aristotle his student, criticized Plato’s concept of communism of property are here under:

1. With the doing away of the private property there would barely be any encouragement for hard
work and the healthy struggle, which is so important for the growth of society.
2. His communism is only for the ruling class and workers and peasant are exempted, who were
from the majority of the society. Any scheme which excludes majority of people in the society,
failure of freedom would arise.
3. The elimination of institution of private property will end the charity and generosity thoughts
would be abolished.
4. His communism of property was bound to result in loss of production.
5. The distinct interest of individuals would effect on the development and progress of the society.
His communism prevents from happening which would give richness to life.
6. Plato was criticized by Aristotle for providing material remedy to the spiritual disease through
communism.
7. He was completely neglected the slaves, who were the distinct portion of the Greek population
and part of Greek economy.

Criticism on Communism of Wives:

His concept of communism of wives was criticized severely even Aristotle criticized, his criticism as
follows:

1. 1 He treated state as a bloated version of family, he stated the organic concept and did not find
any variance between family and state. In reality there is big difference between these two and
they are not identical.
2. Communism of wives inevitable to lead social disagreement and causes much damage to the
society, distributing one female is not wife for all guardians.
 3. Children cannot grow into balanced way because they will not get care and nourishment which
is required in a family. In fact nobody can take the responsibility of the children, something for
all is not the responsibility of none.
4. It is ridiculous to apply similarity of animals to humans and asked the state to measured
reproducing.
5. 5 The suggested reproduction or mating is not practical and it is not possible to bring mating of
best women with best men.
6. one can observe that communism of wives is applicable to guardian class only and most of the
other sections of people are not covered. It stresses too many sacrifices by the guardian
community.
7. He incorrectly treated the marriage process as mechanical one, marriage is a social process than
mechanical, and it needs clear understanding of wife and husband in the act of marriage which
can be lacking in this case.

30. Examine the main similarities and differences in the political ideas of Plato and
Aristotle.

Differences in the political ideas of Plato and Aristotle

Plato is regarded as the first writer of political philosophy, and Aristotle is recognized as the first political
scientist. These two men were great political thinkers. There are a lot of differences between the two
even though Aristotle was a great student of Plato. They each had ideas of how to improve existing
societies during their individual lifetimes. It is necessary to look at several areas of each theory to seek
the difference in each. There are some similarities too, but first we will discuss the differences.

The main focus of Plato is a perfect society. He creates a blueprint for a utopian society, in his book The
Republic, out of his disdain for the tension of political life. Plato sought to cure the afflictions of both
human society and human personality. Essentially what Plato wants to achieve is a perfect society.

Aristotle, unlike Plato, is not concerned with perfecting society. He just wants to improve on the existing
one. Rather than produce a blueprint for the perfect society, Aristotle suggested, in his work, The
Politics, that the society itself should reach for the best possible system that could be attained. Aristotle
looks to the ideals which are expressed in the laws, customs, and public opinion of the people of the
actual states; these are the materials which politics must respect, work with, and seek to improve. In
short, all that has to be done is to try to improve on the existing one.

Plato's utopia consists of three distinct classes: the producers, the auxiliaries and the rulers or guardians.
The Guardians are to be wise and good rulers. The guardians are to be placed in a position in which they
are absolute rulers. They are supposed to be the select few who know what is best for society.

Aristotle puts a high value on moderation. He finds the polity, which is a mean between oligarchy and
democracy, as the most workable system of government. The polity is the rule of those with property, as
in oligarchy, but the property qualification is low, so that the majority of the citizens have a share in
government, as in democracy. The polity is in effect ruled by a large middle class; it will provide,
Aristotle believes, a stable, well-administered foundation for the state, since this class is composed of
equals and similars of moderate means, who are most likely to follow the rational principles.
Aristotle rejects the political absolutism of Plato, even though the despots are philosopher’s kings. For
Aristotle a good society is one in which the constitution is sovereign and the relation between the ruler
to ruled is that of freemen, who are morally equal. Aristotle also rejects Plato’s radical abolition of
private property and the family for the ruling class. Aristotle supports the institution of family.

Aristotle’s fundamental opposition to Plato’s theory is that it constructs an unattainable, speculative

ideal with which it undertakes a criticism of existing states. Aristotle rejects the political theory
expressed in Plato’s Republic on the ground that it is too speculative, too utopian, too far removed from
the actual city states and their forms of government. There is so much of Plato's utopia that is undefined
and it is carried to extremes that no human being could ever fulfill its requirements.

Similarities in the political ideas of Plato and Aristotle

But there are major areas of agreement between Plato and Aristotle on political theory. Like Plato,
Aristotle views the state as having a moral end or purpose: the highest possible moral development and
happiness if its citizens. Also, like Plato, Aristotle regards the state as having primacy over the family and
over the individuals. The state is a self-sufficient whole, whereas the family and the individual have no
self-sufficiency but are only parts dependent upon the social life of the state. It is only in the state that
the virtues of the individual are developed and functional and the good life, the life of happiness, can be
lived. Aristotle also initially follows Plato’s classification of types of government into three good and
three bad states according to the number of the rulers.

They both had well thought out ideas and plans on how to build a better society. Both Aristotle and
Plato have had a tremendous impact on political scientists of today. Aristotle helped to develop some
democratic ideas. In conclusion these men were great thinkers. Their opinions on society and its
functions were quite different, but they both had the same intention, to build a better way of life for the
societies they lived in and for the societies that would come to be in the future.

34. State and describe the "Ideal State" of Plato.

The Ideal or Just State:
It’s clear that the state is the highest means and with the help of state highest good can be done. There
may be some states which are not ruled by reason; but they deny rather than fulfill the individual. The
main condition of the ideal state is that it must be run properly. In fact the proper leadership can come
when a person have knowledge and wisdom. The person having knowledge may be less but, such
person’s rule will be the best.

The Philosophers do not rule the ideal state, it should be defended by those who have courage. The
courage should not remain uninstructed because it will be like a wild beast or of a slave. The training in
gymnastics and music must be given the soldiers. The hostile wars will never be the part of ideal state,
rather, it pursue a policy of soothing in relation to other states, and it also limit the population.
The ideal state cannot maintain itself if it is not properly fed and needs are not catered. The needs of the
state mainly rest on the shoulders of commercial, industrial and agricultural population to meet the task
of feeding and fulfilling the material needs. The agricultural people will retain private property; they will
have private mates and families. But trade and industry will be controlled by guardians to prevent
excessive individual wealth or property. The communalism of the guardians is not applicable to them.
Plato firmly believes that economic man is unfit to rule a state.

The perfect or an ideal state consist of a state in which each unit would be doing the work to which its
nature and aptitude best adopted it, there would be no interference by any class or individual but
everyone cooperates to produce an efficient and harmonious state. That is justice-performing one’s own
duties and not being abuses body.

Plato’s Rule of Philosophy and Features:

Plato divided human mind into three elements such as Reason, Spirit and Appetite. He gave position of
pride to elements of reason in mind and organization of the state. He understood that “virtue is
knowledge” and these two must work together like hand in glove. Plato asserted that state could be
correct by wise people if they get proper training to rule the nation. He said that, “Until philosophers are
kings, or kings and princes of the world have the spirit and the power of philosophy, cites will never rest
from their evils”. He was not impressed with the Athenian exercise in which rulers will be designated by
the draw of lot. Plato’s opinion was that, if anyone want to become a carpenter he need some training
in that area, and to become ruler simple draw of lot could be sufficient. He asserted that only
knowledgeable and capable people must rule the state.

1. Plato did not in support of democratic structure of government, in which everyone has the right
to join in the activities of the state, he criticized it as a government of ill-informed. He desired to
give full power to the philosopher king in his ideal state and was in support of government by
the elite. He said that all the people do not have the similar powers to produce virtue so every
one cannot participate in government activities, only few people have the capacity to run the
government.
2. Philosopher king must have love for wisdom and love seeker for truth, so that he can determine
what will be best suited for the state and society.
3. His philosopher ruler get strenuous training for 35 years to get better administrative capacity to
rule
4. The philosopher rulers allocated absolute powers by him and they are not responsible to public
opinion
5. He said that, even though they are given absolute powers, he enacts limit on their power by
holding that they must respect fundamental articles of constitution and should not change
them.

Ideal State and Liberty:

Plato thought that liberty of an individual could be possible, if he subordinated himself to an organic
whole i.e., the state. He thought that, liberty does not lie in the capability of a person to do as he likes,
but in emerging one’s special ability to do such functions of best fitted. The political philosophy of Plato,
liberty does not find appearance in elaborate list of rights, but it is expressed in an unending series of
right actions in accordance with virtue- the supreme virtue that is justice.
Ideal State and Equality:
Plato was known for the fact that any two persons could not be equal in respect of physical or
intellectual or moral qualities, hence, he proposed two principles for his ideal state; 1) ‘The right man in
right place’ and 2) ‘The best man in the highest place’. This does not mean to say that he pleaded for
‘the privileged man in privileged place’, it is only a plea for legitimizing the tyranny of many over few.

The principle of equality starts from demand for justice, but it establishes the most unjust inequalities as
it subjects quality to sheer quality. But this does not meant that Plato opposed to all forms of equality.
He did appealed for equality within the classes not vis-à-vis them. The philosophers are the governing
choice, soldiers are their auxiliaries (helpers). The governing elite possesses knowledge of what is good
and virtuous. It is obvious that this class is in a better place to rule, because its members know what is
just. Non-elite group have no objection to submit before the rulers, this submission may out to freedom
and equality.

1. Aristotle's concept of slavery

Aristotle is in favour of slavery, he thought that it is very important for the faultless functioning of the
family, Aristotle asserted that, slave is a living possession and property of his master. Though they have
the power to understand, they have to follow his master, because, they have very less capabilities and
must bow to those who have more abilities. It is acceptable to Aristotle slavery on three important
factors such as, natural, usefulness and expediency. He does not accepted the views of radical, Sophists
and said that, slavery is dissimilar to nature because, nature has created everyone as equal. He says
that, all men does not skilful by nature with similar capabilities and nature awards different abilities to
different persons and orders that superior must rule over the inferior person. He took slavery as a
general rule and inferior must be ruled by superior person only. He said that, in the state those, who
have more reason has to expertise and direct those who have little ability and those who commands are
by nature masters and later as slaves. He asserts that, to lead a good life by the household, is not
possible without slave.

He account for slavery on the grounds of usefulness, he said that, it is necessary to have slaves by the
masters so that they can be free from the physical worries and they can work for the betterment of
public in the society. He believes that, it is useful to be slaves because they can share the qualities of his
master and can be raised, the association with their masters brings “derivative excellence”.

He explains the slavery on the grounds of usefulness, the slavery played an important role in the
maintenance and operation of the Greek economy. Majority of population residing in the city-state,
their liberation would disappointed the balance of power in the city-state, this would give social
complaint.

It is observed that, he does not suggests unqualified explanation of slavery and permitted in certain
conditions. First, he preferred the enslavement of those who are mentally not sound, but he does not
preferred the enslavement of war prisoners. Second, stressed that their masters must treat them
properly, if they have not done so, then state has the right to punish such master who are harsh with
slaves. Third, he opined that, those who displays good behavior and improve ability for reasoning must
be liberated from slavery.

Criticism on Aristotle’s Views- Slavery:

His view on slavery has gone through severe criticism and they have shown the following flaws on his
views:

1 His is of the opinion that, some of them are born to rule with the intelligence and knowledge they
possess which is very wrong. The modern view says that, all are born equally but some possess and
improve knowledge to rule on others.

2 Aristotle’s idea, if admit, that the superior ruler rule over inferior by the nature’s order is not correct
because there are many classes in the society which are superior to other. He believes only in two
classes of master and slave.

3 His theory of slavery is mainly based on the fact that, he thinks the Greeks are superior and non-
Greeks are inferior, and he did not accept the enslavement of them.

4 He thinks that slavery is a hereditary process and believes that, some are by nature slaves.

5 His theory of slavery shows contradictions, he says that, man is good by nature and attains excellence
in the society, on the other hand he did not shown the way for their development, of the slavery society
which is very significant in number, hence, and theologically his explanation is not right.

6 He thinks the slave as living creature, who is unable to put on reasons, if the same concept is applied
to the modern day context of industrial workers, who works hard did not show any initiative would be
treated as salves.

7 His slavery theory is opposing the concept of social justice, he considers that, slavery is necessary for
the masters to perform their duties in good manner, but he did not mention any support or reward for
their services to masters, it is a clear abuse, in the view of social justice.

Even though he met severe criticism from the modern political philosophers, it cannot be judged the
condition during the times of Greeks and slavery is required by that point of time to give stability to city-
state.

3. State Aristotle’s theory of citizenship and compare it with the modem

concept of citizenship.
Regarding the views on citizenship he was basically, traditional thinker and wanted to conserve the
present institution of citizenship. In the ancient Athens, the citizens were honored class people who held
the public offices in the state. Citizenship was based on the heredity such as sons of the citizen can
become the citizens. The majority of slaves and resident aliens were not given this privilege and were
treated as inferior to citizens.

He defines a citizen as a person who participates in the administration of justice and in legislation as a
member of the deliberative assembly, these being the two essential functions of sovereignty. In other
words a person holds office as judge enjoying membership of the popular assembly is a citizen. Along
with these two conditions he claims there are other conditions like, residence, enjoyment and legal
rights of suing and being sued, and ancestry from citizen. Person without any of these two qualities
cannot be a citizen. Person who has to occupy himself in handbook labour to provide his requirements
of life, cannot make a good citizen, and only who dynamically share in the government of the state are
citizens. He omitted the slaves, the resident aliens who engaged in trade and business, foreigners,
mechanics and labourers from the group of citizenship. He did not include the old people and children in
the list of citizenship because the former are physically weak and later are do not have skills of mature
judgment in the dealing of the state.

His views on citizenship were severely criticised by the modern thinkers:

1. He gave priority to the people who can hold the citizenship are from aristocrat class and did not
include classes like, children, women, old men and manual workers.
2. He believes that, only those who possessed the property can become citizens and can acts as
legislators or jurors, which gives rise to the class people’s government and majority people are
neglected.
3. He does great discriminations to the non-leisured classes by not giving political rights and rights
for education and pushed them in everlasting degradation.
4. He denied the citizenship to the majority class and promoted the feeling of lack of direct
involvement in any activities which is not effective process in the development of state affairs. It
also leads to affects the unity and harmony of the state and society.
5. His explanation of citizenship is different from that of modern times. Presently all the adults
except some who are disqualified, are treated as citizens whether they work with hand or brain.
6. His concept of citizenship is not matched with the modern explanation. He stressed the direct
involvement of the citizen in legislative and judicial activities. This may be possible in his times
because the number of citizens are very little. In modern time it is not possible because the
population of the states are very high in numbers and they cannot involve in all activities of
state.
7. His concept of citizenship cannot fit in the modern day democracy, in which citizens are unable
to take part in state’s affairs directly.
8. In his theory he exempted the majority classes such as, commerce, trade, and people from other
economic hunts. It is against the states belief where individual considered as part of state.
9. His concept of citizen boosts rule by class and disregard the welfare of the majority.

4. The "Politics of Aristotle” is the contribution to the field of political science.

Discuss.
The "Politics of Aristotle” is a practical handbook, primarily a guide to constitution-makers and
therefore, concerned with states, with citizens as the members of the state, with men as citizens, and
with conduct of men collectively and individually.

The title of fatherhood of Political Science bestowed upon Aristotle is not without justification. He was
brought up in the order of medicine as his father was a physician of the king of Macedonia. Since his
childhood he got every opportunity and encouragement to develop a scientific bent of mind. Instead of
turning towards literature like his great master Plato, he built the terminology of Science and
philosophy. We can hardly speak of any science today without employing his own invented terms. In the
words of Renan, Socrates gave philosophy to mankind and Aristotle gave science to it". Before Aristotle
science was in embryo, with him it was born. His scientific training kept him from the preach of
superhuman ideals and empty counsels of perfection.
At the very outset, it may be mentioned that Aristotle differs from Plato much more in form and method
than the substance of thought. He gives us definite and clear-cut dogmas, instead of groping in illusions
and imaginations. He does not believe in abstract notions of justice and virtue but has a concrete
approach. He discards Utopian philosophy of Plato and advocates logical and scientific theories based
upon realism. Whereas Plato believed in unity through uniformity, Aristotle supported the principle of
unity through diversity. Likewise, he differed from Plato in that, and the reality did not lie in the ideal,
but it lay in the concrete manifestation of things. He was not, unlike Plato, and exponent of new
philosophy but a great systematiser of already existing knowledge. But the most important contribution
of Aristotle which earned him this title, was that he separated ethics and politics and further
subordinated ethics to politics. Aristotle conceived of politics in a double sense:

(i) Pure science concerns with absolute good of man and the absolute perfect state.

(ii) Practical science treats constitutional and legal relations of actual men living in actual
societies.

Thus by his keen and practical political approach and systematic treatment of the subject. Aristotle laid
the foundation of a real political science which assumed the character of an independent science. He
may be called the 'Scientist of Politics' because of his empirical study. He collects his data with infinite
care and minuteness, clarifies and defines it and draws logical conclusions which deserves nothing but
admiration and praise. He portrays excellent political wisdom in his judgments and decisions in his
political conclusions and observations and hence he is in his political conclusions and observations and
hence he is aptly held as a father of wise-conservatism and preserver of institution of antiquity with a
touch of rationality and sanity.

5. The State is natural and necessary (Aristotle). Explain.

Aristotle started the ‘politics’ with two important ideas. 1) That the state is a community and 2) that is
the highest of all communities, which in his own word, “embrace all the rest, aims at good in a greater
degree than any other and at the highest good”. The first thesis was quite understandable, because his
‘politics’ was a city-state having small area and population, and in which the individual unable to think of
any other presence for himself except as one being a part of a collectivity.

He was not the first thinker to view such an idea. But he was the first to define it properly, he laid the
foundation of organic concept of a state. He imagined the state as ‘natural’ in two ways; first, he briefly
delimits the evolution of social institutions from the family, through the village to city –state.
Accordingly, to him the survival of state was due to the union of those people who cannot exist alone,
but live together such as male and female. They must unite together to give their species out of this
relation family earnings.

Second the state is natural, because social life is natural to man and the state represents the highest
development of social life, though it is natural it is not autonomous of human desecration. He has
observed the state not only from the historical angle, but he describes it as natural in the logical and
philosophical aspects. It is natural because in it the family and the society can develop themselves to the
fullest possible degree. The aim of human life is, the enjoyment of good life means of freedom and is
possible only in a state. The state does not exist only to protect the life and property of the individual, in
the same way it cannot be said, just for exchange of goods does not if exist for the hindrance of crime
alone. It occurs to meet all these purposes without any doubt, but it does not exist for them only. It exist
to make individual self- sufficient. It is clear that Aristotle’s state is a positive one. A state not concerned
with the good of the individual is not a genuine state. Aristotle also rejected the view of Sophists like
Plato.

1. Aristotle opined that state was developed from the family to satisfy the needs and desires
1. of the people.
2. The individual can attain self-sufficient only in the state.
3. Aristotle assorted that true nature of man could be realized only in the state, since the man is a
rational being, the state is rational institution.
4. Aristotle emphasized the organic nature of state and assert that a man finds his true meaning
and importance of his life only in and through relation to the state. Aristotle held
5. that the state is a natural community; an organism with all attributes of a living being.
6. Aristotle considers state as a supreme association because it is the highest of all associations. He
considers the state as an association of man for the sake of best moral life.

2. Discuss the theory of Revolution in Aristotle's philosophy. How far is the

concept applicable in modem states?
or
6. What are the causes of "Revolution" in various types of states according to
Aristotle?
Aristotle explained in great detail the theory of revolution. It is his study of nearly 158 constitutions that
helped him understand the implications of revolutions on a political system. In his work, Politics, he
discussed at length all about revolutions. Based on his study, Aristotle gave a scientific analysis and
expert treatment to the subject of revolutions. He gave a very broad meaning to the term ‘revolution’
which meant two things to him.

Firstly, it implies any major or minor change in the constitution such as a change in monarchy or
oligarchy and so on. Secondly, it implies a change in the ruling power even though it did not lead to a
change in the government or the constitution. He further stated that a revolution could be either direct
or indirect, thereby affecting a particular institution.

Causes of Revolution in various types of States

Apart from the general causes of revolution, Aristotle also gave certain specific causes in various types
of states. For instance, in democracies, discontentment is bred by the demagogues who attack the rich
either individually or collectively and build hatred among the people who become revengeful and
violent and this situation leads to conflicts.

In oligarchies, revolutions occur when masses experience an unpleasant treatment by the officials
resulting in dissensions within the governing class. Personal disputes may further the flames of fire and
though imperceptible, changes in the class structure of society may invisibly alter the ethos.

Aristotle further believed that it is not necessary that oligarchy become democracy or vice versa, but
they might change into a completely different system altogether. In aristocracies, revolutions occur
when the circle of the rulers get narrowed down and become thinner and thinner. It is, in fact, the
disequilibrium in the balance of the different elements or parts of the constitution that causes
revolutions.

As far as the monarchies and the tyrannies are concerned, revolutions are caused by insolence,
resentment of insults, fears, contempt, desire for fame, influence of neighbouring states, sexual
offences and physical infirmities.

7 - Why has Aristotle been called a conservative thinker?

Aristotle can be called conservative for the reason that he said that character depends upon the way a
man is brought up. This meant the rituals, traditions, customs and usages do shape the character of
man. Naturally Aristotle showed great regard for these things in Greece of those times. He nationalizes
existing institutions. He rules out traders and artisans from citizenship. And person who holds the
existing order to be respected is conservative and hence Aristotle is called conservative.

Secondly, the way in which he regarded the slave system of those times show him to be a conservative
but not a radical. He said that just as subjection is good for beast, so also is the slave system for some
people. The brawn must serve the brain. All the same, one cannot accuse Aristotle of cruelty or
harshness towards them. It is because he himself married from an ex-slave family, he took a concubine
from salve class and finally in his will, he provided for the freedom of the slaves in his household. In
short, he· neither bettered not worsened the situation. What all he did was by trying to explain the slave
system by the reasons of heredity, he canonized it. Thirdly, his whole philosophy and outlook was
conceived in the Polis. This vision never widened beyond the limits of the city States. He considered it to
be central and congenial to the attainment of good life which is the end of the State.

Fourthly, he trusted more in the law that any other previous thinker. The law is sovereign in the State. In
the Grecian life, law is regarded with great sacredness and respect. By making law to be the sovereign of
the State, what he did was once again placing the existing belief on a high alter.

Lastly, Catlin considers that his distrust of amateur and advertiser is a conservative outlook. That is to
say, a mere expert in the art of statesmanship and statecraft is no success in the mo dern world. Catlin
says, "the successful ruler must be a pressman assisted by Gochbles".

8 - Critically analyze Jean Bodin's views on Sovereignty. Or Jean Bodin’s views

on Sovereignty (detailed note)
Or
9 - Sovereignty is an important element of statehood - elaborate keeping in
view the philosophy of Bodin.
Definition of Sovereignty. Sovereignty originally, says Bodin, is the absolute and perpetual power of-
commanding in a state, is vested in the people in their collective capacity but generally people delegate
it to princes or other functionaries of government. Sovereignty represents the highest and forceful will
that can develop in human society. It is the legal competence, because sovereign prince is empowered
to enforce law to all the people in general or to each one in particular-without consent of. any besides
himself. Because of its sovereignty, a state is free from all legal compulsions and limitations and cannot
be subjected by any legal processes.

Bodin agrees with Hobbes in the formulation of a modern secular theory of the state, but to him, more
than to Hobbes, the world is indebted for the first definite exposition of the doctrine of political
sovereignty: "In every independent community governed by law there must be some authority, whether
residing in one person or several, whereby the. laws themselves are established and from which they
proceed. And this power, being the source of law, must itself be above the law." From Bodin's
characteristics of sovereignty, we derived the following points:

1 It is an absolute power over all citizens and associations within its territorial boundaries;
2 The state has an absolute power over all individuals and their association. Bodin rejects the
claim of all external authorities like the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor;
3 Bodin rejects the claims of feudal lords and cities and corporations "to any inalienable rights and
immunities .They are subject to the laws of the state; ·
4 It is a perpetual power as distinguished from the grant of power that is limited to specific period
of time;
5 It is undelegated or delegated without limit or condition;
6 It is inalienable;
7 Its primary function is to create law. It is the only source of law through which the community is
governed and affairs are regulated. To Bodin, law is the command of a human superior.
8 Bodin' s sovereign prince is not bound by the laws of the land. Sovereignty is supreme and
perpetual legal omnipotence;
9 Bodin vests too much powers with the sovereign and he becomes legally supreme. He is not
subdued by any moral obligations found in the law of God and the law of nature;
10 In general, sovereignty meant for Bodin a perpetual, humanly unlimited, and unconditional right
to make, interpret and execute laws.

Critical Anallysis

We can mark the following confusion in Bodin's theory:

1 Bodin holds that the law of God and that of nature stand above human law and his sovere ign is
not bound by the law of God and that of nature. There is no legal justification for making him an
absolute sovereign liable to violate the laws of nature;
2 Natural law does impose real disabilities on him. In particular, it requires the keeping of
agreement and respect for private property;
3 Bodin portrays his sovereign as a demi-god with absolute legal and political povers for effective
rule; but he has to regard the wishes of his subject. This is inconsistency in his theory.
4 Another confusion in Bodin' s theory arises from his fidelity to constitutional law of France. To
Bodin, King of France cannot alter or modify the rule of succession. He admits the existence of a
particular class of laws are essentially linked with the exercise of sovereignty itself and which
even the sovereign cannot change. It is clear that sovereign is at once the source of law and the
subject of certain conditional laws which he has made and cannot change.
5 There is still more confusion in Bodin' s theory of sovereignty about the inviolability of private
property. Bodin considers property a sacred trust of individuals, to which, his sovereign prince
cannot interfere without the consent of the owner.
 11- Powers of the Executive in a government (detailed note)
The second organ or department of the government is the executive. This term is used in a broad as well
as in a narrow sense. In the broad sense, the executive includes all officials of the state from the highest
to the lowest, from the president down to a policeman or a patwari, who execute or enforce laws and
administer the country. In the narrow sense, it denotes the heads of the executive departments who
determine the policy of the government, that is, the president or the king and the ministers or the
cabinet. The powers and functions of the executive are not the same in all states and at , all times. They
are greater in the cabinet government than in the presidential one, greater in the totalitarian states than
in the liberal ones, greater in the modern welfare state than in the old laissez-faiiv state. We may,
however, briefly describe them as follows:-

1. Internal Administration.

The essential function of the government is to maintain law and order. It is, therefore, the primary
function of the executive. It has to direct and supervise the execution or enforcement of the laws and
the administration of the country. This function is fulfilled particularly by the Home or Interior
Department, headed by the Home Minister. Several administrative departments are established under
it, such as the police, the prisons, the courts. In order to perform its administrative functions, the
executive has two powers: the power of appointment and of direction. The subordinate officials and
public servants arc appointed, promoted and removed by the executive head or minister. In modern
times, however, the exercise of this power of the executive is regulated by the laws and rules of
recruitment of public services. In the presidential form of government, e.g., U.S.A., the appointing power
of the executive is further limited by the consent of the Senate. The power of direction means the power
to see that the law and policy laid down by the ministers arc properly carried out by the permanent
officials according to their directions, orders and instructions.

2. Military Functions.

The executive has also the duty of defending the state against foreign aggression or internal revolt, in
order to preserve its integrity and security. This fuction is performed by the Defence or War
Department. It has the power to conduct war against other states, to dcfcned the state against foreign
invaders, to control and direct the three armed forces, -army, navy and air force, including rockets, or
missiles for space warfare and to keep the country in war-preparedness both for defence and offence,
by maintaining all kinds of military and defence installations, like military bases, cantonments, defence
research, etc. It declares war, makes peace, declares a state of emergency or martial law or a state of
siege. In the parliamentary govcrncmnt, the military functions are performed with the confidence of the
legialature. In the presidential government, the president must seek the concurrence of the congress for
declaring war. In wartime, however, the powers of the executive arc increased manifold, when many of
the processes of law and democracy, like the fundamental rights, civil liberties, writs, elections, etc., are
suspended. In simple words, the executive becomes the most important organ of the state during war-
time.

3. Diplomatic Functions.

Every state is sovereign and independent, but it must have relations,of various kinds with other states.
These are diplomatic or foreign relations. They are conducted by the Foreign or External Department,
headed by the Foreign Minister or the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. This Department appoints
diplomatic representatives in foreign states, receives their diplomatic representatives, conducts
negotiations for various kinds of treaties and agreements, such as defence treaties, frindship or
commercial treaties and agreements, etc. In some states, e.g. U.S.A., the treaty-making power of the
executive is subject to the approval and ratification of one or both Houses of the legislature.
Nevertheless, the executive enjoys wide discretionary powers in the conduct of foreign policy and
relations.

4. Legislative Functions.

Normally, law-making is the concern of the legislature. But, in all modern states the executive also
participates in it, depending on the form and structure of the state. The share of the executive in
legislation is greater in the cabinet form of government and lesser in the presidential form of
government. In the parliamentary or cabinet form of government, the executive directly and actively
participates in law-making. The ministers sit in the legislature, introduce bills for legislation and get them
passed by guiding parliamentary debates and decisions. No bill, passed by the legislature, can become a
law till it is not assented to by the chief executive, i.e., the king or the president. The power of the
executive to reject such a bill is called a veto. In law, the British King or Queen has the power of veto,
but in practice the veto power has never been used since the days of Queen Anne (1702-14).
Furthermore, the executive has also the power to summon, adjourn, prorogue and even dissolve the
legislature and order new general elections. In the presidential form of government, in spite of the
separation of the legislative and executive powers, the latter has some legislative duties. The President
has the right to send messages to the Congress, inform it about the state of the nation, recommend new
legislation and financial proposals or budget and call special sessions of the legislature. He has also the
power to veto the bills passed by the Congress, which can, however, override it by an enhanced majority
vote.

Besides the control and guidance of the legislature, the executive now possesses two legislative powers
also: the power of issuing ordinances and of the delegated legislation. The power of issuing ordinances is
frequently conferred on a president in a republic or on a king by the constitution. The Constitution of
Pakistan has conferred the ordinance-making power on the President and in the Provinces on the
Governors. In Great Britain, the Parliament has delegated legislative powers to the executive
departments, but within the limits set by its laws.

5. Financiul Functions.

Every government collects and spends large sums of money. This task is performed by the finance
department, headed by the Finance Minister. This department prepares the budget, i.e., the annual
statement of the income and expenditure of the government, submits it to the legislature for its
approval and then collects the taxes and spends them according to the budgetary allocations. It also
audits the expenses and revenues of all other departments of the government.

6. Judicial Power.

The chief executive or the head of state has also the right of pardon or clemency, either before or after
trial and conviction. The power of pardon is required for various considerations, such as to correct
possible judicial errors in the administration of justice, or for the sake of humanity or sound public
policy, etc. The chief executive may also issue a general proclamation of amnesty, setting free the
prisoners.

7. Administrative justice.

In modern limes, the ministers and administrators also act as judges. They hear cases and settle
disputes, but within their ministerial jurisdiction.

8. Some other functions.

Every government today performs far more functions and exercises for greater number of powers than
those enumerated above. It regulates trade, commerce, industry, agriculture, education, public health,
transport, etc. Indeed, the functions and powers of the government, that is, of the executive, are
constantly increasing in modern times. Let us see why it is so.

11 - Outline the basic features of political and social life in the city states of
Greece.
12 - Discuss the salient features of Greek political thought.

Greece was the centre of political philosophy in ancient Europe. Greece is situated in the southern tip of
Europe. People of Greece lived in City States. A City State was not a city. It was not a state also. It was a
community of people living together. The people of Greek based their political concepts around the City

States. They believed that a City State should be small so that it can be fully viewed from the roof top of
every house. They thought that the population should not be more than 5040. Slavery was a feature of
the state. The slaves formed majority of the population. All the problems of the state should be directly
decided by the citizens. It is called direct democracy. People directly participated in law making. The
government and administration were run directly by the people. They thought that only they are
civilized. They considered all others as barbarians. So they did not study about other empires. For them,
the State was like a religion. The individual had no private life. There was no place for individualism in
Greek city states. At the same time, they respected the individuals and their sentiments. Every individual
should perform each and every function. There was no division of labour. There was no difference
between rights of individuals and rights of the state.

The people of Greece lived in peace. So, the people of Greece had very calm and clear minds. Therefore,
they were able to think about various questions of life. Thus they developed their philosophy. Political
thought was part of their philosophy. There were many philosophers in Greece. Socrates, Plato and
Aristotle were great Greek political thinkers. The salient features of Greek political thought are as under:

1 An important feature of ancient Greek Political Thought is that it focused on the idea that man is
a political animal and the nature of the state. Unlike later thinkers, the Greek writers did not
focus on issues like the relationship between the state and religion, or between the state and
industry.
2 Other important aspects of Greek political philosophy was its focus on the city states, where the
community of men lived and worked together fora common goal. Participation by the citizens
was integral to the functioning of the society. Greece's political thinkers did not make a
distinction between the state and society until much later.
 3 Greek thinkers emphasized the importance of education in bringing the people in line with the
spirit of the constitution. The State was not only a moral and political institution, but also an
educational institution, because it was responsible for promoting education among its citizens.
4 Their belief was that reason was the essence of God's providence, and that a man was only truly
free when he was able to think for himself. Their belief was that reason was the essence of
God's providence, and that a man was only truly free when he was able to think for himself.
5 Their belief in reason was intrinsic to the Greek concept of law. According to the Greek thinkers,
law and justice are two sides of a coin, and justice is that which is lawful. Even so, they didn't
think the laws were perfect; they believed that they could always be made better.
6 Citizenship in the eyes of the Greek philosophers meant more than just paying taxes and having
a say in government. To participate in the state's governance directly meant serving as a soldier,
as a judge, or even as a legislator in person, rather than through an appointed deputy. As a
result, the Greeks ruled out representative government outright. Another reason slaves weren't
granted the same citizenship rights as free citizens was because the Greeks feared they couldn't
fulfil their responsibilities to the state.
7 They argued that since the individual was subordinate to the whole, the majority of people who
were intrinsically inferior, lazy, and unfit for education could be sacrificed on the altar of the
minority who were excellent and wise. They accepted inequality as a fact of life and didn't
object when Greeks ruled over barbarians, freemen ruled over slaves, gentlemen ruled over
artisans, and so forth. The Greeks, on the other hand, allowed for class equality.
8 One of the most notable aspects of ancient Greek political thought was the emphasis placed on
debate. For the presentation of their ideas and philosophy, they used the method of discussion
and held that truth could only be found through proper reasoning and discussion.

13. Do you agree with this point that Hobbes does not believe in democracy?
14. Explain and evaluate Hobbes concept of the law of nature. Or State and
criticize Hobbes concept of “State of Nature".
For Hobbes, the state of nature is characterized by the “war of every man against every man,” a
constant and violent condition of competition in which each individual has a natural right to everything,
regardless of the interests of others. Existence in the state of nature is, as Hobbes famously states,
“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” The only laws that exist in the state of nature (the laws of
nature) are not covenants forged between people but principles based on self-preservation.

In the absence of a higher authority to adjudicate disputes, everyone fears and mistrusts everyone else,
and there can be no justice, commerce, or culture. That unsustainable condition comes to an end when
individuals agree in a social contract to relinquish their natural rights to everything and to transfer their
self-sovereignty to a higher civil authority, or Leviathan. Each individual in effect says to every other: “I
transfer my right of governing myself to X (the sovereign) if you do too.” The transfer is collectively
entered into only on the understanding that it makes one less of a target of attack or dispossession than
one would be in one’s natural state. Although Hobbes did not assume that there was ever a real
historical event in which a mutual promise was made to delegate self-government to a sovereign, he
claimed that the best way to understand the state was to conceive of it as having resulted from such an
agreement.

For Hobbes, the authority of the sovereign is absolute, in the sense that no authority is above the
sovereign and that its will is law. That, however, does not mean that the power of the sovereign is all-
encompassing: subjects remain free to act as they please in cases in which the sovereign is silent (in
other words, when the law does not address the action concerned). The social contract allows
individuals to leave the state of nature and enter civil society, but the former remains a threat and
returns as soon as governmental power collapses. Because the power of Leviathan is uncontested,
however, its collapse is very unlikely and occurs only when it is no longer able to protect its subjects.

Critical Analysis

Hobbes’s political theory is structured so that government is presented as the solution to a problem. The
state of nature is an essential element of Hobbes’s setup of the problem. People need government
because they’re insecure in the state of nature and live in constant fear of being done harm by other
people. Government offers a solution to the problem because it can impose order through law.

Let’s for a moment grant the validity of the setup of the problem. One may nevertheless criticize what
Hobbes presents as the solution to the problem. It’s understandable that people in the state of nature
would want some authority who would be able to provide security. But Hobbes’s theory does not do
enough to show why the Leviathan would serve the intended purpose. The person or persons to whom
authority is granted by the people are not themselves bound by the agreement. It’s important to
Hobbes’s theory that the people covenant among themselves, but the political authority itself is not
party to the agreement. So the authority is not contractually bound. Moreover, it’s not clear why we
should think that the Leviathan will be efficacious in fulfilling the intended purpose. If human nature is
as Hobbes describes it, then we should anticipate that whoever has political authority might abuse it.
Yet the theory does not build in protections against the possibility of that abuse. In short, Hobbes
captures the danger we face from other people in general, but not the danger we face from the
authority set up to protect us.

15. Compare and contrast the concepts of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau
regarding sovereignty and rights.
The sovereign of Rousseau is as absolute and the sovereign of Hobbes with the only difference that
while Hobbes confers all the powers in a single person, Rousseau vests the sovereign power in the
community or the General Will. However, the sovereigns in both the cases are vested with absolute
powers and their authority cannot be defined under any circumstances. It is in this sense that it has said
that “Rousseau’s sovereign is Hobbes Leviathan with its head chopped off”. In contrast, Locke has no
clear view of the nature or residence of sovereignty. He speaks at one time of the supreme power of the
people or in other words the community; he speaks of another supreme power of the legislature”. If
Rousseau is closer in certain respects to Hobbes he is also closer to Locke in other respects. In fact,
Rousseau, in his formulation of sovereignty, combined both Hobbes and Locke. Locke’s theory of
sovereignty was not a full-fledged popular sovereignty, but it was not at all the absolute sovereignty
envisaged by Hobbes. However, in Locke’s theory of sovereignty, there was a place of popular will.
Rousseau made his sovereignty popular by introducing the concept that the general will is the
determiner of everything.

As far as rights are concerned, while analysing the various aspects of state both Hobbes and Locke were
considerably guided by bourgeois philosophy. Hobbes’s concept of the maintenance of peace and
security and Locke’s theory—the attainment of natural rights—right to life, liberty and property. Both
Hobbes and Locke did not think about the problems of common people. The state was a machine to
both—but it was a machine for the attainment of privileges of well-to-do people. Common, people
deprived of basic necessities, cannot think of peace and security or life, liberty and property. On the
other hand, the natures of state as well as the other aspects of state as found in Rousseau are different
from those of Hobbes and Locke. Rousseau’s state was created not to ensure peace and security or to
protect life, liberty and property its purpose is more sublime that is ethical and ideological. The general
will is the supreme authority and people assembling periodically decide the next course of action as well
as policies. It is believed that his analysis of general will contains the idea of democracy and it can also
be inferred that the Rousseau believed in the importance of the rights of the people.

16 - Define the concept of the western law and briefly describe its sources.
Concept of Western Law
There was much that was new in the creation of the United States between 1776 and 1789. Yet the new
country and its founders also drew on centuries, even millennia, of prior human experience. While this
background cannot be treated in much detail here, it is important to know that most of the literate
cultures of the ‘Old World’ (Eurasia and North Africa) had sophisticated legal systems dating back to
ancient times. The first detailed collection of laws to have survived, for example, is the Code of
Hammurabi, King of Babylonia (in modern Iraq), which dates to ca. 1750 BCE—almost 4000 years ago!
This code and other sources show that these societies were quite familiar with private property, the use
of money, legal disputes, judges, and courtrooms. These cultures shared a number of principles that are
essential in any legal system, such as: those accused of any wrongdoing deserve a fair hearing;
individuals and families had a right to their own, private property; and no one should harm others or
infringe on others’ property.

Sources of Law
1. Custom or Usage.

It is the earliest source of law. A custom is the habit of the people, handed down to them from
generation to generation as their traditions. It deals with such affairs and relations which occur
repeatedly in the social life of the people, like agricultural operations and relations, marriage, family
relations, inheritance, sale and purchase of goods, etc. Indeed, custom was the king of the primitive
people before the political sovereign or state arose. Till very recent times, the state did not make laws
but only maintained customs and usages of the people. Even today many laws are derived from them.
They are called customary laws. The most prominent example of such laws is the English Common Law.
It comprises those customs which the English State, tht is, the English judges, accepted as law.

2. Religion.

Religion, magic and superstition have been very old sources of laws. In earlier ages, people followed the
precepts and rules of their religions, which they believed to be of divine origin, called divine laws. They
believed that disobedience of divine laws would be punished by divine wrath. The religious law became
the source of law. For instance, the Muslim Law or Shariah is derived from the Quran and the Hadith;
the Hindu law is derived from Hindu Dharma, or Shastras.

3. Judicial Decisions.
Judges are primarily concerned with the adjudication or settlement of disputes according to the existing
laws. But sometimes a case may be of such a nature that the existing law may not cover it fully. If so, the
judge would interpret the existing law in order to deal with the case. Thus his decision would extend the
existing law and would become a precedent for other courts to follow. Such decisions are called judge-
made laws, precedents or case-law. The judge, however, does not make law in the same manner as a
legislature does, which is competent to make a new law altogether. The judge is necessarily guided by
the existing laws, which he interprets or extends to similar, though not identical, cases. The decisions of
the judges are considered to be equivalent to the legislative Acts, because the judicial power is included
in the sovereignty of the state.

4. Scientific Commentaries.

The commentaries of the reputed jurists and great writers on law also become a source of laws. A legal
commentator compares, discusses and comments upon the laws and finds their principles. His
arguments are not binding on the judges. But they are guided by them in their decisions, if he has won
recognition and reputation as a great commentator. The greater the recognition and reputation, the
stronger his authority. Thus the scientific commentaries of well-known jurists become another source of
laws. For instance, in England the commentaries of Coke, Hale and Blackstone are such sources for
English law. Among the Muslims, Faqi/is are such sources. Hindu Law is derived from the Mitaksham and
the Dayabhaga.

5. Equity.

The term ’equity’ means justice or fairness. In law, it means the power of a judge to decide a case
according to his sense of justice or fairness. Ordinarily, a judge administers a law or dispenses legal
justice, that is, he decides cases according to the provisions of the law. But there are three occasions
when a judge has to decide a case not according to law but according his sense of justice or equity. They
are, firstly, when a case is of such a nature that no law actually exists about it; secondly, when the
existing law is iniquitous or apparently unjust, and therefore to apply it would cause injustice; and
thirdly, when the social conditions have so changed that to apply an old law would cause injustice. They
are called equity cases. In such cases, the judge will be guided by his sense of justice or equity and not
by the provisions of the existing law. In England, there are special equity courts, but in Pakistan the
judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court act as equity judges. Equity is also a kind of judge-
made law, but is diffferent from it in one furndamental sense. In case-law, the judge is guided by the
existing law, he merely interprets it.

6. Legislation.

Legislation is the most modern, the most prolific and the most important source of laws now-a-days.
Custom, religion and other earlier sources of law are unable to cope with the fast changing and complex
conditions, needs and relations of the modern life and society. Hence the state, i.e. the legal sovereign
has itself assumed the duty of making new laws, or amending or repealing the old ones. In democratic
and representative governments, this function is performed by the legislature or the law-making organ
of the government. The number of laws made by it is now so great that they form the bulk of the code
of laws of a modern country. Even customs and religious laws are incorporated into the legislative
enactments or laws. The laws made by the legislature are called statutes.

18 - Western Concept of Liberty (detailed note)

The idea of liberty is and has always been peculiar to the West. What separates East and West is first of
all the fact that the peoples of the East never conceived the idea of liberty. The imperishable glory of the
ancient Greeks was that they were the first to grasp the meaning and significance of institutions
warranting liberty. Recent historical research has traced back to Oriental sources the origin of some of
the scientific achievements previously credited to the Hellenes. But nobody has ever contested that the
idea of liberty was created in the cities of ancient Greece. The writings of Greek philosophers and
historians transmitted it to the Romans and later to modern Europe and America. It became the
essential concern of all Western plans for the establishment of the good society. It begot the laissez-
faire philosophy to which mankind owes all the unprecedented achievements of the age of capitalism.

Almost all the ideas of liberty are Western: individual rights, secure private property, freedom of speech,
freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom of trade, separation of
powers, equality before the law, and so on. Similarly, all the protections for liberty, such as a written
constitution, a bill of rights, an independent judiciary, privatization, and term limits, developed in the
West. The West was the first civilization to abolish slavery. While there have been conquerors in the
West, there has also been a distinguished anti-militarist tradition, with dissidents courageously speaking
out against military conscription and for peace.

Why, then, did liberty originate and develop furthest in the West? Patterson suggested that Greek
female slaves were the first to make liberty a value, and during the Persian Wars (492–449 B.C.) Greek
men began to fear that they, too, could become slaves if captured, so liberty became a value for them.
Geography probably played a role in the development of liberty. Greece has many harbors that could
shelter ships and many islands whose people were most likely to advance themselves through overseas
commerce. Europe’s irregular coastline, with thousands of harbors, some opening to major rivers,
likewise encouraged commerce. Since commerce means contact with all kinds of people, ideas, and
goods, merchants must be tolerant and rational if they are to be successful. “Coastal peoples,” Thomas
Sowell observed in Migrations and Cultures (1996), “have tended to be culturally distinctive. In touch
with the outside world, they have usually been more knowledgeable and more technologically and
socially advanced than interior peoples.” That there was much political competition in Europe,
fragmented into many states, surely helped make it easier for liberty to arise there.

Western countries are believed to be the first to adopt the form of social life providing the individuals
with the right to liberty and equality . They believed that rest of the world will follow this system of
social life because it was rational . Liberty at that time was a right to possession of property , where an
individual can acquire and dispose off his property at his choice and will . An individual was at liberty to
sell not only his property (movable or immovable) but he was free to sell his skills and talents .

In many part of the world the concept of "the life of common " was emerging as the form of social life
where an individual was required to be cooperative with the other , and everyone in the society was
free to use the common land and the resources . In this form of social life the concept of liberty and
equality was not required to be at the center stage . Many western philosophers criticized the idea of
the life of common or cooperativeness , they believed that it is not rational to cooperate , where non
cooperativeness could have immediate benefits . This was later known as the " theory of tragedy of
commons " where individuals and free riders tend to act in a selfish way and took immediate benefits .

This theory of tragedy of commons led to the privatization of property and providing the individuals with
the right to liberty and equality . An individual with this conception of liberty was at choice to sell his
talents and skills . Later in many parts of the world this concept was followed as it was believed to be
rational and the only way where the society can get rid of free riders and can have the prosperous life.
19 - ls it correct to call Machiavelli as a founder of Modem political thought? Or
Machiavelli as a modem thinker (detailed note) Or Machiavelli is the first
modern political scientist. Discuss.
Machiavelli is the first political philosopher of the modern times, rather he is the father of modern
political thought in many respects. It was from his times that the word called 'state' gained wide
currency in the sense in which it is used now-a-days. The state as an organised force, supreme-in its own
territory, and pursuing a conscious policy of aggrandizement in its relation with other states, became the
typical modern political institution and also increasingly the most powerful institution in modern society.
He was the student of means and not the ends. It was he who divorced ethics from politics and again it
was he who dimly perceived the rising national sentiments. His concept of a sovereign territorial and
secular state led to the theory of legal sovereignty later developed by Bodin, Grotius and John Austin.
Hobbes built up his conception of human nature and thereby his theory of absolute sovereignty on the
basis of Machiavelli's ideas. Thus, Machiavelli is the first of modern totalitarian thinkers, who, like Greek
philosophers, advocated the complete absorption of individual by the state. Hegel followed in his
footsteps to state this theory of the state as the march of God on earth. "Machiavelli is the first
exponent, with his theory of aggrandizement, of the modern theory of power• politics on which much
has been written by thinkers like Neitschke, Trietschke" etc. Again it was he who inspired Marx in his
materialistic conception of history.

Machiavelli left a tremendous influence on the modern age. The Princes like Frederick the Great Were
essentially Machiavellian, although they disavowed Machiavelli. One of the greatest contributions of
Machiavelli lies in the fact that he united political theory with political practice. He followed the
empirical method of observation and experience. The part that the state has played in modern politics is
an index of the clearness with which Machiavelli grasped the drift of political evolution. His political
philosophy was realistic, mirroring the conditions of the moment. Extension of power was the test of
excellence in government and aggrandizement was the order of his day in Italy. But his greatest
contribution to modern political thought is his separation of religion from politics which entitles him to
be called the first modern political thinker. Modern politics and international relations fully illustrate his
distinction between private and public morality. Machiavelli was ready to sacrifice the peace and
solidarity of humanity at the alter of an efficient national state, and as such was one of those who are
chiefly responsible for the growth of modem nationalism. He was one of the first of modem writers to
conceive of a sovereign, a unitary, a secular, a national and an isolated state. His chief significance lies in
his conception of a "national, territorial and secular state", which has led to the modern theory of
sovereignty, internally supreme and externally independent. Thus it is quite as accurate to say that
Machiavelli ends the medieval era as that he begins the modern.

20 - Discuss the role of the Legislature in the better functioning of a modem

government.
In Modern government, the legislative branch of any government is responsible for making laws within a
country. Legislatures are made up of people called legislators who, in democracies, are elected by the
country’s population. Under political systems employing the separation of powers model, the legislative
branch of government has the authority to pass legislation and regulate government taxation and
spending, as well as other powers such as approving executive or judicial appointments.

In the United States, the legislative branch of government is called Congress, consisting of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, both of which are elected and possess roughly equal legislative powers.
Laws passed through both houses are known as Acts of Congress, which are subsequently enforced and
implemented by the executive branch of government, and interpreted and applied by the judiciary.

The main function of the government is no longer that of executing the law as the general will (of
Rousseau), but, on the contrary, that of guiding the general will and of exercising leadership, qualities
for which legislative or administrative functions are only means toward an end. Legislation has become a
function of political leadership. As a rule, also in democracies the government has the initiative of and
responsibility for and, for example in England, the virtual monopoly of legislative action. The legislative
assemblies as such may criticize and even reject the government's proposals, but, as a rule, they are
confined to being principle confirming agencies without ambition or potentiality of political leadership.
Thus, the application of the statute to the individual situation is more or less an incident of legislative
power, or, legislation is merely instrumental to the fulfillment of the objectives of general policy
prescribed or dictated by the government. Paradoxically one may even contend that the agency which
enacts the law is best suited for carrying it out. By their very nature executive and legislative actions are
only different stages of the same political process and the same political will. In modern states, the
government increasingly assumes responsibility and initiative of the legislative function which the
legislative bodies are politically unable or technically unfit to perform. Following are some role and
functions of the Legislature in the better functioning of a modem government.

(1) Law Making:

In modern times the most important function of legislature is law making. Ordinary Bills can be
introduced by the members of the Parliament and by the Ministers, while Money Bills can be introduced
only by the Ministers in the Lower House. The Members of the Legislature can by a majority vote accept
or reject any Bill. The Members of Legislature or the Parliament enjoy full freedom of speech and also of
criticism of the policies of the government.

(2) Control over the Budget:

The legislature has control over the budget of the executive (Government) and without its approval the
executive cannot spend even a single ‘penny’. In England and India, the Members of the Parliament can
impose a cut on any demand on the budget but they cannot increase it.

(3) Control over Executive:

In a Parliamentary Government the Legislature or the Parliament exercises full control over the
executive or the Council of Ministers. The Parliament has the right to put Questions and Supplementary
Questions to the Cabinet. The Parliament can remove the Cabinet by a No- Confidence Motion. It can
bring in Adjournment Motions and Censure Motions against the Cabinet. The Parliament can appoint a
committee to investigate the affairs of the ministers. It also acts like a mirror of the public opinion.

(4) Judicial Functions:

In certain countries the legislature has to perform certain judicial functions. For example, in India and
America the Parliament and the Congress can remove the President by a process of Impeachment. In
England, the House of Lords is the final Court of Appeal. In Canada, the Upper House, i.e. the Senate
hears the divorce cases. In Switzerland, the Federal Assembly has the power to interpret the
Constitution.

(5) Electoral Functions:

In certain countries, the legislature elects the President, the Vice-President and the Judges. In India, the
Parliament takes part in the election of the President and the Vice-President. In the election of the
President, besides the Parliament, the State Legislatures also take part, but in the election of the Vice-
President, only the Parliament takes part. In Russia, the Judges of the Supreme Court are elected by the
Parliament of that country. In Switzerland also the members of the Executive and Federal Tribunal are
elected by the members of Parliament. Formerly, in China the President was elected by the Parliament.

(6) Amendment of the Constitution:

In every democracy, the power to amend the constitution rests with the legislature of that country. The
only difference is that in some countries, a similar procedure is adopted as that for the amendment of
ordinary laws. In some other countries a special procedure is adopted for the amendment of the
constitution. In our country, the Parliament can amend certain clauses of the constitution with a two
thirds majority and for amending certain clauses; the approval of one half of the state legislatures is
needed.

22 - State the main features of modern political thought.

Modern political thought encompasses a wide range of theories and ideas developed from the 17th
century onwards. It has significantly shaped the way we understand and practice politics today. Here are
some of the main features of modern political thought:

1. Individualism: Modern political thought places a strong emphasis on the rights and agency of the
individual. Thinkers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued for the protection of individual
rights, including liberty, property, and equality before the law. The concept of individualism underpins
many modern political systems and the idea that governments should serve the interests of individuals.

2. Social Contract: The social contract theory emerged during this period, particularly through the works
of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. According to this theory, individuals enter
into a social contract with the government, surrendering certain rights in exchange for protection and
the functioning of a civil society. The legitimacy of political authority is derived from the consent of the
governed.

3. Democracy: The rise of modern political thought coincided with the emergence of democratic ideals.
Democracy, as a form of government, promotes the participation and representation of citizens in
decision-making processes. Influential thinkers like John Stuart Mill, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Benjamin
Constant contributed to shaping the principles and arguments for democratic governance.

4. Constitutionalism: The idea of a constitution became central to modern political thought. A

constitution is a set of fundamental principles and rules that establish the framework for government
and protect individual rights. Thinkers like Montesquieu and James Madison advocated for a separation
of powers and checks and balances within government structures to prevent the abuse of power.

5. Liberalism: Liberalism, in the political sense, emerged as a key feature of modern political thought. It
upholds the values of individual freedom, limited government intervention, and the protection of civil
and political rights. Liberal thinkers like John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill played
instrumental roles in shaping these ideas.

6. Equality: Modern political thought challenged traditional hierarchies and advocated for greater
equality. Thinkers like Rousseau and Karl Marx argued for the redistribution of wealth and power to
create a more egalitarian society. This emphasis on social justice and equality has had a lasting impact
on modern political movements and discourse.

7. Secularism: With the rise of modern political thought, there was a gradual separation of politics and
religion. The idea of secularism emerged, pushing for a distinction between the state and religious
institutions. This separation aimed to protect religious freedom, prevent religious conflicts, and promote
a more inclusive society.

Modern political thought has evolved and continues to shape political theory and practice, providing a
framework for democratic governance, individual rights, and societal progress. Its influence can be seen
in the systems of governments around the world and the ongoing debates on issues such as human
rights, social justice, and the role of the state.

21 - Give a brief history of western political philosophy from ancient to the

modern times.
Many histories of Western political thought trace its origins to ancient Greece (specifically to Athenian
democracy and Ancient Greek philosophy). The political philosophy of thinkers such as Socrates, Plato,
and Aristotle are traditionally elevated as exceptionally important and influential in such works. A brief
history of western political philosophy from ancient to the modern times is as under:

Ancient political thought

The origins of European political thought are in ancient Rome and Greece. Greek philosophy began with
the Pre-Socratics, who were mainly concerned with explaining the physical universe. Thinkers in these
societies began to consider questions of how to organize societies, as part of their more broad
considerations of ethics and how to live the good life.

Although Socrates was executed for his beliefs, his thought lived on in the writings of his student Plato.
In the intellectual golden age of the fifth-century Athenian democracy, Plato had the freedom to
develop his ideas, although he nevertheless despised democracy, alongside all other then existing form
of government. This was because Plato believed that the state should promote the virtues necessary for
good living, but thought the existing political arrangements of monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy all
promoted the interests of the people in power, who were ignorant of those virtues, and instead would
only pursue honour and wealth, leading to conflict and injustice. To correct this, Plato proposed in the
Republic for philosopher kings, who would know how to achieve the good life, to be in power instead.
Plato’s student Aristotle continued his teacher’s thought in some respects and departed from it in
others. Both Plato and Aristotle exerted a profound influence on later Western thought. After Aristotle
and Plato, philosophy took on a more otherworldly and mystical emphasis, influenced in part by religion.
Stoicism was the most enduring new philosophy developed during this period, which preceded the rise
of Christianity.

Post-classical political thought

The early-Christian philosophy of Augustine of Hippo was by and large a rewrite of Plato in a Christian
context. The main change that Christianity wrought was to moderate the Stoicism and theory of justice
of the Roman world, and emphasize the role of the state in applying mercy as a moral example.
Augustine also preached that one was not a member of his or her city, but was either a citizen of the
City of God (Civitas Dei) or the City of Man (Civitas Terrena). Augustine's City of God is an influential
work of this period that refuted the thesis, after the First Sack of Rome, that the Christian view could be
realized on Earth at all – a view many Christian Romans held.

In the Medieval period, political philosophy in Europe was heavily influenced by Christian thinking. It had
much in common with Islamic attitudes in that the Western church similarly subordinated philosophy to
theology. Perhaps the most influential political philosopher of medieval Europe was St Thomas Aquinas,
who helped reintroduce Aristotle's works, which, with the exception of the Politics, which was
translated directly from Greek to Latin by William of Moerbeke, had only been preserved by Muslim
scholars, along with the commentaries of Averroes. Aquinas's use of them set the agenda for scholastic
political philosophy, which dominated European thought for centuries. In 1215, the Magna Carta
introduced the concept of constitutional rights, such as habeas corpus.

Modern political thought

Renaissance

During the Renaissance secular political philosophy began to emerge after about a century of theological
political thought in Europe. One of the most influential works during this burgeoning period was Niccolò
Machiavelli's The Prince, written between 1511–12 and published in 1532, after Machiavelli's death.
That work, as well as The Discourses, a rigorous analysis of the classical period, did much to influence
modern political thought in the West. A minority (including Jean-Jacques Rousseau) would interpret The
Prince as satire meant to imply the Medici after their recapture of Florence and their subsequent
expulsion of Machiavelli from Florence.[22] Though the work was written for the Medici family in order
to perhaps influence them to free him from exile, Machiavelli supported the Republic of Florence rather
than the oligarchy of the Medici family. At any rate, Machiavelli presents a pragmatic and somewhat
consequentialist view of politics, whereby good and evil are mere means used to bring about an end, i.e.
the maintenance of political authority. Thomas Hobbes, well known for his theory of the social contract,
goes on to expand this view at the start of the 17th century during the English Renaissance.

John Locke in particular exemplified this new age of political theory with his work Two Treatises of
Government. In it Locke proposes a state-of-nature theory that directly complements his conception of
how political development occurs and how it can be founded through contractual obligation. Locke
stood to refute Sir Robert Filmer's paternally founded political theory in favor of a natural system based
on nature in a particular given system.

Age of Enlightenment

Eugène Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People (1830, Louvre), a painting created at a time where old and
modern political philosophies came into violent conflict.

During the Enlightenment period, new theories about what the human was and is and about the
definition of reality and the way it was perceived, along with the discovery of other societies in the
Americas, and the changing needs of political societies (especially in the wake of the English Civil War,
the American Revolution and the French Revolution) led to new questions and insights by such thinkers
as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Montesquieu and John Locke.

These theorists were driven by two basic questions: one, by what right or need do people form states;
and two, what is the best form a state can take. These fundamental questions involved a distinction
between the concepts of ‘state’ and ‘government’. It was decided that ‘state’ would refer to a set of
enduring institutions through which power would be distributed and its use justified. The term
‘government’ would refer to a specific group of people who occupied the state at any given time, and
created the laws and ordinances by which the people, the government included, would be bound. This
conceptual distinction continues to operate in political science, although some political scientists,
philosophers, historians and cultural anthropologists have argued that most political action in any given
society occurs outside of its state, and that there are societies that are not organized into states which
nevertheless must be considered in political terms.

Political and economic relations were drastically influenced by these theories as the concept of the guild
was subordinated to the theory of free trade, and Roman Catholic dominance of theology was
increasingly challenged by Protestant churches subordinate to each nation-state, which also (in a fashion
the Roman Catholic Church often decried angrily) preached in the vulgar or native language of each
region. These ideas did not spread to cultures outside of Europe until considerably later.

Industrialization

Karl Marx and his theory of Communism developed along with Friedrich Engels proved to be one of the
most influential political ideologies of the 20th century.

The Industrial Revolution changed societies dramatically. As a consequence, Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels became the first theorists of Socialism and Communism. Their ideas were further developed by
Vladimir Lenin, leading to the ideology of Leninism. Under Joseph Stalin these ideas would be further
developed into Marxism-Leninism and put into practice in the Soviet Union and later the Eastern Bloc.
During the Cold War, this line of thought would further result in Maoism, Ho Chi Minh Thought,
Hoxhaism and Titoism.

As industrialisation enabled the rise of colonialism, this was accompanied by the ideology of
Imperialism. Later, anti-imperialist ideologies would counter this, such as Gandhism and Nasserism.

27 - Evaluate the philosophy of Plato as idealistic and more suited to his times.
Plato's philosophy can indeed be characterized as idealistic and suited to his times. Idealism, in the
context of philosophy, refers to the belief that reality is fundamentally based on ideas or abstract
concepts rather than material objects. Plato embraced this idealistic view and developed a
comprehensive philosophical system centered around the concept of the Forms or Ideas.

According to Plato, the physical world that we perceive through our senses is merely a flawed reflection
of the ultimate reality, which exists in a realm of ideal Forms. These Forms are perfect and unchanging,
serving as the true essence or archetype of things such as justice, beauty, or courage. Plato argued that
the true goal of human life was to seek knowledge and understanding of these Forms through reason
and contemplation.

Plato's idealistic philosophy was well-suited to his historical context for several reasons. Firstly, it
emerged during a time of change and intellectual exploration in ancient Greece. As society grappled
with questions of existence, ethics, and the nature of reality, Plato's idealism provided a coherent and
systematic framework for addressing these issues.

Secondly, Plato's philosophy was compatible with the prevailing beliefs and values of ancient Greece.
The ancient Greeks valued reason and rationality, and Plato's emphasis on the power of human intellect
and the pursuit of knowledge resonated with this cultural milieu. Moreover, his concept of the Forms
provided a metaphysical basis for moral and ethical values, aligning with the emphasis on virtue in Greek
society.
Furthermore, Plato's idealistic philosophy was also suited to his times in the sense that it offered a
counterpoint to the Sophists, who were influential in the intellectual landscape of ancient Greece. The
Sophists emphasized rhetoric and the relativism of truth, a perspective that Plato vehemently
challenged. By advocating for the existence of absolute truths and universal principles, Plato provided a
powerful alternative to the Sophistic approach, which resonated with many of his contemporaries.

However, it is important to note that while Plato's idealistic philosophy was influential and well-suited to
his times, it is not without its criticisms and limitations. For example, his metaphysical system has been
criticized for its lack of empirical evidence and its potential detachment from the concrete realities of
human existence. Additionally, his concept of a philosophical elite ruling over society, as outlined in his
famous work "The Republic," has faced criticism for its potential elitism and authoritarian implications.

In conclusion, Plato's philosophy can be evaluated as idealistic and well-suited to his times. His emphasis
on abstract concepts and the existence of universal Forms provided a coherent framework for
addressing the philosophical questions and concerns of ancient Greece. However, despite its strengths,
his idealistic philosophy is not without its critics and limitations, as it may detach from empirical
evidence and potentially lead to authoritarian implications.

29 - Examine critically Plato's theory of justice. How does it differ from today's
ideas on justice?
Plato’s theory of Justice differ from today’s ideas of justice. The concept of justice by Plato has been
exposed to criticism, the following charges are leveled.

First, the concept of justice by Plato is mainly grounded on moral principles. Which lacks legal sanction,
hence, is not enforceable. It is based on self- control and self –rejection in the interest of society. At
any stage of history more moral sanction cannot protect the social good.

Second, Plato’s theory of justice could be practical only in the city-state. It toughly enforce the principle
of division of labour and except everyone to do his allotted duty to satisfy society. In the present
context, it is not possible nor can be fixed. If duties can be given to the members of each class because
the population has increased so much.

Third he said that each individual owns there qualities like, reasons, spirit and appetite, he wants
each individual must contribute to the development of only one faculty. He wants ruler class to develop
faculty of reason. The soldier class to develop faculty of spirit or courage while appetite for the peasant
class.

Fourth, his concept of justice gives absolute power to one class like, the philosophers,
because they have lot of wisdom. Thus, there is a scope for inequalities of power and privilege in his
concept of justice. However, he failed to realize grant of absolute power in the hands of any person or
class of persons though morally and spiritually trained lead to degeneration on and corruption.

Fifth, to spot the misuse of power by ruling class, he pleaded for communalism of property and wives in
complete violation of human psychology.

Sixth, Prof. Popper, said that, Plato’s concept of justice gives rise to totalitarianism and it ignores the
humanization principles like equality, freedom and individualism.

Seventh, Plato subordinates individuals completely to the state and shows him a meagre means for the
promotion of the interest of the state.
Eighth, his justice gives rise to a class-state in which ruling is the privilege of a particular class.

31 - Explain and examine Plato's theory of three-class polity.

A result of this conception of justice separates people into three different types, that of the soldier, that
of the people and that of the ruler. If a ruler can create just laws, and if the warrior’s can carry out the
orders of the ruler and if the people can obey this authority, then a society will be just. This is the
division of classes in the society according to Plato. When each of these classes performs its own role
appropriately, and does not try to take over the function of another class, Plato held the entire city as a
whole will operate smoothly, exhibiting the harmony that is genuine justice, (republic 433e). We can
therefore understand all of the cardinal virtues by considering how each is embodied in the organization
of an ideal city.

The principle of specialization thus leads to a stratified society. He proposed membership of the
guardian class should be based solely on the possession of appropriate skills. He presumed the future
guardian would typically be the offspring of those who presently held similar positions of honor. If
citizenry express any dissatisfaction with the roles to which they are assigned, he proposed they should
be told the “useful falsehood” that human beings (like the metals, gold silver and bronze) posses
different natures that fit each of them to a particular function within the operation of the society as a
whole. (Republic 415a)

Plato also raised the issue of the possibility of the rule of philosopher rule. In the republic, on Glaucon’s
insistence, Socrates defined a philosopher as one who loved wisdom, had a passion for knowledge, and
was always curious and eager to learn. On seeking clarification as weather Theater fans and music lovers
qualified. Socrates underlined that a philosopher was one who loved the truth.

Plato shared the general Greek perception that leisure was essential for the pursuit of wisdom. A
philosopher would be able to administer justice and act for the good of the community. He would have a
good character, a calm disposition and a sound mind. He would have the qualities of a ruler, namely
truthfulness, high-mindedness, discipline and courage. Undaunted by death and being a lover of truth,
he would be honest and forthright. He would not be petty or mean, being above physical and material
pleasures. Devoid of emotional ties and economic consideration. He would be public- spirited and wise.
Since the state was directed towards the highest and noble ends.

Plato’s rationale for conferring absolute power to the enlightened philosopher rule however was
essential to achieve two unrelated ends. The first was to avoid tyranny and caprice, the second being
the welfare of the community. He saw philosophical rule as being as being beneficial to both the ruler
and the subject. He was confident that it would promote the happiness of the entire community. By
happiness, he meant harmony, efficiency and moral goodness since the philosophers are regarded to
know best.

32 - Plato had believed that communism could cut at roots of many evils in the
State. Discuss

An important aspect of Plato’s political thought is communism of wives and property. The concept of
communism was not known to Greeks, but both in Athens and Sparta a little of communism can be
seen. He thought that, Guardian class must be free from physical uncertainties so they can focus on
public service. He asserted that, during the acquisition of property and family would stand in the way of
philosopher king to take proper decision about the community. Plato said that mixture of political and
economic power was restricted to lead to corruption and deprivation in the state and an operative
system of administration could operate only when economic power was absolutely separated from
political power. Baker said that the think of communalism by Plato was an important step in his thinking.
According to Prof. Sabine “So firmly was Plato convinced of pernicious effect of wealth upon
Government that he saw no way to abolish the evil except by abolishing wealth itself, so far as the
soldiers and rulers are concerned”.

Plato understood that, private property was a hesitant piece in the way of the unity of state, he wanted
to abolish by Communism of Property. He was afraid that the having private property would promote
selfish thoughts and diverge the devotion of philosopher ruler from public service. Hence he gave two
ruling classes the right to have private property. It was noted that the communism was only for the
guardian class expect them to make rejection of private property. The guardians reject the property and
family for the good of the society. His thought of communism of wives was the extension of his
communism of property. He was of the opinion that man always give importance to his family and
children over the interest of nation, hence he gave greater importance to communism of wives.

33 - Plato’s communism was, is and will remain impracticable comments

Plato’s communism was, is and will remain impracticable and to determine that we It is required to
realize the significance of present communism. Plato’s communism is mainly based on the conditions
prevailed in 4th century B.C in Athens and the modern communism is based on the post-industrial
revolutions mainly the exploitation of capitalists on working class.

1 Plato’s communism is applied to the guardian class only and modern communism based on vast
majority of the workers and peasant class.

2 Plato’s communism is mainly based on political nature and targets at unity of the state, but whereas
modern communism aims at economic and political power for the working classes.

3 Plato’s communism do not want to influence any change in the present economic structure and leaves
classes intact, but in the modern communism it influences the change in the economic structure of the
society.

4 Plato’s communism gives priority to the guardian class to own the private property, but in modern
communism it gives the fruits to be enjoyed by the whole society.

5 Plato’s communism is mainly aims at Greek city-states but modern communism focuses at the national
states and throughout the world and for the sake of workers.

34 - Discuss the role of Judiciary for the protection of fundamental rights in

democratic state.
Judiciary is the third organ of the government. Ordinarily it is not considered to rank equal to the other
two: but it is a mistaken view. Its importance is as great, if not greater, as that of the executive and the
legislature. It performs certain functions which are so very necessary for the life and happiness of the
citizens. It ascertains and protects rights and liberties of the citizens. It punishes crime, and protects the
innocent from injury and usurpation. There is no better test for excellence of a government than the
efficiency of its judicial system, for nothing more nearly touches the welfare and security of the average
citizen than the feeling that he can rely on the certain and prompt administration of justice. Justice is the
foundation of the states. In modern times, the judiciary performs several Role/functions, but there is no
uniformity about them in various states. We shall enumerate here the most important of them.

Settlement of Disputes

The primary function of the judiciary is to apply existing laws to the cases or legal disputes brought
before the courts for settlement. These cases may be civil or criminal. When a case is brought before a
court, its duty is first to find the facts, then to discover the law applicable to the case, and pass a
judgment according to it. Thus the judiciary applies the laws, ascertains and decides rights, punishes
crimes, administers justice and protects the innocent from injury and usurpation.

Interpretation of Laws

Sometimes the law is not clear, either because the law-makers did not foresee the circumstances of the
case, or the wording of the statute is ambiguous or because two or more laws applicable to the case are
in conflict. In deciding such cases, the judge has some discretion in interpreting the laws and deciding
the case in the light of the principles of justice, equity and commonsensc. In this way he not merely
applies a law but even makes it. Such decisions become precedents for other judges who have to decide
similar cases later on. These precedents become the judge-made laws or case-laws. They play an
important role in the legal systems of such countries as Britain, U.S.A., Pakistan, India and other
countries which follow the English Common Law. In these countries, the judges may become the
creators of new laws and thus supplement the work of the legislature.

Preventive Justice

In modern times, the judiciary performs not only the function of punishing crimes, and settling disputes,
but has also the duty of preventing the violation of rights or threatened infraction of the law. This is
called preventive justice. It is performed by issuing writs and restraining orders or injunctions. Failure to
obey an injunction or a writ constitutes contempt of court and is punishable by imprisonment or fine.

Judicial Review

In a federal state, the judiciary has the power to declare the acts or statutes of the central or provincial
legislatures or executive orders ultra vires or unconstitutional it they are outside their jurisdiction or
powers as defined by the constitution. The constitutions of such federal States as the U.S.A., India,
Pakistan have conferred the power of judicial review on their high and supreme courts.

Advisory Opinion

In many countries, the judiciary performs the function of giving advisory opinions on questions of law
when requested by the executive or the legislature. This function is usually performed by the High Court
or the Supreme Court, as in Pakistan.

Non-judicial Functions

Almost in all countries, the judiciary is called upon to perform certain miscellaneous functions of non-
judicial nature. For instance, the judges may be empowered to grant licences, or act as receivers in
bankruptcy cases, guardians of minors and administrators of estates, or to naturalise the aliens, etc.

36 – Fundamental Human Rights

The contents of rights change with time and place. In modern democracy, which is necessarily a
representative government, ruled by a majority party, there is a serious danger to individual rights. The
rights of the individuals or of minorities may be invaded or denied by the ruling majority by changing the
existing laws. This needs a special need to protect rights. From1 such needs arises the idea of
Fundamental Rights in modern times. Fundamental Rights are those basic rights of the individual which
are regarded as fundamental to his very existence. They are the rights to life, liberty and property, rights
to freedom of speech, opinion, press and the freedom of worship, etc. They are incorporated into the
written constitution of a country as a Bill of Rights. Fundamental Rights are available to an individual
both against other individuals and against the government itself. They are granted to him even against
the executive and legislative powers of the government. In a democratic government, the legislative
majority can invade the • rights of the minorities by making new laws or amending the old ones which
contravene the provisions of the constitution. They are thus granted constitutional sanctity and
sanction. As we know, a written constitution is difficult to amend or change. These rights are thus placed
above political controversies of the majority and minority parties in the legislature. Thus they are
assured to the citizens. Moreover, Fundamental Rights are further secured by making them justifiable
before the law-courts, especially the highest court in the country. The judges are made the guardians of
the constitution. Whenever a Fundamental Right is violated by the legislative or executive authority of
the government, the aggrieved party or individual can seek the protection of the courts and can have
the contravening law declared ultra vires by it and, therefore, null and void.

Importance of Fundamental Rights:

The importance of Fundamental Rights is, indeed, very great. Historically, they arise from a persistent
belief that the state ought to guarantee to the individuals the enjoyment of a certain basic human rights,
which constitute the essential conditions of good life and happiness. Hence they are guaranteed by the
constitution and protected by the judiciary. No doubt, constitutional safeguards may not, in the last
resort, guarantee the citizens or a section of them their Fundamental rights, e.g., the Muslims in India do
not enjoy them. In spite of this they are the most enforceable rights of man. They are a visiable
manifestation of the nation’s faith in the worth and value of man, in his life, liberty and happiness.
Further, they declare that a certain sphere of individual’s life is free from governmental interference.
Lastly, the declaration of Fundamental Rights of the minorities creates a sense of security in the minds
of these minorities. The national solidarity, unity and progress of such countries depend upon the peace
of mind, loyally, and happiness of their minorities. By granting to the minorities the fundamental and
constitutional rights of religion, culture, language, etc., the national aims of unity and loyalty in a state
are achieved best.

37. Popular Sovereignty in the Modern states is based on Rousseau's "General

Will". Comments
Popular sovereignty is a concept that asserts that the ultimate source of political power resides in the
people. In modern states, this principle is often based on Jean-Jacques Rousseau's theory of the
"General Will." Rousseau was an influential philosopher and political theorist of the 18th century, and
his ideas continue to shape contemporary democratic systems.

Rousseau's concept of the General Will can be found in his most famous work, "The Social Contract,"
published in 1762. According to Rousseau, the General Will represents the collective interests and
aspirations of the citizens within a society. It is the expression of the common good and takes into
consideration the needs and desires of the entire community.

The General Will is distinct from the will of all individuals or the sum of individual wills. Rousseau argued
that the General Will transcends individual desires, as it aims at the promotion of the public interest. It is
characterized by its universality, rationality, and impartiality. The General Will focuses on the common
welfare and seeks to promote the social cohesion and harmony within a state.

In modern states, popular sovereignty is often exercised through representative democracy. Citizens
elect representatives to serve as their voice and to make decisions on their behalf. These
representatives are expected to act in accordance with the General Will, making decisions that reflect
the best interests of the people they represent.

One can observe the influence of Rousseau's theory on popular sovereignty in the mechanisms and
institutions of modern democratic systems. For example, many states have constitutional provisions that
protect fundamental human rights, as these rights are seen as integral to the realization of the General
Will. Additionally, many countries provide mechanisms for citizen participation, such as referendums or
town hall meetings, to ensure that the General Will is consistently taken into account in decision-making
processes.

However, Rousseau's theory of the General Will has also been subject to criticism and debate. One of
the main criticisms is that it is an abstract concept that is difficult to grasp and translate into concrete
policies. Critics argue that determining the General Will can be challenging, as it often involves
reconciling conflicting individual interests and desires.

Another criticism is that the General Will can be easily manipulated or distorted by charismatic leaders
or majority factions. The potential for the tyranny of the majority is a concern, as minority groups may
have their rights and interests overlooked. Furthermore, critics argue that Rousseau's theory does not
adequately address the role of individual rights and liberties. The emphasis on the collective good may
lead to the suppression of dissenting opinions and limit individual freedoms.

In conclusion, popular sovereignty in modern states is often based on Rousseau's theory of the General
Will. This concept asserts that political power should ultimately reside in the people, and decisions
should be made in the best interests of the entire community. While Rousseau's theory has influenced
the design of democratic systems, it also remains a subject of ongoing debate and criticism. The theory's
abstract nature and potential for manipulation raise questions about its practical application and
compatibility with individual rights and freedoms.

38. State and criticize Rousseau's concept of “General Will".

Rousseau's concept of "General Will" has been praised for its emphasis on collective decision-making
and the common good; however, it is not without its flaws and has faced significant criticisms
throughout history. In this critique, we will delve into some of the primary shortcomings of Rousseau's
concept of "General Will."

1. Lack of Practicality: One of the fundamental criticisms of Rousseau's General Will is that it is
impractical and utopian in nature. According to Rousseau, the General Will represents a
perfectly united consensus of all individuals in a society. However, achieving such unanimity and
 consensus in reality is often an unattainable ideal. Individuals have diverse perspectives,
interests, and values, making it difficult to achieve a true consensus on most issues.

2. Ambiguous Definition: Rousseau's concept of General Will lacks a clear and comprehensive
definition, leading to considerable confusion and interpretation. He describes it as the "general
interest" or the common good, but fails to provide a concrete and universally applicable
definition. This ambiguity allows for varying and subjective interpretations, which can be
manipulated by those in power to serve their own interests.

3. Suppression of Individual Liberties: Rousseau's General Will places significant emphasis on

collective decision-making, often sacrificing individual liberties for the sake of the majority. This
raises concerns of potential tyranny of the majority, where the General Will might suppress the
rights and freedoms of minorities or dissenting individuals. Rousseau fails to adequately address
the balance between individual rights and the common good, leading to a potential
infringement upon personal autonomy and freedom.

4. Lack of Institutional Mechanisms: Rousseau's General Will concept does not propose concrete
institutional mechanisms to implement or determine it. The General Will is presented as an
abstract ideal rather than a practical framework for governance. Rousseau does not address
how the General Will can be ascertained, how it can be translated into policy, or how decisions
can be made in its absence. This lack of practical guidance undermines the feasibility of
Rousseau's concept in real-world political systems.

5. Homogeneity and Exclusion: Rousseau's General Will assumes a homogeneity among

individuals, neglecting the diversity within societies. His idea of the General Will implies that
consensus can be achieved among individuals who have shared interests and values. However,
this negates the existence of diverse cultural, ethnic, religious, and social groups, minimizing
their representation and potentially excluding them from decision-making processes.

6. Ignoring Conflict and Contention: Rousseau's General Will fails to acknowledge and address the
inherent conflicts and contentions within societies. Disagreements and conflicts are natural
aspects of human societies, and Rousseau's idealistic vision of a unanimously agreed General
Will ignores these realities. By disregarding power dynamics, conflicting interests, and differing
ideologies, Rousseau's concept fails to provide a robust framework for managing social and
political conflicts.

In conclusion, Rousseau's concept of General Will, while appealing in principle, is deficient in practice. Its
impracticality, lack of clear definition, potential suppression of individual liberties, absence of concrete
institutional mechanisms, homogeneity, and failure to address conflict ultimately undermine its
effectiveness as a comprehensive political theory. While it espouses ideals of collective decision-making,
it neglects the complexities and diversities of real-world societies, making it an inadequate framework
for contemporary governance.

39. Throw light on Roseau's concept of "Popular Sovereignty".

Jean-Jacques Rousseau is one of the most influential political philosophers of the Enlightenment period.
In his well-known work, "The Social Contract," Rousseau introduced the concept of "Popular
Sovereignty." This concept signifies the ultimate authority and power of the people in a political system.
Popular sovereignty empowers individuals to collectively make decisions about their governance and
freely participate in the creation and enforcement of laws.

Rousseau argues that in the state of nature, individuals were inherently free and equal. Yet, the
emergence of property ownership and social inequality led to the establishment of governments, which
limited individual freedoms. Rousseau believed that a legitimate government must be based on the
consent of the governed, representing the general will of the people.

For Rousseau, popular sovereignty forms the foundation of a true democracy. He contends that the
general will should form the basis of all legislation, as it represents the collective interests and
aspirations of the entire community rather than any particular group. Rousseau argues that everyone
must contribute to the formation of the general will, and this ensures that decisions are made in the
best interest of the whole community.

According to Rousseau, the general will is an expression of what is best for the common good, which
may not always correspond to the preferences or desires of individual citizens. This concept goes
beyond just ordinary majority rule or the aggregation of individual interests. Rousseau emphasizes that
the general will should be guided by reason rather than personal or factional interests.

Rousseau also highlights that popular sovereignty requires active participation and engagement of
citizens in the political process. He believes that individuals must be politically educated and develop a
sense of civic virtue to ensure the general will prevails. Rousseau argues that citizens should participate
in regular assemblies to discuss public matters, deliberate on legislation, and express their opinions.
Through active participation, citizens can collectively shape the general will and hold the government
accountable.

However, Rousseau acknowledges that popular sovereignty has some limitations. He recognizes that the
general will can be influenced or hijacked by the influential few, resulting in what he called the "tyranny
of the majority." To address this concern, Rousseau proposes an institutional mechanism of direct
democracy, where decisions are made collectively, rather than through representative government. He
suggests that citizens should have the power to participate directly in decision-making processes to
prevent the concentration of power and protect against factions.

In conclusion, Rousseau's concept of popular sovereignty is centered on the idea that the ultimate
power and authority of the state should lie with the people. It seeks to establish a political system where
decisions are made by the general will, representing the collective interests of the community. Rousseau
advocates for active citizen participation, political education, and a commitment to the common good.
While the concept of popular sovereignty faces challenges in practice, Rousseau's ideas remain
influential in shaping democratic theory and emphasizing the importance of citizen engagement in
political processes.

40. Determine the status of St. Thomas Aquinas in Roman political thoughts.
St. Thomas Aquinas, a prominent medieval philosopher and theologian, played a significant role in
shaping Roman political thought. His ideas and theories on politics were heavily influenced by his
understanding of natural law, morality, and the Catholic Church's teachings. Aquinas viewed the political
order as an integral part of human flourishing and emphasized the importance of natural law as a basis
for political authority and decision-making.

First and foremost, Aquinas believed in the existence of natural law, which he regarded as a moral order
that is universally applicable to all human beings, independent of any specific religious or political
beliefs. According to Aquinas, natural law is eternal and unchanging, derived from God's divine wisdom
and imprinted on human nature. Aquinas believed that individuals could apprehend the principles of
natural law through the exercise of reason.

Aquinas argued that political authority derives its legitimacy from natural law. He claimed that the
purpose of political society is to promote the common good, which is the fulfillment of human nature.
For Aquinas, the common good is achieved when individuals can pursue virtue and attain their ultimate
end, which is God. Therefore, political power should be exercised in a manner that respects and
promotes the principles of natural law to ensure the common good of society.

According to Aquinas, there are different types of laws: eternal law, divine law, natural law, and human
law. Eternal law represents God's order and governance of the universe. Divine law consists of the
specific commands and teachings revealed by God through scripture. Natural law is accessible to human
reason and helps individuals discern right from wrong. Lastly, human law is a human-made law created
by governments to regulate society.

Aquinas believed that human law should be derived from and in harmony with natural law. He argued
that when human laws conflict with natural law, they lose their moral authority. In this context, Aquinas
recognized the importance of a just and moral government that adheres to natural law principles. He
believed that rulers should govern not only for their own benefit or power, but for the sake of the
common good and the well-being of the community they serve.

Moreover, Aquinas highlighted the importance of the Catholic Church as a spiritual and moral guide in
the political realm. He saw the Church as an indispensable institution that provides moral guidance,
particularly in matters related to natural law and ethics. Aquinas argued for a cooperative relationship
between the Church and political authorities, with each having distinct roles in the pursuit of the
common good.

Aquinas's ideas on political thought had a profound influence on subsequent Roman political thinkers
and became an integral part of Roman political philosophy. His emphasis on natural law, moral
principles, and the common good resonated with many philosophers and theologians, shaping their
understanding of political authority and providing a foundation for the development of legal and
political systems.

In conclusion, St. Thomas Aquinas's status in Roman political thought is significant. His ideas on natural
law, political authority, and the common good provided a moral and philosophical framework that
influenced subsequent thinkers and shaped the understanding of politics in Roman thought. Aquinas's
emphasis on the importance of a just government and the role of the Church as a moral guide continue
to be relevant in contemporary political discourse.

41. Explain the relation of religion and politics in view of the ideas of St. Thomas
Aquinas.
St. Thomas Aquinas, a prominent philosopher and theologian of the medieval period, addressed the
relationship between religion and politics in his writings. His ideas were greatly influenced by his
Christian faith, particularly his interpretation of natural law. According to Aquinas, every individual,
including political leaders, is subject to two types of law: divine law and human law. Divine law, as
revealed by God, governs all aspects of human life and is eternal and unchanging. Human law, on the
other hand, is derived from divine law but is enacted by human authorities to address specific
circumstances and promote the common good.

Aquinas emphasized that as individuals are part of both the religious and political spheres, there is an
inherent connection between religion and politics. Politics, for Aquinas, should be guided by moral
principles derived from divine law. He believed that political leaders have a responsibility to uphold
justice and promote the common good, which aligns with the divine purpose. However, Aquinas also
recognized that political authority and religious authority have different realms. While the Church is
responsible for spiritual matters and ensuring salvation, the state is responsible for maintaining social
order and protecting the temporal needs of the people. Therefore, he argued for a distinction between
the roles of church and state, with both playing important yet distinct roles in society.

To maintain harmony, Aquinas proposed a principle of "concordance" or cooperation between religious

and political authorities. He believed that both should work together without encroaching on each
other's respective domains. Religious leaders, according to Aquinas, should advise and guide political
leaders according to moral principles, while political leaders should respect the freedom and autonomy
of the religious sphere.

In Aquinas' view, the role of religion in politics is to provide moral guidance and uphold the principles of
justice, while the role of politics is to create a just and orderly society that allows individuals to pursue
their spiritual and moral well-being. He argued that the state has the responsibility to promote the
common good, protect the rights of individuals, and maintain social order. However, Aquinas also
emphasized the limitations of political power and the need for rulers to exercise their authority with
wisdom and humility. Overall, Aquinas believed that religion and politics are interconnected and should
collaborate to create a just and virtuous society. While religion provides moral guidance, politics has its
own sphere of authority and practical reasoning.

In summary, St. Thomas Aquinas believed in the innate relationship between religion and politics,
acknowledging the importance of moral principles derived from divine law in guiding political decisions.
While he advocated for cooperation between the two spheres, he also stressed the importance of
maintaining their distinct roles to ensure a harmonious society.